(From left) Monroe County commissioners Lee Jones, Penny Githens and Julie Thomas.
(Community Access Television Services (CATS))
The Indiana Public Access Counselor’s office, which provides guidance on public access laws, says the process by which the county selected an architectural firm to design a new county jail was in violation of the state’s Open Door Law.
Earlier this year, the commissioners formed a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) committee to select a firm. The committee later selected DLZ to create a master plan for a new facility. The commissioners have since approved several budget items to cover the costs of DLZ’s initial work.
The Open Door Law states that government agencies must hold publicly accessible and noticed meetings when the majority of a governing body is present. But the committee meetings were neither noticed nor open to the public.
In an opinion, Public Access Counselor Luke H. Britt wrote that the committee is subject to the Open Door Law and that its meetings should have been made publicly accessible.
“Monroe County does not dispute that the Board of Commissioners — undoubtedly a governing body under the (Open Door Law) — approved the creation and makeup of the RFQ Committee,” the opinion states. “In other words, the commissioners appointed the RFQ Committee and it derived its authority directly from the board, which makes it subject to the (Open Door Law).
Seth Mutchler, a member of local advocacy group Care Not Cages — which opposes the construction a new jail, filed a complaint with the Counselor in April. In an open letter to the public, the group accused the commissioners of taking “an illegal and anti-transparent approach to their jail expansion proposal.”
Britt’s opinion says Monroe County denied Mutchler’s claims but did not dispute that the committee met with vendors privately and without public notice. However, it argued the committee is not a governing body and shouldn’t be subject to the Open Door Law.
Britt wrote, “(…) It is the opinion of this office that the Monroe County RFQ Committee is subject to Open Door law; and thus, the previous meetings of the committee required public notice and should have been open for the public to observe and record.”
The opinion is only advisory, meaning the commissioners will not face any immediate punitive action. However, it could later come into play if a lawsuit were filed against the commissioners.
Care Not Cages did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The commissioners also faced criticism earlier this year from Sheriff Ruben Marté, who accused them of not being transparent when selecting DLZ. He said two representatives of his office who served on the RFQ committee did not formally vote.
That contradicts a previous statement by Richard Crider, the county’s fleet and building manager, that the committee unanimously selected DLZ before presenting its recommendation to the commissioners.
Marté wrote a lengthy email to the commissioners in early April expressing his concerns about a perceived lack of transparency. The following meetings of the Community Justice Response Committee — the group that had been discussing plans for a new jail — were highly contentious.
County commissioners and a sheriff’s representative serve on that committee as non-voting members. The only three members who may vote are county council members Jennifer Crossley, Peter Iversen, and Kate Wiltz.
The commissioners and their attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
