FAU President Frank Brogan held a meeting with SG officials two weeks ago to swear in a new student body president.

As for what else happened during the nearly one hour meeting, no one knows for sure because it was “private.” At least according to the administration and FAU’s attorneys.

However, two organizations that give advice on open meeting laws are calling that decision into question, describing it as “fishy,” “weird” and “strange.”

“They’re walking a fine line,” said Adria Harper, a director at the First Amendment Foundation. “It seems like something we shouldn’t be left out of. I don’t know why it would have to be secret.”

Neither does anyone else, even some of those who were at the meeting.

“It’s above me,” said Associate Dean of Student Affairs Lisa Bardill when asked why the meeting was private. She said that besides the swearing in of a new president and vice president, Brogan cheered on the new officials and shared former Student Body President Kirk Murray’s letter of resignation. Then she suggested speaking with Brogan for any other details.

Austin Shaw and Kim Nguyen, newly appointed student body president and vice president, didn’t know why either.

“I wouldn’t say it was a meeting at all,” Nguyen said. “He showed us the letter and swore us in.” However, when questioned Nguyen couldn’t recall what took 45 minutes.

As for Shaw, when he emerged from the meeting he calmly answered questions about the resignation and his own sudden promotion. But he became visibly upset when asked who attended the meeting and snapped, “I don’t see the relevance in that. Why does that matter?” He then declined to name those who attended.

The press wasn’t one of them.

After waiting in the lobby of the president’s office for nearly an hour, Brogan finally came out to speak with the UP, saying he had just sworn in the new student body president.

When asked why the press hadn’t been invited to attend, Director of Media Relations Kristine McGrath said it was not public and that the UP never requested to attend.

However, McGrath and the president’s staff never gave an opportunity to make that request because the meeting was never announced. When UP reporters asked if Brogan was meeting with SG, the UP was told that he was waiting for students to get out of class and later that Brogan was only meeting with Student Affairs about SG.

Dean of Student Affairs Charles Brown didn’t see that as a problem since the meeting was private. He adamantly said that the swearing in of public officials is not public. He then suggested speaking with FAU attorney Larry Glick.

Glick explained that the meeting was not public because nothing that would come to a vote was discussed. He said that it wouldn’t be considered a “foreseeable action.” (See Law and Order.)

“Attorney’s want to split hairs on what foreseeable action is,” said Harper of the First Amendment Foundation. “Foreseeable action is pretty broad. The reality is that the Sunshine Laws are intended to provide for public participation each step of the way.”

Harper called the private meeting strange but didn’t know if they had violated any laws or not, and said, “They’re asking people to just assume no business took place. How are we to know that is the case? It sounds like public business did take place.”

She also said it’s better to “err on the side of the Sunshine Laws and just open the meeting.”

When the private meeting was explained to Adam Goldstein of the Student Press Law Center he said it “sounds fishy,” and was “a little weird.” He was also a bit more direct about the university’s actions. He said that if they knowingly violated the Sunshine Laws and it came before a court, Shaw’s appointment and anything else that happened at that meeting would be null and void.

“A knowing violation of the law is worse than accidental,” he added.

Harper advised the UP to request a written clarification from FAU’s attorney’s citing the statutes and reasons why the meeting was closed as well as any other information regarding the meeting.

This is not the first time the university has tried to lock the press out of a meeting. In July during SG’s stalled elections, a meeting between Brogan and the UWC was closed until the UP contacted the Student Press Law Center, at which time the university quickly reconsidered its decision and allowed reporters to attend.æ æ

Law and Order: Excerpt From State Attorney’s Office

Q. What is the Sunshine Law?

A. Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law provides a right of access to governmental proceedings at both the state and local levels. It applies to any gathering of two or more members of the same board to discuss some matter which will presumably come before that board for action. There is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of access. Virtually all state and local collegial public bodies are covered by the open meetings requirements with the exception of the judiciary and the state Legislature which has its own constitutional provision relating to access.æ

Q. What are the requirements of the Sunshine Law?

A. The Sunshine Law requires that 1) meetings of boards or commissions must be open to the public, 2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given and 3) minutes of the meeting must be taken.æ

Q. What qualifies as a meeting?

A. The Sunshine Law applies to all discussions or deliberations as well as the formal action taken by a board or commission. The law, in essence, is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. There is no requirement that a quorum be present for a meeting to be covered under the law.æ

Q. Can a public agency hold closed meetings?

A. There are a limited number of exemptions which would allow a public agency to close a meeting. These include, but are not limited to, certain discussions with the board’s attorney over pending litigation and portions of collective bargaining sessions. In addition, specific portions of meetings of some agencies (usually state agencies) may be closed when those agencies are making probable cause determinations or considering confidential records.