The minutes of the February 23rd executive session reflect, in fact, that arbitration proceedings were authorized to begin shortly thereafter between the Board and Tennant. The documentation provided to this Office, however, indicates that the discussion and eventual action taken at the February 23rd executive session concerned the initiation of arbitration, not the initiation of litigation. Arbitration and litigation are distinct legal processes involving different tribunals, time frames and formalities. As a practical matter, arbitration would begin and conclude prior to the filing of a lawsuit and frequently, no lawsuit would be necessary. In interpreting a statute, a court must determine the intent of the General Assembly when the statute was enacted.
Executive sessions are exceptions to the general rule of openness under the Open Door Law.
Any exceptions to the statute must be strictly construed . . . The Open Door Law does not provide an exception to the open meeting requirement for discussions concerning the initiation of arbitration proceedings. The arbitration process is not mentioned in the Open Door Law and thus should be excluded from the exceptions under the Law, according to the principles of statutory construction. Based upon the minutes and other documents provided to this Office, the Board was not authorized to conduct its business on February 23rd in an executive session. Further, during that February 23rd executive session, the Board did take some actions that were clearly impermissible actions for an executive session.