AG: MHC task force meetings should have been open Kelso disputes decision, calls it 'political' By Ray Barrington News-Chronicle Meetings of the task force studying the Brown County Mental Health Center should not have been closed to the public and its meetings should have been publicly noticed, the state attorney general's office said. A call from a Brown County resident led to the opinion from assistant attorney general Bruce A. Olsen in a letter to the county's attorney, John Jacques. "I strongly encourage you to advise the county executive, the county board and the members of the blue ribbon panel that the panel is a governmental body subject to the open meetings law, and strongly encourage you to advise the blue ribbon panel that its future meetings should conform to all the requirements of the open meetings law," Olsen wrote. That's a moot point - the panel's report was given to the County Board last week, and it won't be meeting any more. "We'll probably write back to ask them to further clarify the ruling," said County Executive Carol Kelso, who added that the meetings were open, but not publicized. "(Sup.) Pat Collins was at the meetings. They were open, but we didn't send out agendas or anything." Collins had received Jacques' opinion on the meetings and said he was pleased by the state opinion. "I think Brown County owes everyone an apology," Collins said. "We have to go with the state attorney general's opinion over that of the corporation counsel." Kelso said the ruling might be politically motivated and that she had reviewed statutes and court findings. "There was never a directive from the County Board creating the task force. It's an advisory group I set up," she said. In his letter, Olsen said he was told by the unnamed county resident that the panel, appointed by Kelso, gave no notice of its meetings and appeared before the board to request more time to complete its work. On May 1, Jacques wrote Kelso and Collins saying the panel was not a governmental body - and not required to comply with the open meetings law - because the County Board did not enact an ordinance creating the panel. Olsen said that "governmental bodies" were not limited to entities created by other governmental bodies, as Jacques had said in his opinion. Olsen cited a 1989 opinion that the key question is whether there is a directive creating the panel and assigning it duties, which could come from an individual "who by law or delegation exercises a portion of a government body's powers." He added that prior informal interpretations of the open meetings law had included citizens advisory committees appointed by a county executive were subject to the law. :"The open meetings law is to be construed liberally to achieve this purpose," he wrote. The law requires government bodies, boards and committees to hold meetings in public, publish an agenda of the meeting at least 24 hours in advance and not take action on an item unless the agenda lists that action may be taken. Boards may close meetings to discuss negotiations (such as has happened regularly with the city-suburban water talks) or personnel matters.