NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing

 

OML-AO-4616

April 29, 2008

 

 

E-MAIL

TO:                 

FROM:            Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director

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

Dear Mr. Barnes:

            I have received your letter in which you raised questions relating to the Open Meetings Law.

            In this regard, first, 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 construing the exception concerning litigation, 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' (Matter 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. 
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 with particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the  executive session" [Daily Gazette Co. , Inc.  v. Town Board, Town of Cobleskill, 44 NYS 2d 44, 46 (1981), emphasis added by court].

            The emphasis in the passage quoted above on the word “the” indicates that when the discussion relates to litigation that has been initiated, the motion must name the litigation. For example, a proper motion might be: “I move to enter into executive session to discuss our litigation strategy in the case of the XYZ Company v. the Village of Watkins Glen.”  If the Board seeks to discuss its litigation strategy in relation to a person or entity that it intends to sue, and if premature identification of that person or entity could adversely affect the interests of the Village and its residents, it has been suggested that the motion need not identify that person or entity, but that it should clearly indicate that the discussion will involve the litigation strategy.  Only by means of that kind of description can the public know that the subject matter may justifiably be considered during an executive session.

            Second, there is no requirement that minutes of meetings be posted on a website.  An agency may choose to do so, but there is no obligation to do so. 

            I hope that I have been of assistance.

RJF:tt

cc: Board of Trustees