ValleySentinel POBox144
SpringGreen,WI53588
editor@valleysentinelnewscom
October16,2024
VillageofArenaBoardofTrustees
345WestStreet Arena,Wisconsin53503
Boardmembers
Uponguidanceofourlegalcounsel,I’vebeenadvisedthattheVillageofArenaBoardofTrusteesareunabletoconvene inclosedsessionforagendaitem4 “ConvenetoclosedsessionpursuanttoWIstatue[sic]section1985(e),forthe purposeofDeliberating[sic]ornegotiatingthepurchasingofpublicproperties,theinvestingofpublicfunds,or conductingotherspecifiedpublicbusiness,whenevercompetitiveorbargainingreasonsrequireaclosedsession, specificallytodiscussthecontinuationoftheFireProtectionandEMSServiceAgreementwiththeTownofArenaand District1EMSproposal[.]”
Withoutgettingextremelytechnicalinthebodyofthismemo,thenoticeforameetingofagovernmentalbody’sclosed sessionmustbespecific.Itisnotsufficientsimplytociteorquotetherelevantstatutepermittingclosure.Theremustbea descriptionthatsufficientlydescribestheintendedsubjectoftheclosedsession Adescriptionwasincludedinthenotice, butourlegalcounseladvisesusthatthisdescriptionissimplynotgoodenough.Itisalsonotclearthattheclosedsession wouldbelegalevenifthepropernoticewereissued.
Thecourtshaveexplainedthatlegallysufficientdescriptionmustbedetailedenoughthatamemberofthegovernmental body,oramemberofthepublic,oracourt,wouldbeabletotellfromthedescriptionwhetherthepurposeoftheclosed sessionactuallysatisfiesthestatute Theburdenisonthegovernmentalbodytoprovideenoughinformationtoshowthat theclosureisreallyjustified.
Thisisnottheonlystandardthatmustbemet,butitisaminimum Thestandardmaybehigher,forexample,ifthe importanceandpublicinterestinthetopicunderconsiderationishigh,orifabetterdescriptioncanbeofferedwithout muchburdentothegovernmentalbody Butinallcases,thedescriptionmustbegoodenoughtoshowthatclosureis warranted.
Inthiscaseitisn’t Merely“discussing”thecontinuationofanagreementisnotsomethingthatgenerallyrequiresa meetingtobeclosed.Thecourtshaveemphasizedthat“required”meansactuallynecessary,notjusthelpful.Andclosure isnotrequiredforanentiresessionwhenonlypartsofitactuallymeritclosure Itmaybethattherearepartsofdiscussingthecontinuationoftheagreement,suchassettlinguponanegotiatingstrategy, thatcouldlegitimatelyrequireclosingthemeetingtothepressandpublic however,theVillagedidnotspecifically statethis anditisnotnecessarytoremovethepeoplefromalldiscussionoftheissue,whichiswhatthenoticesays Andifthenoticewasmeanttoreflectsomethingmorespecific,itwastheobligationoftheboardtosetthatout sufficiently.Asitstands,theneedforclosingthemeetingisnotreadilyapparent,andsothenoticeisnotgoodenoughto allowthemeetingtobeclosed 1
1 For example, the AG has said in its helpful open meetings law compliance guide that the board and its attorney may want to remedially review, the specificity required of a notice for a closed session entails making clear which of several reasons for exemption given in a statutory subsection actually is being utilized. Thus, where Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(c) allows governmental bodies to use closed sessions to interview candidates for positions of employment, to consider promotions of particular
(IwillnoteinpassingthattheTownofArenarecentlyheldsuchameeting,inwhichtheyenteredclosedsessionto specificallyagreeonanegotiatingstrategy,andweconsideredtheirnoticetobebroadlysufficient.Ifthatisyourpurpose here,thenyoumightfollowtheirexample)
Anymemberofagovernmentalbodywhoknowinglyattendsameetingheldinviolationoftheopenmeetingslaw,or otherwiseviolatesthelaw,issubjecttoaforfeitureofbetween$25and$300foreachviolation TheWisconsinSupreme Courthasdefined“knowingly”asnotonlypositiveknowledgeoftheillegalityofameeting,butalsoawarenessofthe highprobabilityofthemeeting’sillegalityorconsciousavoidanceofawarenessoftheillegality PerWisconsinOpen MeetingsLaw,boardmembersareabletoabsolvethemselvesofliabilityiftheyvoteagainstthemotiontogointo closedsession,orotherwisemakeorvoteinfavorofamotiontopreventtheviolationfromoccurring.
Becauseofoverlybroaddescriptioninthenoticeofthereasonforclosingthesession,lackinganyrealexplanationor specificityofhowclosureofthemeetingwouldbenecessaryunderanypartofthestatute,andthefactthatthesestatutes aretobeliberallyconstruedtoprovideasmuchpublictransparencyandaccessaspossible,itisthepositionof Valley Sentinel asnewsmedia,uponadviceofourlegalcounsel,thatthismeetingmustbeheldinopensessionandthata representativeof Valley Sentinel willstayinattendanceforthedurationofthemeetingasthetopicisoneofgreatpublic interesttoreporton
WhileretainingallrightsaffordedtonewsmediaandthepublicunderWisconsinStatute, Valley Sentinel andits representativewillremainorderlyandwillcomplywithanorderofthechair,lawfulorotherwise,toremovea publicnon-memberoftheboardfromthegalleryandwillremovethemselvesfromthemeetingroomunderduress andinprotestifsuchanorderismade.
Thankyou,
TaylorQ Scott Co-Owner/Publisher/ManagingEditor, Valley Sentinel
employees, to consider the compensation of particular employees, and to conduct employee evaluations, each of these phrases beginning with the words, “interviewing” or “considering” or” conducting”, is a different reason that should be identified in the meeting notice and in the motion to convene into closed session. Reynolds/Kreibich Correspondence (Oct. 23, 2003). [Emphasis added]
With regard to (e), which includes “[d]eliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session” the notice states “discuss the continuation of the Fire Protection and EMS Service Agreement with the Town of Arena and District 1 EMS proposal” which cannot generally require the meeting to be closed and thus cannot be considered the “other specified public business” alone If the purpose was to establish a negotiating strategy regarding that agreement and the proposal then that needs to be specified, otherwise it would not be unreasonable for the public to wonder whether perhaps the Village believes it is exempt from holding an open meeting under the provisions for considering purchasing public properties or investing public funds with regard to the Fire & EMS agreement or District 1
The AG further advises that an announcement of a contemplated closed session under Wis Stat § 19 85(1)(e) that provides only a conclusory assertion that the subject of the session will involve competitive or bargaining issues is inadequate because it does not reflect how the proposed discussion would implicate the competitive or bargaining interests of the body or the body’s basis for concluding that the subject falls within the exemption Wirth/Lamoreaux Correspondence (May 30, 2007)
Further, as the AG reminds us, the use of the word “require” in Wis Stat § 19 85(1)(e) limits the exemption to situations in which competitive or bargaining reasons leave a governmental body with no option other than to close the meeting Citizens for Responsible Dev., 2007 WI App 114, ¶ 14.
Lastly, the AG has said competitive or bargaining reasons permit a closed session where the discussion will directly and substantially affect negotiations with a third party, but not where the discussions might be one of several factors that indirectly influence the outcome of those negotiations Henderson Correspondence (Mar 24, 1992) Even where “discussion will directly and substantially affect negotiations with a third party” that alone does not absolve the body of adhering to the other requirements found in statute and case law