Decisions made by public officials, while carrying on the public’s work, need open discussion to arrive at a fair and just conclusion.

Last spring, Lou Reviere, chairman of the Brooklin selectmen, talked of the importance of “open doors and glass walls” when doing the public’s business. This is good advice that should be adhered to whenever possible. The public’s “right to know” should not be overlooked, underestimated or ignored for the sake of convenience. Community decisions are only as good as the process that creates them.

An appropriate yardstick for limiting the use of executive sessions would be the determination not only of personal privacy, but also if tax money will be used to carry out the decision.

Misquoted remarks, reporting out of context, and omitting important information that should be included may, in fact, make the press partially responsible for the overuse of closed meetings. Stories written from another reporter’s notes can lead to news columns that have little resemblance to the facts. Accurate, informative reporting is invaluable for those not able to attend meetings in person.

Rights of privacy and the public’s business sometimes are at odds, but the increasing use of executive sessions inevitably leads to questioned decisions. These decisions are also more likely to be overturned in some later form of recall vote.

The rudder used to direct government turns slowly, requiring open discussion and debate before decisions can or should be made.

Public decisions require extra effort, step by step, one meeting at a time. The best of these decisions will continue to be made at town halls with “open doors and glass walls.” Sherm Hutchins