Callahan, Meegan, Walsh, and Pigeon

[TheLegendKiller]

I’ve been reading the thread and caught the Bee Editor’s editorial a few minutes ago. Since this has become a debate about ethics, why is no one questioning the ethics of Dale Clarke? NY State open meetings laws give specific provisions for items that are to be discussed in closed executive session, a biggie being discussions on personnel. Those discussions are to remain closed and in this case to protect the privacy of Mr. Lorigo and Mr. Meegan. The Supervisor’s actions may have been questionable, but it was not Clarke’s place to violate these laws and the privacy of these individuals who, regardless of working in or seeking a position in the public sector are still considered, under the law, private citizens. This is yet another liability created by Loose Cannon Clarke and worthy of an ethical discussion if not an outright investigation and censure.

One other thing, I hope that Clarke’s comments about Lorigo Sr. running the town through the supervisor’s office are true, otherwise there is yet another liability in creating a situation where one of the top, regardless of what people may think of him personally, lawyers in town could sue for defamation.

[dtwarren]

The Open Meetings Law requires all public business conducted by public bodies to be open to the public. It permits, but does not require, that certain items may be discussed in executive session.

As for what any member of the Town Board says in an official session of the town board in furthereance of their duties is protected by the absolute privilege extended to legislative proceedings.

[dtwarren]

Here are some examples:

Since public body may choose to conduct executive session or discuss issue in public, information expressed during executive session is not "confidential"; to be confidential, statute must prohibit disclosure and leave no discretion to agency or official regarding ability to disclose. Comm on Open Gov't FOIL-AO-12558.

Statements made by members of board of education during executive sessions were not generally privileged or confidential, and thus there was no valid basis for sustaining claim of confidentiality with respect to such statements in subsequent improper practice hearing before Public Employment Relations Board, in absence of statute specifically prohibiting disclosure. Comm on Open Gov't OML-AO-2239.

There is no statute which prohibits board member from disclosing information acquired, heard or discussed during executive session; claim of confidentiality can only be based upon statute that specifically confers or requires confidentiality. Comm on Open Gov't OML-AO-2278.

Situations in which information acquired during executive session would be "confidential" in legal sense are rare; further, validity of or capacity to enforce prohibition against disclosure whether such information is "confidential" or not is questionable. Comm on Open Gov't OML-AO-2358.

Policy adopted by board of education, stating in part that "Matters discussed in executive sessions must be treated as confidential; that is, never discussed out of executive session," would be inconsistent with Freedom of Information Law and Open Meetings Law; while information might be obtained during executive session properly held or from records marked "confidential," term "confidential" has narrow and precise technical meaning, and claim that records or information is characterized must be based on statute, or act of Congress or state legislature, that specifically confers or requires confidentiality. Comm on Open Gov't OML-AO-3463.