News
	Opinion
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

Brenda Blagg, FOIArkansas project

The debate over where to play Razorback football games -- which was never all about football -- is now wrapped in new controversy.

Brenda Blagg

The latest question is whether the decision-makers have been violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, the state law that is supposed to let the public in on public-policy decisions.

In this case, the decision-makers are the University of Arkansas trustees, who are scheduled to meet Friday to decide whether to move at least one of the games now played at Little Rock's War Memorial Stadium to Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville.

There are strong indications that the trustees' decision-making is really going on outside the public's hearing. Individual members of the UA Board of Trustees have reportedly been in frequent communication with each other as they look for a compromise on where the Razorbacks should play their "home" games.

So what, you ask? How else could they reach a compromise without talking to each other?

They could simply hammer out their differences in a public setting where citizens can listen to their reasoning as well as know the result.

It may be easier for the trustees to negotiate privately and to arrive at a consensus without that public presence, but they shouldn't do it. Arkansas' public policy, as defined by the FOI Act, is for such matters to be resolved in public, not in private.

These are public officials doing public business. Literally millions of dollars in public funds (and millions more in private funds) are involved in this stadium decision. It isn't enough just to know what the decision will be. The public needs to know how the decision is made and why.

As the Arkansas General Assembly stated in adopting the FOI Act in 1967, "It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy."

It is all about accountability from people who are charged to do the public's business -- as the UA trustees are on this matter of obvious public interest.

Admittedly, the interest of many is a self interest, one related to how convenient or inconvenient it might be to attend ballgames in Little Rock or Fayetteville. And there is the huge economic interest to the hotels, motels, restaurants and other businesses that cater to the fans who trek in one direction or the other.

Beyond those essentially private concerns, however, is a true public interest involving a state institution of higher education and lots of taxpayer dollars.

The issue has gotten even more complicated with the assertion from some lawmakers that a plan to expand War Memorial Stadium could siphon state tax dollars away from more basic state needs. It's just one of many factors these trustees must examine.

So give the trustees their due. They have a difficult decision to make, one involving many complex considerations. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable for them to be doing this business in private.

For the record, trustees who have been talking privately to each other about the stadium issue may dismiss the suggestion that they have been violating the FOI Act. They'll fall back on opinions from the attorney general that suggest such one-on-one communication may not break the law.

The same opinions suggest, however, that some private meetings, even of just two people, could violate the FOI Act. It depends on the facts.

The facts in this situation appear to be that trustees are talking to each other about a pending matter before the public board on which they serve. They aren't just sharing information but are actively trying to reach agreement on how they will vote.

It is hard to imagine how any situation could more clearly violate the spirit and the letter of the FOI law.