What I’m asking about is their practice of calling a “recess,” as mentioned in the article below. The council has done this a few times recently. It’s not an executive session—they specifically call it a recess. During that time, they leave the room with the city attorney and later return to resume the meeting.

What are the rules, if any, around this? Is it allowed? Under what circumstances?

Here’s a potentially relevant section of the Niagara Falls City Charter:

C. All meetings of the Council shall be open to the public, and public notice of such meeting and the agenda shall be posted as provided by law. The Council at a regular or committee-of-the-whole meeting may recess in a closed or executive session as provided by law. Convening of an executive session shall be by majority vote of the Council and the yeas and nays shall be recorded in the Journal.

From my reading, it sounds like they “may recess,” but only under conditions allowed by law—presumably the state’s executive session rules. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Is it normal for a council to recess a meeting to allegedly approve an employment application for a government position and also decide they made a mistake in calculating how much a developer owes the city during the same recess? To clarify, the council was progressing through agenda items, then paused to go behind closed doors to make these decisions. I’m unsure if the developers’ lawyers joined them, but I did notice the lawyers left the room where we were watching the meeting.

Is this standard governmental practice? Additionally, the lawyers were with the councilors and mayor behind closed doors before the meeting even started.

Individual board members can certainly explain why they voted the way they did on the superintendent’s raise and contract extension without revealing what was discussed in executive session.

The New York State School Board Association outlined the following regarding executive sessions in a guide they published in 2015:

Pursuant to General Municipal Law, school board members, district officers, and employees may not disclose confidential information acquired in the course of their official duties (Gen. Mun. Law § 805-a(1)(b)).

a. The General Municipal Law does not define the term “confidential information.” According to one state court, interpretation of what is confidential in the school context is best left to the commissioner of education (Komyathy v. Board of Educ. Wappinger CSD No. 1, 75 Misc.2d 859).

According to the commissioner of education, matters discussed in a lawfully convened executive session are confidential, and their disclosure constitutes a violation of the General Municipal Law’s prohibition, as well as a violation of a school board member’s oath of office. This could subject a school board member to removal from the board (Application of Nett and Raby, 45 Ed. Dep’t Rep. 259 (2005)). There would be no such violation if a board collectively decides to release such information or if an individual board member is compelled to disclose it pursuant to law in a judicial proceeding (Id.).

Note: The Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government has stated that information discussed in executive session may be disclosed unless a specific statute requires confidentiality (NYS Department of State, Committee on Open Government OML-AO-4489, Sept. 20, 2007; see also OML-AO-3463, May 28, 2002; OML-AO-3449, April 30, 2002; OML-AO-3219, Oct. 26, 2000). However, the commissioner of education considers that view a “narrow interpretation of the term ‘confidential’” (Application of Nett and Raby).

As indicated above, the NY Committee on Open Government has a different view regarding executive sessions and what can be disclosed. As stated in their opinion:

https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o4530.html

“Since a public body may choose to conduct an executive session or discuss an issue in public, information expressed during an executive session is not ‘confidential.’ To be confidential, again, a statute must prohibit disclosure and leave no discretion to an agency or official regarding the ability to disclose.”

Hope this helps.

An executive session motion “regarding litigation” is not sufficient under the Open Meetings Law. The name of the lawsuit or litigation being discussed should be stated in the motion.
If the board is simply receiving an update regarding the status of a lawsuit that can and should occur in public.

An executive session motion regarding the “employment history of a particular person” is minimally acceptable under the law. It still leaves the public in the dark, and it would be helpful to at least let the public know that this is in regard to hiring someone, disciplining someone, promoting someone etc.

The executive session motion for “discussion on open seat candidate” is improper under the Open Meetings Law. It is not appropriate to discuss the filling of an elected board position in an executive session.
Filling a public position is not the same as discussing the hiring of other positions.

These are great questions that you have asked.

Attached is a report we did regarding executive sessions, which you may find helpful, along with opinions by the NY Committee on Open Government.

Also attached is a copy of a letter that we sent out to public boards that have discussed filling a vacant board position in an executive session.

New York State Committee on Open Government Opinion

Ulysses Town Board Vacancy Letter

Report: School Boards Across New York State Hold Improper Executive Sessions

There is no law that states what is discussed in an executive session cannot be disclosed. With limited exceptions such as an individual’s health issues there is no requirement to discuss things in an executive session. An executive session is an option but a town could discuss everything in public.

Many school boards have policies that prohibit disclosing what has been discussed in an executive session and there have been instances where a school board member has been removed for disclosing executive session discussions.
You should check whether your town has a policy or rule regarding executive sessions.

In a 2011 court case, an Erie County Supreme Court Judge ruled that recording an executive session was improper. The Judge stated in her decision:

“An issue did come up over a tape recording that someone did of an executive session of the School Board meeting that involved the Petitioner’s daughter. There is no question the taping of the executive session is improper and violates the confidentiality that is encompassed in the executive session.”

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9019976364571771120&q=stephenson+v+board+of+education&hl=en&as_sdt=4,33

This is an Erie County lower court decision that is not binding on other courts. I am not aware of any other court decisions on this issue.
Below is an opinion from the NY State Committee on Open Government regarding the recording of executive sessions.

https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5384.html

While it is inappropriate for the town supervisor to insult you with obscene language, posting a recording from an executive session on your Facebook page may result in you being attacked for recording and posting executive session conversations.

You could also bring the Supervisor’s behavior to light by posting about it on your Facebook page without posting the recording.

In Watertown we have a city councilman who has had a complaint filed against him by the mayor.

There is a meeting scheduled. The agenda has an executive session on it. The councilman has requested the meeting be held in public.