They meet with open doors, in a public space that is open to all, but Barrington School Committee meetings have never felt very open. This was magnified last Thursday night, when a group of Barrington parents wanted to contest, clarify or at least question a report from the superintendent of schools, but were told to sit down and respect the rules for the school board, which do not allow people to talk during the meeting.

It’s always been that way with the Barrington School Committee. They allow a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, and another at the end. Private citizens, parents, teachers, students … anyone can stand up and say what they want about the schools or decisions about-to-be-made. As they talk, school board members listen politely. They don’t ask questions, respond or interact in any way.

Then they close the “open” part of the meeting and get on with business. They talk to each other, make statements, listen to reports and question the school administration. They vote on motions, they make decisions, and the people just sit and watch.

The process is so contrary to the tenets of an open and participatory government, it borders on offensive. Technically, the school committee adheres to Rhode Island law, which requires government bodies to meet in public, but does not require them to allow participation. Yet the system undermines some of the best principles of our democracy.

In a free-flowing discussion, we all learn something from, or about, one another. Live dialogue may be risky and unpredictable, but it is also genuine and real. Live discussions can trigger emotions, but they can also lead to new discoveries and vital information. By forcing guests to speak into a vacuum at the beginning of all meetings, the committee sucks life from the proceedings.

The committee also denies any visitor the chance to react to things as they unfold. Anyone who has scanned a public meeting agenda knows the topics can be vague, at best, misleading at worst. The agenda for last week’s meeting included topics such as “Strategic Planning Process Update” and “Transportation Update.”

How can anyone predict exactly what will be said, when, and by whom? And could everyone discern that “K-3 Student Enrollment and Systems of Support Update” was based on Primrose parents getting worried about crowded third-grade classrooms?

Perhaps the school board meetings are more orderly and formal, befitting the distinguished identity of Rhode Island’s best public school district. They are also less inviting and respectful to the citizens who put them in office.