It’s good that the Kansas attorney general is holding the Lawrence City Commission accountable for a violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, but his proposed “settlement agreement” with commissioners is disappointing in a couple of ways.

Attorney General Paul Morrison has determined that the presence of Lawrence Chamber of Commerce President Lavern Squier in an executive session to discuss an agreement with Deciphera was an open meetings violation because Squier is not covered by the exemption that allows privileged communication between commissioners and their attorney in an executive session. There is no basis for considering Squier as a client of the city’s attorney, Morrison said.

However, Morrison was silent on the issue that is of far more concern to most local residents, which is whether the discussion that took place in the executive session included topics that should have been discussed in a public meeting. The plan to approve a tax rebate – a new strategy that bypassed the review process required for granting tax abatements – was never discussed in any detail in public session. That certainly indicates that it was discussed in executive session. Can any public policy be discussed in private if the city’s attorney is involved?

The other disappointing aspect of the attorney general’s “settlement agreement” was his willingness to let commissioners off the hook so easily. Morrison agreed not to pursue additional legal action against commissioners if they obtain two hours of training on the Kansas Open Meetings Act and “engage in no future violations of the KOMA.” Gee, that makes us feel better.

The basics of the Kansas Open Meetings Act can be covered in far less than two hours, which is why it is so incredible that commissioners would imply that ignorance of the law was a factor in their conduct – as some did at their Nov. 13 meeting. All new commissioners should be made aware of the KOMA provisions before ever taking their seats. It stretches credibility to contend that commissioners in their second terms – not to mention the city manager, who is an attorney – would not have had the knowledge to at least question whether the discussion they were having in executive session was proper.

It’s pretty easy for commissioners to sign an agreement that they won’t violate the open meetings law again. Presumably after their two hours of training, they won’t be able to say sometime in the future that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. The provision is important only in that it reminds commissioners that although they are getting a pass on this violation, that could change if another violation occurs.

Unfortunately, this case points out the limitations of the state’s open meetings law. Absent any tape recording or written record, there’s no way to determine exactly what was discussed in the executive session. The attorney general’s action is based on the indisputable evidence that someone attended the executive session who shouldn’t have been there. Unless someone on the commission is willing to reveal evidence that could be used against himself or herself, there is no way to determine whether city business was improperly discussed at the meeting.

The public’s best hope is that this episode will make city commissioners more aware and more careful about how they use executive sessions. It’s a cinch that the public – and perhaps the attorney general – will be watching them more closely to make sure that they do.