Another year, another controversy surrounding the UI’s handling of ostensibly private affairs.

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office recently confirmed that two executive sessions of the UI Faculty Senate held last spring — both to discuss sensitive budgetary issues — were legal because the group is not required to abide by the state’s open-meetings laws.

But just because certain faculty members say some issues are better discussed in executive sessions doesn’t make it desirable. A lack of transparency among a public school and its stakeholders, students, and community is unacceptable — especially in regard to contentious budgetary matters.

The retort of Faculty Senate members and the Attorney General’s Office? Because the Senate is an advisory board — and, therefore, unable to make policy — it is not subject to the same laws as a governmental body. It’s funny how one word can change an entire meaning.

The Iowa Open Meetings, Open Records handbook, defines a “government body” as “this state, or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, tax-supported district, [or] nonprofit corporation.” Even though the Attorney General’s Office contended that the Senate does not meet the definition of a government body, some advisory boards do fall under the umbrella term.

For example, the Iowa City City Council advisory board, which influences council decisions with its recommendations, is considered to be a governmental body. The question is, doesn’t the Faculty Senate also make recommendations to the university? Or does it just discuss problems with no resolution?

It seems that the UI and any of its subsidiary groups would be covered by the term “school corporation.” However, the semantics of legal documents sometimes contain stipulations that warp what should be straightforward demarcations.

And, really, whether the Senate technically followed the open-meeting laws or not is almost beside the point. What matters is the environment of communication, or lack thereof, that the UI has propagated over the past few years — perhaps most notably in its errant handling of an alleged October 2007 sexual assault — and the need for increased transparency.

As Kathleen Richardson, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council’s executive secretary, put it, “The [UI] has not been a poster child for openness in recent years.”

Richardson, a member of the journalism department at Drake University, said the more transparency, the better in meetings of advisory bodies, such as the Faculty Senate. Even more important, she said, is eliminating fears and promoting openness with issues of public interest, such as the UI’s budget.

“The argument is that even if a body is not required to meet by open-meeting law, there’s no reason it can’t hold public meetings,” she said. Richardson suggests we look at how other universities have handled similar situations and measure the success rate between keeping school advisory board meetings open and closed.

Arguing definitions of boards and committees — accurate or not — isn’t the way to win over a community. Let’s hope UI officials realize opaque, closed-door meetings are no match for open, transparent discussion.