Tobacco committee meetings should be open to the public

On Thursday, the Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy held an open forum to encourage public input on the proposed smoking ban. Later that day, it held a meeting to discuss the results of that forum. This meeting, like all the others, was closed to the public.

We have to wonder why.

The open forum was a good attempt to encourage outside input and give students and faculty a chance to air opinions on both sides.

But because of the nature of the committee and its work, it was impossible to get a real answer to any of the questions. Each answer amounted to, “That’s a good point. We’ll be sure to take it into consideration.”

Which is exactly the purpose of the advisory committee. But how does the public know their opinions are really being taken into account if they are barred from the meetings?

The university has often stressed its commitment to transparency and student input. It has claimed that this committee’s recommendations will be an important part of any decision made about the smoking ban.

If the administration is serious about these claims, it should be willing to prove them. Prove to us that our opinions are actually being taken into account, and that the committee is actually expecting its work to matter. Let us witness these things for ourselves by attending the meetings.

Some members of the OU community have expressed doubt that the committee’s work will matter at all, claiming that the decision was made as soon as Boren announced his support for a campuswide ban.

The tobacco committee and the administration have both been insistent that this is not the case. We call on them to prove it.

There’s no obvious reason the committee should be closed to the public. Yes, technically, these committee meetings don’t fall under the Open Meeting Act, because the committee is not a decision-making body.

But even outside of legal requirements, the administration could still choose to open them to public attendance.

We’re not asking for time at every meeting for the public to speak before the committee. That would slow down the process considerably. And it would be no more effective than the means people have already used to express their opinions.

We simply want the public to be able to attend the meetings and watch the discussions, to ensure those opinions are being taken into account and hold the committee accountable to its promise to consider all sides of the issue.

It’s possible that the committee is worried that the public’s conduct could get out of hand due to the passion evoked by this issue. After all, we can see from the letters and comments we’ve received, as well as the remarks at the public forum, that the smoking ban proposal inspires fervent opinions from both sides.

So students, if the administration decided to open the meetings, you would need to show that this right is important by attending them and refrain from disrupting the proceedings by remaining respectful observers.

We’re not sure why the administration has chosen to keep these meetings closed, but whatever the reason, we urge it to reconsider.

A little transparency in this process could go a long way toward helping both sides better understand each other’s arguments, which could lead to an effective compromise — or at least reduce the inevitable bitterness from the losing side.