Transparancy

April 12 2019 FB post

Brian Lamica: The best place to discuss issues like this is at a Village Board Meeting NOT on social media. Joanne Moore is correct with her statement. **We have made several attempts to honor requests** We are transparent in everything we do. Again attend a board meeting and find out how hard we are working to improve our community.

**Follow along to learn the truth

So denial of agenda documents & denial of subject matter and failure of conducting executive session during the open portion of meetings

Freeman, Robert J (DOS) <Robert.Freeman@dos.ny.go>

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:44 PM To: David Murray Cc: ilion@ilionny.com Subject: Executive session procedure

Mr. Murray:

Attached is an advisory opinion that addresses the issue that you raised. Note that copy is being sent to the Village of Ilion in an effort to enhance knowledge of and compliance with the Open Meetings Law.

I hope that I have been of assistance.

Bob Freeman

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisorv opinions. The ensuing staff advisorv opinion is based solelv upon the facts presented in your correspondence.

Dear Mr. Burns :

I have received your letter of October 4 in which you requested an advisory opinion concerning the Open Meetings Law.

According to your letter, meetings of the City of Port Jervis Common Council have been conducted in certain respects in a manner inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law. You referred to events occurring at two meetings and described them as follows:

"a) August 23. Meeting opened by Mayor Worden at 7 p.m. At 7 : 06 p.m. he announced that 'several matters had to be discussed in Executive Session and the public meeting will resume shortly. The following procedural steps (required by law) were not taken:

1) A motion to enter into executive session was not asked for nor made by any Council _ member; 2) The general area of areas of the subject or subjects to be considered were not identified; and 3) Because no motion was called for by Mayor Worden or made by any council member , no vote • (requiring a majority approval) was taken.

The Council and Mayor Worden then went into executive session, behind closed doors at 7 : 07 p.m. and resumed the public meeting at 7:56

p.m.

b) September 13 . Meeting opened by Mayor Worden at 7 p.m. At 7:13 p.m. he announced that 'several matters required by Executive Session. Again, for the second consecutive public meeting, the same procedural steps outlined in a. 1—3 above were not followed. Executive session at 7: 15 p.m. ; public meeting resumed at 7:38 p.m."

In this regard, I point out that every meeting must be convened as an open meeting, and that S102 (3) of the Open Meetings Law defines the phrase "executive session" to mean a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. As such, it is clear that an executive session is not separate and distinct from an open meeting, but rather that it is a part of an open meeting. Moreover, the Open Meetings Law requires that a procedure be accomplished, during an open meeting, before a public body may enter into an executive session.

Specifically, S105 (1) states in relevant part that:

"Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only...

As such, a motion to conduct an executive session must include reference to the subject or subjects to be discussed and it must be carried by majority vote of a public body's membership before such a session may validly be held. The ensuing provisions of S105(1) specify and limit the subjects that may appropriately be considered during an executive session. Therefore, a public body may not conduct an executive session to discuss the subject of its choice.

I would like to offer additional remarks concerning two of the grounds for entry into executive session that arise frequently.

Although it is used often, the word "personnel" appears nowhere in the Open Meetings Law. Further, although one of the grounds for entry into executive session often relates to personnel matters, the language of that provision is precise. By way of background, 'in its original form, S105 (1) (f) of the Open Meetings Law permitted a public body to enter into an executive session to discuss :

."... the medical , financial , credit or employment history of any person or corporation , or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of any person or corporation..."

Under the language quoted above, public bodies often convened executive sessions to discuss matters that dealt with "personnel" generally, tangentially, or in relation to policy concerns. However, the Committee consistently advised that the provision was intended largely to protect privacy and not to shield matters of policy under the guise of privacy.

To attempt to clarify the Law, the Committee recommended a series of amendments to the Open Meetings Law, several of which became effective on October 1, 1979. The recommendation made by the Committee regarding S105 (1) (f) was enacted -arid now states that a public body may enter into an executive session to discuss:

the medical , f financial , credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a parmcular person or corporation... (emphasis added) .

Due to the insertion of the term "particular" in section 105 (1) (f) ,

1. believe that a discussion of "personnel" may be considered, in an executive session only when the subject involves a particular person or persons, and only when one or more of the topics listed in S105 (1) (f) are considered.

When a discussion concerns matters of policy, such as the manner in which public money will be expended or allocated, I do not believe that S105(1) (f) could be asserted, even though the discussion related to "personnel" .

For example, if a discussion involves staff reductions or layoffs the issue in my view would involve matters of policy. Similarly, if a discussion of possible layoffs relates to positions and whether those positions should be retained -or abolished, the discussion would involve the means by which public monies would be allocated. —On the other hand, insofar as a discussion focuses upon a "particular person n in conjunction with that person's performance, i.e., how well or poorly he or she has performed his or her duties, an executive session could in my view be appropriately held.

Further, due to the insertion of the term "particular" in S105(1) (f) , it has been advised that a motion describing the subject to be discussed as "personnel" is inadequate, and that the motion should be based upon the specific language of S105 (1) (f) . For instance, a proper motion might be: "I move to enter into an executive session to discuss the employment history of a particular person (or persons) Such a motion would not in my opinion have to identify the person or persons who may be the subject • of a discussion. By means of the kind of motion suggested above, members of a public body and others in attendance would have the ability to know that there is a proper basis for entry into an executive session. Absent such detail, neither the members nor others may be able to determine whether the subject may properly be considered behind closed doors.

The other ground for entry into executive session that is often cited involves "litigation" or "legal matters" . In my opinion, those minimal descriptions of the subject matter to be discussed would be insufficient to comply with the Law. The provision that deals with litigation is S105 (1) (d) of the Open Meetings Law, which permits a public body to enter into an executive session to discuss "proposed, pending or current litigation" . In construing the language above, it has been held that:

"The purpose of paragraph d is "to enable is to enable a public body to discuss pending litigation privately, without baring its strategy to its adversary through mandatory public meetings' of Concerned Citizens to Review Jefferson Val. Mall v. Town Bd. Of Town of Yorktown, 83 AD 2d 612, 613, 441 NYS 2d 292)

The belief of the town's attorney that a decision adverse to petitioner 'would almost certainly lead to litigation' does not justify the conducting of this public business in an executive session. To accept this argument would be to accept the view that any public body could bar the public from its meetings simply be expressing the fear that litigation may result from actions taken therein. Such a view would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the exception" [Weatherwax v. Town of Stony point, 97 AD 2d 840, 841 (1983)].

Based upon the foregoing, I believe that the exception is intended to permit a public body to discuss its litigation strategy behind closed doors, rather than issues that might eventually result in litigation. since "legal matters" or possible litigation could be the subject or result of nearly any topic discussed by a public body, an executive session could not in my view be held to discuss an issue merely because there is a possibility of litigation, or because it involves a legal matter.

With regard to the sufficiency of a motion to discuss litigation, it has been held that:

"It is insufficient to merely regurgitate the statutory language; to wit , 'discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation' . This boilerplate recitation does not comply with the intent of the statute. To validly convene an executive session for discussion of proposed, pending or current litigation, the public body must identify wit particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the executive session" [Dai Iv Gazette Co. . Inc.

v. Town Board, Town of Cobleskill, 44 NYS 2d 44, 46 (1981), emphasis added by court] .

I hope that I have been of some assistance.

Sincerely ,

Robert J. Freeman

Executive Director

RJF : jm

cc: Common Council