Chilkat Valley News - Serving Haines and Klukwan, Alaska since 1966

The Haines Borough should communicate its interpretation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) so it’s clear what’s required on agendas.

Port and Harbor Advisory Committee (PHAC) member Terry Pardee is disputing borough staff’s position that he violated the OMA by withdrawing his resignation as chair of the committee. Despite the sloppy process and the apparent breach of the law’s intent, to protect “the people’s right to remain informed,” it’s unclear if Pardee broke the letter of the law.

Nowhere in the OMA exists language that requires subject matter to be noticed. Under Alaska Statute 44.62.310, notice must include the “date, time and place of the meeting.”

In a comprehensive “Open Government Guide” analysis of Alaska’s OMA published on the website “Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press,” longtime Alaska attorney John McKay writes that for years the wording of the OMA was unclear whether it required either general or specific notice of the subjects to be discussed at meetings. The provision to require the date, time and place of the meeting was added in 1985.

“This additional language would lend support to an argument that subject matter notice is not required by the language specifying ‘reasonable public notice,’” McKay wrote.

A plaintiff brought a case against the Municipality of Anchorage in 1981 for violating the OMA, but that’s because Anchorage’s code and charter included the advanced notice of “subject matter” along with time and date. But the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the matter and remanded the case to a trial court.

An OMA analysis by the Office of the Governor’s Boards and Commissions states that notice “has to provide enough information to let the public know what subjects will be covered in the meeting.”

McKay agrees with this analysis, that some level of subject matter notice should be in the concept of reasonable public notice. But then the question becomes, is “Lutak Dock Rebuild,” which was on the PHAC agenda, sufficient or did the presentation by the Yukon industry representatives need to be listed?

Local meeting agendas routinely include presentations from various groups on agenda topics, but borough code and charter don’t address such specificity. The same language in state law exists in borough code. Notice of the time and place of a meeting must be posted “at least three days prior to the meeting, in three public places within the corporate boundaries.” That’s it.

These laws exist to promote transparency and public participation. Is it reasonable to publish subject matter such as what organization will give a presentation on agendas? I think so. Pardee seemed to think so when he agreed to step down. The borough often does include these as agenda items. The borough should clarify how it interprets the OMA so residents aren’t accused of violating state law when that doesn’t happen.