May 28, 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 in which you asked that I address a variety of questions. In this regard, it is noted at the outset that the advisory jurisdiction of the Committee on Open Government primarily concerns matters relating to the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Laws. Your initial questions involve referenda that fall beyond the jurisdiction or expertise of this office. The others pertain to the Open Meetings Law, and I offer the following comments.

You asked how "a town board may notice meetings." Section 104 of the Open Meetings Law pertains to notice and states that:

"1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.

2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.

3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.

4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations."

In consideration of the foregoing, first, I point out that a public body is required only to provide notice of the time and place of a meeting. There is nothing in the Open Meetings Law that requires that notice of a meeting include reference to the subjects to be discussed. Similarly, there is nothing in that statute that pertains to or requires the preparation of an agenda.

Section 104 imposes a dual requirement, for notice must be posted in one or more conspicuous, public locations, and in addition, notice must be given to the news media. That notice of a meeting is faxed to various locations or offices does not necessarily suggest or indicate that a public body has complied with law. Again, the law requires that notice of a meeting be "posted"in one or more "designated" locations. The term "designated" in my opinion involves a requirement that a public body, by resolution or through the adoption of policy or a directive, must select one or more specific locations where notice of meetings will consistently and regularly be posted. If, for instance, a bulletin board located at the entrance of a town hall has been designated as a location for posting notices of meetings, the public has the ability to know where to ascertain whether and when meetings of a school board will be held.

With respect to notice to the news media, subdivision (3) of §104 specifies that the notice given pursuant to the Open Meetings Law need not be legal notice. That being so, a public body is not required to pay to place a legal notice prior to a meeting; it must merely "give" notice of the time and place of a meeting to the news media. Moreover, when in receipt of notice of a meeting, there is no obligation imposed on the news media to publish the notice.

From my perspective, every law, including the Open Meetings Law, must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent. In that vein, to give effect to intent of the Open Meetings Law, I believe that notice of meetings should be given to news media organizations that would be most likely to make contact with those who may be interested in attending. Similarly, for notice to be "conspicuously" posted, I believe that it must be posted at a location or locations where those who may be interested in attending meetings have a reasonable opportunity to see the notice.

Second, you asked that I "explain the proper motion to enter into executive session", and you referred specifically to a motion to discuss "legal matters." I point out that §102(3) of the Open Meetings Law defines the phrase "executive session" to mean a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. While there is no requirement that the public be informed of whether a public body intends to return to the open meeting following an executive session, I believe that it would be considerate and courteous to do so.

With respect to the subject matter, there is no provision that directly authorizes a public body to discuss "legal matters" during an executive session. To put your question in context, 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:

"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 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.

The provision most analogous to "legal matters" is §105(1)(d), which permits a public body to enter into executive session to discuss "proposed, pending or current litigation." in construing the exception concerning litigation, it has been held that:

"The purpose of paragraph d is "to enable is to enable a public body to discuss pending litigation privately, without baring its strategy to its adversary through mandatory public meetings' (Matter of Concerned Citizens to Review Jefferson Val. Mall v. Town Bd. Of Town of Yorktown, 83 AD 2d 612, 613, 441 NYS 2d 292). The belief of the town's attorney that a decision adverse to petitioner 'would almost certainly lead to litigation' does not justify the conducting of this public business in an executive session. To accept this argument would be to accept the view that any public body could bar the public from its meetings simply be expressing the fear that litigation may result from actions taken therein. Such a view would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the exception" [Weatherwax v. Town of Stony Point, 97 AD 2d 840, 841 (1983)].

Based upon the foregoing, I believe that the exception is intended to permit a public body to discuss its litigation strategy behind closed doors, rather than issues that might eventually result in litigation.
With regard to the sufficiency of a motion to discuss litigation, it has been held that:

"It is insufficient to merely regurgitate the statutory language; to wit, 'discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation'. This boilerplate recitation does not comply with the intent of the statute. To validly convene an executive session for discussion of proposed, pending or current litigation, the public body must identify with particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the executive session" [Daily Gazette Co. , Inc. v. Town Board, Town of Cobleskill, 44 NYS 2d 44, 46 (1981), emphasis added by court].

The emphasis in the passage quoted above on the word "the" indicates that when the discussion relates to litigation that has been initiated, the motion must name the litigation. For example, 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 Lewiston." If the Town Board seeks to discuss its litigation strategy in relation to a person or entity that it intends to sue, and if premature identification of that person or entity could adversely affect the interests of the Town and its residents, it has been suggested that the motion need not identify that person or entity, but that it should clearly indicate that the discussion will involve the litigation strategy. Only by means of that kind of description can the public know that the subject matter may justifiably be considered during an executive session.

Lastly, you asked whether discussion of "a contract to secure the services of a developer" may be considered during an executive session. In my view, the only provision that might apply would be §105(1)(f), which authorizes a public body to enter into 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."

It would appear that the issue would involve a matter leading to the employment of a particular corporation, perhaps as well as that entity’s financial, credit or employment history.

I hope that I have been of assistance.


Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Town Board