Columns

Editorial: Let the ‘sunshine’ in— open Town Hall doors

This winter we have been in sore need of sunshine in more ways than one.

March 13 to 19 is Sunshine Week — an effort by news editors to bring attention to the public’s right to know what government is doing. It highlights the importance of open meeting and freedom of information laws, and strives to better inform the public about its rights.

Citizen access to government information is fairly well understood here — FOILing has become something of an active verb on Shelter Island. But the open meetings law is more easily obfuscated, and we agree with recent letter writers that the Town Board is discussing too many issues behind closed doors.

A case in point is the Ram’s Head Inn dock. The ownership of the land under the dock, and who knew what when, is at issue, but the fact that the Town Board has been aware of the problem and discussing it in executive session for months is more troublesome.

According to Ed Barr of the Ram Island Association, the Town Board first learned that the dock could be on public property in November 2009. Public discussions of the issue did not begin until February 2011.

The Reporter asked Town Attorney Laury Dowd to justify the closed discussions. They “involved property issues and potential litigation,” we were told.

According to state law, property issues can be confidential but only if they focus on a property transaction and “only when publicity would substantially affect the value” of that property. The property has not changed hands, and we are talking about it publicly now, so how could this open meeting exception have applied?

“Potential litigation” is not an exception to the open meetings law. “Proposed, pending or current litigation” is. Any issue that comes to the town could be swept under the rug under the threat of a potential lawsuit. “To accept this argument,” a state appellate court ruled in 1983, “would be to accept the view that any public body could bar the public from its meetings simply by 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.”

Ms. Dowd also cited attorney-client privilege on this issue to justify waiving the open meetings law in its entirety. That’s the slipperiest of slopes, and Town Board members must call a halt to such a closed-door discussion as soon as they stop explicitly seeking legal advice.

Citizens rely solely on the honor of our elected officials to protect our rights to open meetings. The officials must know the law, state the exception and specific discussion topic during the motion to convene an executive session, and vote “no” if the matter does not justify closing the door. Otherwise, these rights are meaningless.


For more on your rights to open meetings, visit the New York State Committee on Open Government website by clicking here.