Courthouse opponents are back, and this time they brought their lawyer.

Many of the same voices who spoke out against the demolition of the ’54 building, then about the prospect that no referendum will be held to decide on courthouse funding, are now crying foul about the county board’s methods in approving a resolution to go with non-referendum leased bonds instead of general-obligation bonds that would require a public vote. They’re even talking lawsuit, throwing out threats about due process and open-meeting laws.

They don’t appear to have much of a legal case, but they bring up a valid point.

The gripe is about the way the board conducted the meeting. Chairman Dave Mullenbach called a ten-minute recess, saying the board would move on to other topics when it reconvened. Then, after the break,the board wound up discussing the courthouse project further, and eventually taking the vote. Many of those in attendance had left during the break.

At county board meetings, the public doesn’t have the chance to speak mid-meeting; they can say their piece at the start and stay to watch, but there’s no opportunity to provide input once the board starts making resolutions and such. So the people who left didn’t miss the chance to have any more input; just the chance to observe a nice bit of theater as the board came to its decision. And there’s no law about how a board must conduct a meeting; they can vote on whatever they want whenever they want.

Nevertheless, the board’s methods in this case left them open to criticism and the resulting vote is tainted in the minds of too many people. It would not be a hardship for the board to oblige and void its first vote, then take another vote on the matter &045; to call a &uot;re-do,&uot; in the language of the playground. Unless commissioners have changed their minds, the result will be the same, but at least the process can be above reproach.