We have all heard the word "transparency" over the past several years when it relates to government operations. It means that what is said and done in government should be made available to the public to review and scrutinize. This concept absolutely makes sense when you understand and accept that "government" is the mechanism for the people to run the "business" of the community. To bring this home further, the Lawrence Township municipal government serves the community, and is mandated to always act in the community's best interests. Always. Making its actions open to public scrutiny ensures that the public can make informed decisions on whether or not their government is, in fact, working in its best interests.
Recently at one of our council meetings, a person in the audience remained in the council meeting room after the regular agenda was completed and as the municipal attorney, council members, the municipal clerk and I prepared to begin an executive (closed) session. After the public left the room, the man remained in his seat very much unaware about what was to take place. He wanted to hear what we planned to talk about. After a few moments of awkwardness, he was politely told that he must leave the room during "closed" session. He seemed genuinely surprised that he could not remain, but eventually left the room.
There are times when the "business" of the community requires its elected officials to be able to communicate with one another in confidence and outside the scope of public scrutiny. The primary way that our municipal government does this is during "executive" session (or sometimes called, "closed session") that at times may occur during our public council meetings. New Jersey allows for government officials to meet privately to discuss public business under N.J.S.A. 10:4-6. This states, in part:
Public bodies may meet in closed session when the matters under discussion (1) are considered confidential by federal law, state statute or court rule, (2) would jeopardize receipt of federal funds, (3) constitute an unwarranted invasion of individual privacy, (4) concern collect bargaining, (5) involve purchase, lease or investment using public funds, or concern the setting of banking rates, (6) concern investigations of violations or possible violations of the law, or techniques of protecting the safety and property of the public, where disclosure of such techniques could impair such protection, (7) are covered by the attorney-client privilege, (8) concern personnel, or (9) involve certain proceedings which could result in a civil penalty, suspension, or loss of license.
The most frequent uses of executive session that we see in our municipality is to discuss land acquisitions, litigation, and collective bargaining (union) negotiations. To better understand this concept, let's discuss the Town's recent acquisition of the Sheft property (the closing is pending). The strategy for the negotiation of the acquisition of the property was discussed by myself, the municipal attorney and the elected officials in closed sessions. Among other things, we talked about how much we would be willing to pay for the property and under what terms and conditions. Now imagine that these discussions had to take place during a public meeting in the presence of the public. This would mean that the Shefts could have sat in the meeting room listening to how we planned to negotiate with them! Obviously, this would not be in the best interests of our community.
Another example would be discussions involving the strategy the governing body wishes to pursue in collective bargaining negotiation with the various unions that represent the Township's employees. How much would we be willing to offer for cost of living increases? What terms and conditions in the prior contract need to be revised or omitted altogether because they work against the proper functioning of the department? If these discussions were required to be done during a public meeting where union members may situate themselves, the best interests of the community would most certainly be jeopardized.
As important as it is for your elected officials to be able to discuss certain issues in private among one another in a manner that protects the public interest, it is as important that those same officials keep the discussion completely confidential and not repeat anything that was said in closed session. If an official violated that confidentiality and revealed to anyone what was said, it would be an ethical and legal violation of the law. If the officials in a closed session fear that one among them will not keep the confidence of the subject matter and reveal it to others, open discussions cannot be conducted and government "work" cannot be completed. It undermines the ability to act effectively on behalf of the community.
In conclusion, there are very valid and real reasons to have government officials be able to communicate in private on issues that affect the community, and also for those same officials to know and understand the reasons why confidentiality must be protected. In the end, when the acquisitions are completed, the union negotiations are concluded or litigation is settled, the minutes of the closed sessions are made available to the public to consider and scrutinize. This system is necessary and it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment