The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-14
"sECREr SESSIONS OF THE SCHOOL
BOARD"

BOARD"
EditOr Democrat Your structures on the
School Board for going into secret session In
IOurnes case are, In my opinion. not marked
by your usual sound Judgment; in short, are
really unjust To the bOard. You predicate
your argument upon the principle that 'the
board Is public body. and it's members but
the servants Of the people, who have vital
interest in all It's proceedings, and as perfect
as any member Of the board" Although
recognizing the truth of this principle to the
fullest extent that can reasonably be claimed
for 1t. yet | emphatically deny that it is of
universal apple ltion1, but on the contrary, Is
many cases would inhct cruel wrongs with
out public benefit, and frequently defeat the
object intended to be accomplished.
shall endeavor to show that your rule Is
subject to many exceptions.
Grand jures are public bodies, servants Of
the people, who have vital interest in all
their proceedings, and as perfect a right to
know all the particulars of them as any mem
Der of those bodies, It would be no argument
to reply that the duties or functions of school
boards and grand juries are widely different
rs merely wish to show that your premises
are untenable and lead to false conclusions.
The Congress Of the United States Is public
body, composed of men who are public SER
wants, responsible, to the people, who have a
~.
who ever denied that it was right and expedi-
ent for this body to hold secret sessions
when In it's Judgment 1t was deemed proper
Every Legislative body In the country exer-
eises the power, OF holding secret sessions
without having their right to do so called in
question, although beyond all doubt the
members OF these bodies are public servants
accountable to their masters, the people, from
whom they should conceal nothing.
Every court OF justice composed Of more
n rYrn fun III F,,r In,
stance, is composed of public servants. Yet,
who ever claimed because they are such, that
their discussions, deliberations and differences
should be made public?
claimed by the public but not the chickering's
that were gone through with before the re-
suit was reached. Must this right, which Is
beyond dispute, and Is exercised by every
public body, whether legislative or judicial,
be denied to the School Board alone2 If so,
different from all others2 Would it not
rather suggest itself that school board,
above all other deliberatlve public bodies.
would be required by q wise discretion more
frequently than any other, to resort to secret
sessions?
/ therefore assert that both reason and
usage justify the School Board In resortiDp
to secret sessions; and further assert that
no persons are so well qualified as the mem
bers OF the board to determine when the
Rule 30 Of our public schools, which | be-
lieve is literally the same that was adopted at
the establishment of our public schools, and
has continued without change ever since, is
as follows The board may determine on
any matter that in its opinion shall be secret.
But no action shall be had In executive ses-
sion except upon the question of the re-
noval Of a teacher" | quote this to
show you that in discussing certain ques-
tons in secret we are not guilty of
Il inn Int foil
dent precedent that you must recognizes, in
many cases, to be pre-eminently proper.
Would 1t not be unwise, improper, indiscreet
md cruel to discuss charges made in regard
TO conduct or character publicly. An ac-
quittal would secure the position OF the &C
rused, but 1t might, and would probably, en-
tirely fail to remove an impression Of guilt. as
D censortous public too frequently attribute an
acquittal not so much to innocence as an ina
bility to procure evidence to establish guilt
BY rule 80, indisputable in its wisdom, teach
srs are entitled to have charges against them
investigated in secret session, and for obvious
reasons the same rule Is applicable to mem
1ers Of the board.
Besides the general propriety which deter
Tourne's case In secret session, there were
other special reasons which rendered secrecy
In absolute obligation. The school board has
10 power, under the law to send for persons
md papers, to issue subpnnas, to compel the |
nony under the penalties Of contempt. The
committee to whom was intrusted the nves-
igation which resulted in the expulsion of |
Mr.. Tourne, were met on the threshold of
heir inquiries by the positive refusal of wit |
lesses to testify, from the apprehension that |
heir names would be made public When it |
s considered that nearly all Che witnesses are
adies their objections will not appear I'M
reasonable; and it was only on the positive
of the committee that Mr.. Tourne's
ase would be considered in secret session,
nd In no circumstances would their names
ppear publicly that enabled the committee
o obtain the testimony upon which Mr..
Dourne was expelled. The committee pledged
tself to Il gentleman who was unwilling that
lis name should appear publicly-an import
mt witness-that his name should not be
yet by some means his name ap-
Years In the column OF q contemporary.
In view of the foregoing, / maintain that
he School Board, In going into secret session,
70 not violate usage or proprety nor assume
'ower not inherent in every deliberative body
n the country. / also maintain that the
oard in Tonrnes case acted wisely, properly
nd discreetly by going into executive session
or the purpose OF discussing it. 1t will be
that the net of expulsion was In
pen session, under n resolution presented by
committee, which resolution, / presume,
ould have been obtained from the secretary
pom application, had any Of the reporters
cen present and asked for it on the night of
he meeting.
MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.
--@1%