Unsalaried, elected officials are not the same as employees.

Candidates running for office in a normal election process are evaluated by all voters, with their experience, qualifications and positions on key issues open to public scrutiny and debate.

Comparisons between competing candidates for the same elected post are also conducted just as openly, often in forums where all candidates are present.

That’s why we were so disappointed with the decision by the Hennessey Board of Education to discuss a school board vacancy in a closed executive session last week before voting to appoint Dr. James Matousek to fill the post.

When an agenda for a previous Hennessey School Board meeting listed Title 25, Section 307(B)1 of the state Open Meeting Act as justification for permitting an executive session for that purpose, we objected.

That exception allows an executive session for discussing “the appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any individual salaried public officer or employee.”

School board members, along with most local elected officials, do not receive a salary and thus don’t fall into either the plain language of that exception or the state Attorney General’s interpretation of it in at least one published opinion.

Following our objection, expressed privately to the superintendent by one of our reporters a day or so before the meeting, the school board skipped that agenda item entirely.

However, the issue came up again on the agenda for the April 12 meeting, which included the following item:

“Proposed executive session to discuss the appointment of an individual and/ or interview candidates to be appointed to school board seat #2.”

Not only was the matter of who would be appointed to fill the vacancy discussed in secret, but the candidate or candidates under discussion were not even named in advance.

This time, the agenda listed the same Open Meeting Act exception (incorrectly, we believe) along with a Title 70 citation to an expanded version of that exception that only applies to school boards:

“Executive sessions will be permitted only for the purpose of discussing the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or resignations of any or all of the employees or volunteers of the school district . . .”

School districts interpret the word “volunteer” to include unpaid board members and so far that interpretation has not been successfully challenged.

Regardless of whether that interpretation is correct or whether it makes sense that school boards are allowed to operate in greater secrecy than other public bodies, it is a clear example of the principle that just because the law says you can doesn’t mean you should.

Why not conduct the appointment process for an elected position as openly as a typical election campaign?

Give prospective candidates a deadline to express their interest in writing, make that list of names public and designate a public meeting where all candidates appear and be given an opportunity to speak and answer questions before the board votes – all in open session.

To be clear, we have no complaint about the school board’s ultimate decision to appoint Matousek.

But we do object to not knowing who else expressed interest in the post and what matters the board discussed in reaching its decision.

In a utilitarian system, the ends might justify the means.

But when you’re talking about government action in a democratic society, the means matter most.