THE ISSUE   Village officials have outlined objectives to improve communication between themselves and residents.

OUR VIEW   These measures must truly increase transparency and not create new ways to hide information.

Last week, Glen Ellyn officials discussed one of our favorite topics — governmental transparency.
At the May 18 workshop, Village Manager Steve Jones passed out a document pertaining to the town’s efforts to improve communication among elected officials, staff members and residents.

Jones said in the document that he and new Village President Mark Pfefferman have held several meetings about steps that can be taken. These are some of the goals highlighted in this document:

• Enhance resident opportunities to engage the Village Board and staff regarding concerns.

• Help residents understand to whom they need to talk for general matters.

• Define proper communication channels between elected officials and village staff.

• When real policy choices exist, spend more time to address the pros and cons of a particular issue.

• Improve electronic communications between elected officials and residents.

• Enhance transparency of Village Board decision-making.

One of the steps taken was to establish e-mail addresses for each elected official. Of concern to Jones and Pfefferman, as specified in the document, is the need to, “Develop protocols to (ensure) proper use of e-mails with regard to Open Meetings Act restrictions.”

We’re pleased to see this issue being addressed. Any discussion of village business between “a majority of a quorum” of Village Board members — three — constitutes an open meeting and must comply with state law.

It would be easy for several board members to start e-mailing one another about an issue. Would their messages back and forth violate the Open Meetings Act?

It’s good that Glen Ellyn officials want to improve the communication process between them and us. But they also need to work out what’s in keeping with the state’s sunshine laws and what isn’t.