Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o3831.htm
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 01:16:06
Document Index: 405488186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§106', '§105', '§106', '§1708', '§89', '§89', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§87', '§105', '§87', '§805', '§1232', '§108', '§87']

OML-AO-3831
I have received your letters, as well as the materials attached to them. You have raised a variety of issues in relation to the creation of a position by the Penn Yan Central School District and its Board of Education. In consideration of those issues, I offer the following comments.
First, with respect to minutes of executive sessions, §106 of the Open Meetings Law pertains to minutes of meetings and states that:
As a general rule, a public body may take action during a properly convened executive session [see Open Meetings Law, §105(1)]. In the case of most public bodies, if action is taken during an executive session, minutes reflective of the action, the date and the vote must be recorded in minutes pursuant to §106(2) of the Law. If no action is taken, there is no requirement that minutes of the executive session be prepared.
Various interpretations of the Education Law, §1708(3), however, indicate that, except in situations in which action during a closed session is permitted or required by statute, a school board cannot take action during an executive session [see United Teachers of Northport v. Northport Union Free School District, 50 AD 2d 897 (1975); Kursch et al. v. Board of Education, Union Free School District #1, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, 7 AD 2d 922 (1959); Sanna v. Lindenhurst, 107 Misc. 2d 267, modified 85 AD 2d 157, aff'd 58 NY 2d 626 (1982)]. Stated differently, based upon judicial interpretations of the Education Law, a school board generally cannot vote during an executive session, except in rare circumstances in which a statute permits or requires such a vote.
In my view, the issues considered by the Board as you described them would not have been among the few instances in which it could have taken action in executive session. Again, assuming that no action was taken in executive session, there would have been no obligation to prepare minutes.
In a related vein, I note that the Freedom of Information Law pertains to existing records and that §89(3) of that statute provides in part that an agency is not required to create a record in response to a request. Therefore, if, for example, there is no record containing an analysis of or rationale for a proposal or an action, there would be no obligation on the part of the District to prepare such a record on your behalf.
With respect to a delay in determining to grant or deny access to records, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests for records. Specifically, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
Second, while I agree with your contention that there would be no basis for discussing the creation of a position during an executive session, the materials suggest that that issue may have been intertwined with another, which is characterized in a memorandum prepared by a Board member as the "deficiencies in [the] performance" of a principal. In this regard, as you are likely aware, the Open Meetings Law is based upon a presumption of openness. Stated differently, meetings of public bodies must be conducted open to the public, unless there is a basis for entry into executive session. Moreover, the 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:
The language of the so-called "personnel" exception, §105(1)(f) of the Open Meetings Law, is limited and precise, for it states that a public body may enter into an executive session to discuss:
When a discussion concerns matters of policy, such as the manner in which public money will be expended or allocated, the functions of a department, the creation or elimination of positions, or matters relating to the budget, I do not believe that §105(1)(f) could be asserted, even though the discussion may relate to "personnel". For example, 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. In short, in order to enter into an executive session pursuant to §105(1)(f), I believe that the discussion must focus on a particular person (or persons) in relation to a topic listed in that provision. As stated judicially, "it would seem that under the statute matters related to personnel generally or to personnel policy should be discussed in public for such matters do not deal with any particular person" (Doolittle v. Board of Education, Supreme Court, Chemung County, October 20, 1981). On the other hand, insofar as a discussion involves the performance of a particular person, as in the case of consideration of the deficiencies of a particular employee, I believe that an executive session may properly be held. In the situation you described, the issue would have involved the employment history of a particular person or perhaps a matter leading to the discipline or removal of a particular person. In short, it appears that the matter of creating a position may have been overlapped or been intertwined with the performance of the principal. Insofar as consideration of creating a position may have been separate from the performance of the principal, I do not believe that there would have been a basis for entry to executive session. However, insofar as the two issues could not be segregated or discussed separately, I believe that §105(1)(f) would have validly served as a means of entering into executive session.
Next, an element of your correspondence involves a request for records that apparently may be withheld under §87(2)(g) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision pertains to internal governmental communications, and those portions of such communications consisting of opinions, advice, recommendations and the like need not be disclosed. As I understand one of the memoranda attached to your correspondence, it has been contended that opinions expressed in writing or during executive sessions "must be kept confidential in order to comply with Section 805-a of the General Municipal Law." That statute states in subdivision (1)(b) that "no municipal officer or employee shall...disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties or use such information to further his personal interests." From my perspective, the term "confidential" has a narrow and precise technical meaning. For records or information to be validly characterized as confidential, I believe that such a claim must be based upon a statute that specifically confers or requires confidentiality. Stated differently, an act of Congress of the State Legislature must forbid disclosure in order to characterize information as confidential.
While a variety of subjects may properly be discussed during executive sessions and numerous records or portions thereof may validly be withheld under the Freedom of Information Law, the ability to exclude the public from a meeting or withhold records does not necessarily represent or signify a requirement of confidentiality. I note that both the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law are permissive. Under §105 of the former, a public body may enter into executive session to discuss one or more of the subjects appearing in paragraphs (a) through (h) of subdivision (1); there is no requirement that those subjects be discussed in executive session. Moreover, as you are aware, in order to conduct an executive session, a motion to do so must be made and carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body. If such a motion does not carry, even though a public body might have the authority to discuss an issue in executive session, it would not have the obligation to do so. Similarly, under the Freedom of Information Law, §87(2) provides that an agency may withhold records in accordance with the grounds for denial of access that follow. The State's highest court has found that an agency may choose to disclose records even though it has the ability to deny access [see Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)].
In short, as a general rule, even though discussions by a public body may in appropriate circumstances be conducted in private and certain records may justifiably be withheld, the matters considered might not be "confidential", but rather beyond the scope of public rights of access. In a case in which the issue was whether discussions occurring during an executive session held by a school board could be considered "privileged", it was held that "there is no statutory provision that describes the matter dealt with at such a session as confidential or which in any way restricts the participants from disclosing what took place" (Runyon v. Board of Education, West Hempstead Union Free School District No. 27, Supreme Court, Nassau County, January 29, 1987). While §805-a of the General Municipal Law may be useful for providing guidance, for the reasons described above, I do not believe that the use of the term "confidential" is entirely clear.
I am unaware of any statute that would prohibit a Board member from disclosing the kind of information to which you referred, even though information might have been obtained during an executive session properly held or from records marked "confidential" or that need not be disclosed.
If a discussion by a board of education concerns a record pertaining to a particular student (i.e., in the case of consideration of disciplinary action, an educational program, an award, etc.), the discussion would have to occur in private and the record would have to be withheld insofar as public discussion or disclosure would identify the student. As you may be aware, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 USC §1232g) generally prohibits an educational agency from disclosing education records or information derived from those records that are identifiable to a student, unless the parents of the student consent to disclosure. In the context of the Open Meetings Law, a discussion concerning a student would constitute a matter made confidential by federal law and would be exempted from the coverage of that statute [see Open Meetings Law, §108(3)]. In the context of the Freedom of Information Law, an education record would be specifically exempted from disclosure by statute in accordance with §87(2)(a). In both contexts, I believe that a board of education, its members and school district employees would be prohibited from disclosing, because a statute requires confidentiality. Again, however, no statute of which I am aware would confer or require confidentiality with respect to the matters described in your correspondence.