Source: https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o4813.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 13:27:17
Document Index: 758911265

Matched Legal Cases: ['§106', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105']

OML-AO-4813
I have received your letter in which you asked that I review minutes of meetings of the Mamaroneck Town Board for the purpose of offering advice concerning the adequacy of its motions for entry into executive sessions.
In this regard, having reviewed the minutes of several meetings, I note that §106 of the Open Meetings Law requires that minutes consist of a “record or summary” of motions; it does not require that minutes contain a verbatim account of a motion. Whether the references to motions to enter into executive session as they appear in the minutes reflect the entirety of the words used in the motions, or merely a summary of the motions, is unknown to me. Nevertheless, in an effort to provide guidance, I offer the following comments.
By way of background, 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:
As such, 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 Town of Mamaroneck."
One of the phrases that appears repeatedly in the minutes is “employment history.” The provision concerning the possibility of discussing that subject in executive session is §105(1)(f), which permits a public body to enter into executive session to discuss:
Due to the presence of the term "particular" in §105(1)(f), I believe that a discussion of "employment history" may be considered in an executive session only when the subject involves a particular person or persons.
It has been advised that a motion involving §105(1)(f) should be based on its specific language. 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.
Similarly, with respect to "collective bargaining", the only ground for entry into executive session that refers to that topic is §105(1)(e), which 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.
Lastly, references were made to matters relating to the leasing of real property. The provision of potential relevance, §105(1)(h), permits a public body to conduct an executive session to discuss “the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property...but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.” In some circumstances, disclosure of the location of a parcel could substantially affect the value of the parcel. For instance, if a municipality wants to purchase a parcel for a new facility and is considering several locations, none of which are known to the public, disclosure of the sites could result in speculation or current owners raising prices, to the detriment of taxpayers. That being so, it has been advised that a motion under §105(1)(h) should indicate that the public discussion of the proposed action would “substantially affect the value” of the property.