HAMMOND | Public access specialists agree the City Council on Feb. 26 violated the Open Door Law in the way it interrupted a public meeting to hold a Democratic caucus.

Still at issue is whether the caucus was legitimate or an attempt to circumvent the law.

Up before the council that day was Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr.'s veto against renewing City Court through 2011. The council sustained the veto following the caucus without public discussion.

Based on interviews with the four council members willing to discuss the caucus, it's unclear how the caucus played into the council's unanimous silence when the veto was brought to the floor.

"The public has an interest in knowing more than the result of a vote or nonvote," said Steve Key, counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association. "The whole intent of the Open Door Law is that the action of public agencies are taken openly. Silence does not fully inform anybody of anything."

On the day of the meeting, it was Councilman Mark Kalwinski who asked for the caucus about 8:10 p.m. The public meeting did not resume until 9:20 p.m.

Last week Kalwinski would say only he called for the caucus to talk about Democratic business.

"I'll leave it at that," he said.

"Some of us were shocked," Councilwoman Cynthia Berdine-Matasovsky said.

The council normally tries to air out the issues during the public caucus held 30 minutes before it meets, she said.

Berdine-Matasovsky said the council did not discuss how to address the mayor's veto, but listened to everybody's views, including those belonging to McDermott and City Court Judge Jeffrey Harkin.

Council President Dan Repay said he cautioned the council not to discuss the mayor's veto during its caucus, believing it would violate the Open Door Law. He spent much of the time "in and out" of the caucus room researching the mayor's veto, he said.

But Councilmen Anthony Higgs and Al Salinas said the City Court was the primary or only topic, mostly as it related to party unity.

"We talked about Democratic Party unity, making sure that the dirty laundry didn't come out on the floor," Higgs said.

"We just wanted to get everybody on the same page," Salinas said. "We needed to air out that issue."

Key last week said the caucus appeared to hold potential Open Door problems from its inception.

A recess ends a meeting and requires the public be told when it would be resumed, he said.

"The public had no inkling if they were coming back in two days or later that evening," Key said.

In addition, Key said Harkin or anyone else interested could have challenged the council's action in court.

"Any action taken after recess, a judge could declare null and void because they failed to give notice," Key said.

Key also questioned whether the caucus was a true caucus.

"Was this really a caucus or a meeting in secret to discuss what the council should have been (discussing) in an open meeting?" Key said.

The law defines a caucus as a gathering of members of a political party or coalition to plan political strategy and hold discussions designed to prepare the members for taking official action.

Key said the practice was meant for the state Legislature where political parties or other coalitions need to break away to discuss how to overcome their opposition on an issue.

"The caucus is for large groups divided on political ideology generally," Key said.