Exemption may be overused

As a journalist, one thing I’ve always struggled with is the employee exemption in Wyoming’s open meetings laws.

I’m not saying it should be stricken out, but I’ve always had the feeling it’s invoked more than should be necessary.

Back in college, how it was explained to me was like this: Say there’s a public employee who isn’t doing their job as well as they should. The position is one that’s appointed by a governing body and that group has the power to hire and fire. After being talked to about it and going through the steps in place to address the issue, nothing changes and that employee’s performance does not improve. An executive session is held at the next available meeting to discuss the employee and their possible termination from their position.

The session is allowed to help an employee avoid the embarrassment of having their faults being discussed in public and the potential of a media outlet reporting on their termination. I understand the need for that.

However, when it comes to severance packages for executive officers and the like, I have a harder time understanding the need for it. In almost every public position, an employee’s salary is public knowledge. This is to allow the public the opportunity to review how much employees earn and see where their tax money is going. Yet, with severance packages offered to executives such as Marty Black, Green River’s former city administrator, lips have been sealed. Sure, information in contracts, something we’ve reported on in the past, can give light to what a potential package would contain, it’s not exact. I think people should know the exact amount being paid and what benefits are being offered to a departing employee. If residents think it’s too much, they should have the right to tell a governing body about it.

A second thing: I do think a change should be made regarding issues revolving around executive directors, superintendents and the like. They should have less protection than other employees. These folks are the heads of organizations and the scrutiny upon them should be a little more focused. The public should be allowed to know more about their performance because they head up organizations that deal with funding we all provide them. If that employee is being dismissed for any reason, we deserve the right to know why.

For one thing, knowing the reason behind a firing would eliminate a majority of the rumors that inevitably fly when something like that does occur. But more than that, high a high profile person either let go or suddenly resigning from their position should be made public knowledge. If they were asked to resign or simply let go, it’s most likely because they failed to act in the best interest of the organization and the public.

It’s something that as tax payers, we have the right to know about, right?

 

Reader Comments(0)