March 24, 2004

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.


I have received your letter of February 24. You wrote that you have for several years "served as a Commissioner and Secretary for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA)." You added that there is:

"...a pattern of behavior that has become unsettling with the abuse of the ‘executive session’ privileges. In many cases, an ‘executive session’ is called for the purpose of discussion on ‘qualifying issues’ and, once the public and the press are excused, the ‘executive session’ is used as a shelter for unqualified, sensitive issues.

"It would appear that the Chairman, Luiz Kahl, is oblivious to the Board’s responsibility to, wherever possible, do its work in public."

You have sought guidance, and in this regard, I offer the following comments.

First, by way of background, as you are 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. Section 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 total 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.

Second, it has been held judicially that :

"...the public body must identify the subject matter to be discussed (See, Public Officers Law § 105 [1]), 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)"

In sum, it is reiterated that a public body may validly conduct an executive session only to discuss one or more of the subjects listed in §105(1) and that a motion to conduct an executive session must be sufficiently detailed to enable the public to know that there is a proper basis for entry into the closed session.

I hope that I have been of assistance.


Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: David Gregory, General Counsel