Maggie writes:

“May I assume that you wrote the Editorial regarding students not belonging on the Board of Trustees or deserve a vote there? I like your thinking. However, does “transparency” mean that students have a right to have access to both the open and closed sessions of Board meetings in order to fully understand the workings of the voting members?”

Thank you for your query Maggie.

From opinions editor Kyle Spector:

“The editorial focuses on the nature of the Board as an oversight body for the University. As such, it is necessary that the Board has the means to enter executive session and create a closed meeting situation. As used in the editorial, transparency refers to opening the parts of Board meetings that shouldn’t be part of an executive (closed) session. For example, voting on the details of construction contracts might require executive session so that the companies submitting bids are unaware of the Board’s financial manuevering. However, general discussions about the nature of future campus construction should not be in executive session. Another aspect of transparency is the creation of venues for Board-student interaction. Publicizing and opening board subcommittee meetings would allow students to address their concerns directly to the board outside of the formal procedures in place during the full board meetings.”

I hope this answers your question. Keep them coming!