Skirting the Open Public Meetings Law?

Re: "The new majority stands behind the legality of its actions [meeting before they took office] because the new members weren't in office at the time they met with new board chairman Ron Margiotta and members of the public."
The purpose of the State's open meetings law is to ensure that the public and press are not kept in the dark and prevented from having input into decisions made. It seems to me that purpose was not thwarted, in that the issues handled had been widely discussed & anticipated. So I don't think the spirit of the law was broken.
It seems ironic that the liberals all all up in arms about this, when you never hear them complain about how Democrats in the NCGA and Congress routinely draft massive legislation behind closed doors, and don't even give the rest of their legislative bodies (let alone the public!) time to READ the bills before voting on them.
In fact, I've NEVER heard even a liberal complain about Obama's multimillion dollar profiteering on his election to the U.S. Senate, while still Senator-elect!!! If any case of "skirting" rules should cause outrage, that one should. Senate ethics rules are supposed to prevent Senators from profiteering on their offices, or taking money in sufficient quantity to influence them. Obama took $1.9 million dollars after being elected to the U.S. Senate, but before he took office, as an "advance" for three unwritten books. $1.9 million is sufficient to influence most folks, CERTAINLY including Obama.
http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/05/barack-obamas-new-book-out-this-fall.html reported:
"What's been largely left out of the media coverage of Obama's book deal is that he received a $1.9 million advance for his three book deal after he won his Illinois US Senate seat, but before he was sworn in, which allowed him to skirt Senate ethics rules."
That was wildly inappropriate behavior. Though he managed to skirt the letter of the Senate ethics rules, he certainly behaved unethically. But I've never, ever heard a liberal make a peep about it.

"Blindsided"? "Devious"? "Behind the back" tactics?

Whether you agree with what the current board just did or not, at least try to be fair about facts. Here's just one example, from the spring of 2006, when the school board totally surprised citizens with a vote that wasn't "supposed" to have taken place. The whole story isn't in this excerpt from my email (sent to board members on May 4th), but Keung is checking the archives for me.

Explain what happened last Friday! You are aware of the fact that reports are still representing your vote as a “done deal”. And why shouldn’t they?!? After all, you did vote, even though you didn’t have to. A Board member explained to me exactly what that vote meant, and that the “real” vote still won’t take place until May 16. Try telling that to the general public – it makes no sense! To make things worse, you voted when the member who most adamantly opposes the proposal was out of the country! And what about the teachers? You sent out a survey on Wednesday, then had the nerve to vote before the survey was even due, much less tallied! Even the results of the News and Observer teacher survey had not been made public. Imagine how this looks to people! I would like to believe that none of this was your intent, but it’s hard to explain away. I even drove out to Cary to see first-hand what was taking place, but you had adjourned early. To make it even worse, this only deepened the lack of trust that so many people have for the school system. That mistrust is, in my opinion, one of the main factors driving opposition to a bond referendum – the other being a deep resentment for what parents see as a threat to their families – mandatory year-rounds. I share all of this with you not to place you on the defensive, but to let you know that this is a general perception that is shared “on the street.” You need to know.

Let me start by saying I oppose forced bussing so I actually do agree with much of the new board members' agenda. That said, if you think if you think the way they are going about doing business is the right way to do things, then it’s pointless to even try to have a rational discussion. Heck I agree with them on some things but I don’t like the method. Is there anything wrong with discussing things with the other members or even letting them in on the agenda? Please stop using the old board as your justification. If the old board was as bad as you all believe, why would you keep using them to justify this board's actions? I’m sure you all learned in 1st grade that two wrongs do not make a right. This new majority is acting about as partisan and divisive as possible and most of you love it only because you are getting what you want. The very things you howled about the old board doing, is now your justification. I’m sorry, I am not a fan of knee jerk decisions. I’m not a fan of private meetings between just a portion of the board. Yes I personally think wacky Wednesdays are a bad idea, but I would have at least had some dialogue with teachers and faculty before making a decision.