Mr. Roger W. Mosher
Board of Education Member
Johnsburg Central School
North Creek, NY 12853
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.
Dear Mr. Mosher:
I have received your letter of March 29. In your capacity as a member of the Johnsburg
Central School District Board of Education, you wrote that at the end of a recent meeting, the Board entered into an executive session to discuss "personnel and contract negotiations." Nevertheless, additional items were discussed, "such as, how much the district would charge the taxpayers to use the newly constructed auditorium", charging "other schools to tuition students to [y]our district for distance learning and alternative education", and "not push[ing] the building project until the budget is passed."
From my perspective, the kinds of issues that you described could not have justifiably been
discussed in an executive sessions. In this regard, I offer the following comments.
As you are likely aware, 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, §105(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 the motion must be carried by majority vote of a public body's membership before such a session may validly be held. The ensuing provisions of §105(1) specify and limit the subjects that may appropriately be considered during an executive session.
In short, the matters that you described would not in my view have fallen within any of the
grounds for entry into executive session.
It is also noted that the term "personnel" does not appear in the Open Meetings Law and that the authority of a public body to conduct executive sessions to discuss "personnel" or "contract negotiations" is limited.
The language of the so-called "personnel" exception, §105(1)(f) of the Open Meetings Law, is limited and precise. In terms of legislative history, as originally enacted, the provision in question permitted a public body to enter into an executive session to discuss: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 provision 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 §105(1)(f) was enacted and states that a public body may enter into an executive session to discuss:
"...the medical, 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 particular person or corporation..." (emphasis added).
Due to the insertion of the term "particular" in §105(1)(f), I 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 at least one of the topics listed in §105(1)(f) is considered.
It has been advised that a motion describing the subject to be discussed as "personnel" or
"specific personnel matters" is inadequate, and that the motion should be based upon the specific language of §105(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.
It is noted that the Appellate Division has confirmed the advice rendered by this office. In
discussing §105(1)(f) in relation to a matter involving the establishment and functions of a position, the Court stated that:
"...the public body must identify the subject matter to be discussed
(See, Public Officers Law § 105 ), and it is apparent that this must
be accomplished with some degree of particularity, i.e., merely
reciting the statutory language is insufficient (see, Daily Gazette Co.
v Town Bd., Town of Cobleskill, 111 Misc 2d 303, 304-305). Additionally, the topics discussed during the executive session must remain within the exceptions enumerated in the statute (see generally, Matter of Plattsburgh Publ. Co., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v City
of Plattsburgh, 185 AD2d §18), and these exceptions, in turn, 'must be narrowly scrutinized, lest the article's clear mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled references to the areas delineated thereunder' (Weatherwax v Town of Stony Point, 97 AD2d 840, 841, quoting Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., Town of Cobleskill, supra, at 304; see, Matter of Orange County Publs., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v County of Orange, 120 AD2d 596, lv dismissed 68 NY 2d 807).
"Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is apparent that
the Board's stated purpose for entering into executive session, to wit,
the discussion of a 'personnel issue', does not satisfy the requirements
of Public Officers Law § 105 (1) (f). The statute itself requires, with
respect to personnel matters, that the discussion involve the
'employment history of a particular person" (id. [emphasis supplied]).
Although this does not mandate that the individual in question be
identified by name, it does require that any motion to enter into
executive session describe with some detail the nature of the proposed
discussion (see, State Comm on Open Govt Adv Opn dated Apr. 6,
1993), and we reject respondents' assertion that the Board's reference
to a 'personnel issue' is the functional equivalent of identifying 'a
particular person'" [Gordon v. Village of Monticello, 620 NY 2d 573,
575; 207 AD 2d 55 (1994)].
Based on the foregoing, 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 [see Doolittle
v. Board of Education, Supreme Court, Chemung County, July 21, 1981; also Becker v. Town of
Roxbury, Supreme Court, Chemung County, April 1, 1983]. 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
Similarly, with respect to "contract negotiations", the only ground for entry into executive
session that mentions that term is §105(1)(e). That provision permits a public body to conduct an executive session to discuss "collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law." Article 14 of the Civil Service Law is commonly known as the "Taylor Law", which pertains to the relationship between public employers and public employee unions. As such, §105(1)(e) permits a public body to hold executive sessions to discuss collective bargaining negotiations with a public employee union.
In terms of a motion to enter into an executive session held pursuant to §105(1)(e), it has been held that:
"Concerning 'negotiations', Public Officers Law section 100[e]
permits a public body to enter into executive session to discuss
collective negotiations under Article 14 of the Civil Service Law. As
the term 'negotiations' can cover a multitude of areas, we believe that
the public body should make it clear that the negotiations to be discussed in executive session involve Article 14 of the Civil Service Law" [Doolittle, supra].
A proper motion might be: "I move to enter into executive session to discuss the collective
bargaining negotiations involving the police union."
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman