decorahnews.com's Paul Scott: "Yes, but...."

Lawyers attended Thursday night's meeting of the Winneshiek Medical Center Board of Trustees so they could do what they sometimes get paid to do: confuse the issue.

Their lengthy statement defended the need for the board to discuss some issues in closed session.  But, of course, that's not what is at issue here.

The controversy involving the hospital board is that they did not tell the public what they were going to discuss on August 3rd of last year except in very vague terms and did not tell the public the board might meet in open session afterwards to vote on a financial settlement with Mayo Clinic Health System and on the firing of the hospital's law firm

Once again, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is very explicit on the need to cite a specific reason for a closed session: "Only a few topics can justify a closed session--Iowa Code section 21.5 (a-k).  The public has an interest in examining the agenda to be sure that the reason for closing the session is among the reasons authorized by law."  Concludes Miller, "Close session topics must be disclosed on the agenda in advance to give the public an opportunity to assess the reason for a closed session, hold accountable the members who vote to close a session, and decide whether to await a vote as final action."

Does all this legal talk have you confused?  Here's a simple test you can take:

1) The Winneshiek Medical Center Board went into closed session August 3rd to discuss a financial settlement with Mayo Clinic Health System because:
(a) It didn't want to give away valuable competitive secrets
(b) It was afraid the public would learn about the issue

2) The Winneshiek Medical Center Board went into closed session August 3rd to discuss firing their law firm because:
(a) It didn't want to give away valuable competitive secrets
(b) It was afraid the public would learn about the issue