July 17, 1995



Ms. Patricia Abramo
News of the Highlands, Inc.
35 Hasbrouck Avenue
Cornwall, NY  12518

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

Dear Ms. Abramo:

     I have received your recent correspondence in which you questioned the propriety of an executive session held at a meeting of the Cornwall Town Board on June 28.

     By way of background, the materials indicate that the gathering was "advertised as a meeting to discuss the recently completed audit report."  Soon after convening, the Board entered into an executive session to discuss "specific items of personnel."  According to your editorial on the matter, "[t]here was no discussion of the audit in any way, shape or form. Not in public, at least."  Having asked those who attended the closed session about the nature of the discussion, some contended that "specific personnel issues" were indeed discussed. One member of the Board, however, said that the discussion involved the processes of the Town accounting system and stated that "they are not up to par with modern accounting procedures.  There weren't any accusations regarding how the procedures were conducted.  Just recommendations about those practices."

     In this regard, without having been present, I cannot advise with certainty as to the extent to which the Board complied or perhaps failed to comply with the Open Meetings Law.  Nevertheless, in an effort to enhance compliance with and understanding of the Law, I offer the following comments, copies of which will be sent Town officials.

     First, as a general matter, 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:

"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, although it is used frequently, the term "personnel" appears nowhere in the Open Meetings Law.  Although one of the grounds for entry into executive session often relates to personnel matters, from my perspective, the term is overused and is frequently cited in a manner that is misleading or causes unnecessary confusion. To be sure, some issues involving "personnel" may be properly considered in an executive session; others, in my view, cannot. Further, certain matters that have nothing to do with personnel may be discussed in private under the provision that is ordinarily cited to discuss personnel.

     The language of the so-called "personnel" exception, §105(1)(f) of the Open Meetings Law, is limited and precise. In terms of legislative history, as originally enacted, the provision in question permitted a public body to enter into an executive session to discuss:

"...the medical, financial, credit or employment history of any person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of any person or corporation..."

Under the language quoted above, public bodies often convened executive sessions to discuss matters that dealt with "personnel" generally, tangentially, or in relation to policy concerns.  However, the Committee consistently advised that the provision    was intended largely to protect privacy and not to shield matters of policy under the guise of privacy.

     To attempt to clarify the Law, the Committee recommended a series of amendments to the Open Meetings Law, several of which became effective on October 1, 1979.  The recommendation made by the Committee regarding §105(1)(f) was enacted and states that a public body may enter into an executive session to discuss:

"...the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation..." (emphasis added).

Due to the insertion of the term "particular" in §105(1)(f), I believe that a discussion of "personnel" may be considered in an executive session only when the subject involves a particular person or persons, and only when at least one of the topics listed in §105(1)(f) is considered.

     In the context of the situation at issue, insofar as the discussion involved a particular person in relation to one or more of the subjects described in §105(1)(f), I would agree that the executive session was justifiably held.  On the other hand, to the extent that it involved consideration or review of accounting procedures, Town policies or practices, or the functions of an office or certain positions, irrespective of who might hold those positions,  I do not believe that there would have been a basis for discussion in executive session. Even though those kinds of subjects might be reflective of "specific personnel" issues, they would not have focused on any particular person and, therefore, in my opinion, should have been discussed in public.

     It has been advised that a motion describing the subject to be discussed as "personnel" or "specific personnel matters" is inadequate, and that the motion should be based upon the specific language of §105(1)(f).  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.  Absent such detail, neither the members nor others may be able to determine whether the subject may properly be considered behind closed doors.

     It is noted that the Appellate Division, Third Department, recently confirmed the advice rendered by this office.  In discussing §105(1)(f) in relation to a matter involving the establishment and functions of a position, the Court stated 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).

"Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is apparent that the Board's stated purpose for entering into executive session, to wit, the discussion of a 'personnel issue', does not satisfy the requirements of Public Officers Law § 105 (1) (f).  The statute itself requires, with respect to personnel matters, that the discussion involve the 'employment history of a particular person" (id. [emphasis supplied]).  Although this does not mandate that the individual in question be identified by name, it does require that any motion to enter into executive session describe with some detail the nature of the proposed discussion (see, State Comm on Open Govt Adv Opn dated Apr. 6, 1993), and we reject respondents' assertion that the Board's reference to a 'personnel issue' is the functional equivalent of identifying 'a particular person'" [Gordon v. Village of Monticello, 620 NY2d 573, 575; 207 AD2d 55 (December 29, 1994)].

     I hope that I have been of some assistance. 




                                      Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Town Board
James Loeb