When and Why Public Officials Keep Discussions Behind Closed Doors

Even as a child I was always the first one to open the door someone told me not to go into. So when the town board takes matters into closed executive session, it makes sense that I would want to know what’s behind that door as well.

"Executive session" is the term for part of a public meeting—such as a town board meeting—which suddenly becomes private. Minutes are not taken, members of the public are not present and any discussion that occurs there is confidential. Breaching that confidentiality is even grounds for prosecution. So when you talk about transparency in government, executive session is definitely not it.

Executive session has been an integral part of local and national government proceedings since our political system’s infancy. Originally all Senate hearings were held privately and off the record. After increasing pressure for hearings to become public, a compromise was reached. The Senate agreed to hold all proceedings publicly and on the record with the exception of discussions on treaties and nominations, which they termed "executive business," and which were still held privately. Hence, the beginning of the executive session.

Nowadays, executive session at the national level is limited to confidential or sensitive treaty or nomination issues as well as other items introduced for executive review only by the president. However, it is used less and less frequently as the public and press seek increased transparency from our federal government.

In the case of our town administration, executive session is held at the request of any council member following a town board meeting. If you attend a meeting, at the end you will hear the mayor ask if anyone has any issues for executive session review. If so, the board leaves the public forum—in this case the court room at town hall—and gathers in a conference room for the ensuing private discussion.

I am conceptually opposed to a closed-door meeting of any kind when it comes to municipal government. I believe that if board members are truly our elected representatives then we have a right to hear all issues up for discussion.

Proponents of the executive session say that public sessions do not allow board members the freedom to fully express their views or adequately deal with highly sensitive matters.

I still question that, but I am somewhat appeased by the fact that executive session topics are strictly limited to five matters: personnel, legal issues, settlement of claim, corporate certiorari and advice of counsel, and that the actual votes on the issues discussed within those sessions still have to be held in public.

Mayor/Supervisor Joan Walsh has also put into place the practice, when reading the resolution up for vote, of noting who proposed the resolution and who seconded it, so at least we know where people stand on the issue and from whom it originated.

Of course, that doesn’t let us in on the actual discussions, or the additional topics that are discussed and never come to a vote.

Despite the strict confidentiality rules of executive session, some of those discussions still manage to make their way to the press or public. There’s the old reporter joke that whatever you want made public, bring it up in executive session, because it's sure to be leaked. And that has happened innumerable times over the years with interesting and important news stories coming out at both the national and local level.

At Harrison's next executive session, scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, the board is interviewing candidates for the position of library director. Not exactly of earth shattering interest, unless you’re a library staff member or severely behind on your late book fees.

As it turns out, some closed doors are just more interesting than others.