We’d love to tell you what was said by taxpayers at a recent Maine School Administrative District 71 (MSAD 71) taxpayer “summit.” But we can’t.

Last week MSAD 71 members hosted the “public” meeting in a public location with members of the public – and then promptly closed its doors to the Kennebunk Post. 

Although the district asked, and received, a preview of the meeting to be disseminated through this newspaper, when a reporter turned up to report on the discussion revolving around taxpayer issues, the board’s finances and overall taxes in the area – he was asked to put his notebook away and firmly told he must adhere to certain ground rules: No names and no quotations. The press was not welcome and there would be no record save what organizers want recorded.  

Should he have stood his ground and insisted on the public’s right to know? Perhaps. However, he was intimidated when it was strongly implied that his presence was not only not welcome, it was going to cause residents to be fearful and overall the meeting would be a waste of time when people did not speak their minds.

The meeting was hosted under the guise of a “Confidential Taxpayer Summit,” a night where residents could share what they thought the board was succeeding in and what they could improve upon. They were told all information would remain confidential. 

Confidential. 

Except that the information is not strictly confidential. Although “names and identifying facts” are not used, the information garnered during the session is now being used to compile two reports, one for the public and one for the superintendent, that will be presented at a future board meeting. 

That is far from being confidential. 

Board Chairman Maureen King said many residents do not feel comfortable standing up and speaking an opinion and she wanted them to feel “safe.” She likened the meeting to hosting a private coffee sit-down – without the coffee. 

And that is a board members’ right, and a key part of their role as a school official. Board members should be able to have private conversations with constituents – whether it be over a cup of coffee, or over the telephone. However, the moment that meeting becomes simply that – a meeting – in a public place, where taxpayers’ money is at work, the conversation becomes public. 

“Seems odd to me,” said Maine Municipal Association’s Communication Director Michael Starn, of the barring. “By law, when boards are conducting business then that is when the opening meeting law comes into play. The key question is – were they conducting business as a board? Will this affect how they will vote as a school board?”

The answer is, unquestionably, yes. 

Which raises another question. Why were only four members of the board present during the April 9 meeting? Was it done intentionally so as not to follow the district’s policy manual which claims five school board members must be present in order for the board to host a quorum under Maine’s freedom of access provision? Or was it simply that not all could be in attendance?

Either way, it comes down to two answers. The meeting was simply not important to all board members, or the board members were attempting to escape from following the very basic rules of government. 

How many taxpayers went unrepresented at this meeting due to conflicts, health issues or simply not knowing such a meeting was scheduled? How many would be better served knowing what was said in their name at such a meeting?

Residents have their own very basic right to keep their voting record confidential by pulling a curtain and documenting their choices on Election Day. But aside from that, it is up to us to keep an open and honest dialogue of what is occurring in our communities. 

The open door policy should be just that – an open door to all.