§92-5  Exceptions.  (a)  A board may
hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of
the following purposes:



(1)  To consider and evaluate personal information
relating to individuals applying for professional or vocational licenses cited
in section 26-9 or both;



(2)  To consider the hire, evaluation, dismissal, or
discipline of an officer or employee or of charges brought against the officer
or employee, where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved;
provided that if the individual concerned requests an open meeting, an open
meeting shall be held;



(3)  To deliberate concerning the authority of persons
designated by the board to conduct labor negotiations or to negotiate the
acquisition of public property, or during the conduct of such negotiations;



(4)  To consult with the board's attorney on questions
and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities,
and liabilities;



(5)  To investigate proceedings regarding criminal
misconduct;



(6)  To consider sensitive matters related to public
safety or security;



(7)  To consider matters relating to the solicitation
and acceptance of private donations; and



(8)  To deliberate or make a decision upon a matter
that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential
pursuant to a state or federal law, or a court order.



(b)  In no instance shall the board make a
decision or deliberate toward a decision in an executive meeting on matters not
directly related to the purposes specified in subsection (a).  No chance
meeting, permitted interaction, or electronic communication shall be used to
circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to
deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has
supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. [L 1975, c 166, pt of
§1; am L 1985, c 278, §3; gen ch 1985; am L 1996, c 267, §3; am L 1998, c 48,
§1; am L 1999, c 49, §1]



 



Attorney General Opinions



 



  Subsection (a)(1) is applicable only when a specific
individual is involved.  Att. Gen. Op. 75-11.



  Even if there is no quorum, meeting to discuss official
business may be prohibited unless sunshine law followed.  Att. Gen. Op. 85-27.



  Subsection (a)(2) and §92-9 read together permit board and commission
members to disclose some matters deliberated or decided in executive session,
but they cannot disclose matters which would be inconsistent with subsection
(a)(2), i.e., matters affecting privacy of individuals under consideration for
hire, and they must maintain this confidentiality for as long as disclosure
would defeat purpose of convening the executive meeting.  Att. Gen. Op. 94-1.



 



Case Notes



 



  Although §92-2.5(a) does not expressly preclude city counsel
members from engaging in serial one-on-one conversations, when council members
engaged in a series of one-on-one conversations relating to a particular item
of council business, under subsection (b), the spirit of the open meeting
requirement was circumvented and the strong policy of having public bodies
deliberate and decide its business in view of the public was thwarted and
frustrated. 117 H. 1 (App.), 175 P.3d 111.



  In a suit deciding whether disclosure of county council
executive session minutes was required, circuit court properly found that both
chapter 92F and this chapter applied; if the meeting met an exception to the
open meeting requirements put forth in this chapter, such as an exception
enumerated in this section, the council was not required to disclose the
minutes of that meeting to the public; if the meeting did not fall under such
an exception, the council was required to disclose the minutes  pursuant to
§92-9 and §92F-12.  120 H. 34 (App.), 200 P.3d 403.



  Where it was clear from the county council executive session
minutes that the county attorney consulted with the council consistently and at
length throughout the executive session regarding the procedure to follow in
conducting an investigation of the county police department and that the
council's consultation with the attorney largely concerned the ramifications of
the sunshine law on the council's investigation -- a legal question, the
council was justified in closing the meeting to the public in executive
session.  120 H. 34 (App.), 200 P.3d 403.



  Where the county council executive session conversation
consisted of either direct communication between the council members and the
county attorney or communication among council members that flowed from
consultation with the county attorney, the attorney-client portions of the
executive session were so intertwined with other portions of the executive
session that redacting the privileged portions and disclosing the remainder of
the minutes was impractical.  120 H. 34 (App.), 200 P.3d 403.