With the HQ of Bank of America looming in the background I suppose...

called out state politicians, mostly Republicans. The Board of Governors (run by state officials) is just getting a fly out of the ointment. For those of you who know who FIRE is, you can look at this link to see how North Carolina has violated free speech on its campuses in the past.

After several people were escorted from the meeting room, the Board of Governors took a recess and reconvened in a smaller meeting room. The general public was not permitted to attend, although a video and audio feed was set up in a nearby room. Members of the press were allowed into the smaller room. The board then proceeded with the controversial vote to close the centers as well as decisions about tuition increases.

N.C. Press Association Attorney Amanda Martin told The Charlotte Observer and the News & Observer newspapers that the actions of the board violated the law since there was clearly an effort to exclude the public. Ross, the system president, told the papers that the video and audio feeds complied with the meetings law and the move was made so the meeting could move forward.

The Open Meetings Law states that meetings "shall be open to the public, and any person is entitled to attend." It does not address excluding the public when the audience is disruptive. The Court of Appeals addressed the question of what it means for "any person ... to attend" a public meeting in Garlock v. Wake County Board of Education. In that case the Wake County Board of Education's regular meeting room could not accomodate large crowds that were wanting to attend meetings, so the board developed a lottery system for which it provided short notice. The board also used smaller meeting room for a committee of the whole meeting, as opposed to its larger meeting room, and excluded the public. People excluded could view the meetings in an adjacent room on video and audio feeds.

The Court of Appeals first found that "the legislature’s purpose for N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.10 is to ensure that public bodies receive public input regarding the substance of the public body’s actions, that the public has the opportunity to have knowledge and understanding of the public body’s deliberations and actions, and that public bodies to act in good faith in making provision for the public’s knowledge and participation in its meetings." The court then said that the appropriate standard is to examine whether or not the public body took "reasonable measures to provide for public access to its meetings."

We need to keep an eye on this one. No matter what political party is dominant in state politics, it should not be allowed to curtail protected speech at the university.