A portion of the March 27 Joint Board meeting was held in camera. The reason provided on the Agenda for that meeting said that the issue had to do with security of the property.
I obtained a copy of the signed motion from that meeting to go into the closed session. The motion states the reasons for the meeting being closed as being security of the property plus personal matters about an identifiable individual.
On the Agenda for the April 13 closed meeting, we were told that the matter had to do with security of the property (no “personal matters”).
The Agenda for the April 17 closed meeting refers to security of the property plus a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
The recently-published (Jan 15, 2015) third edition of the “Sunshine Law Handbook” says this about closed meetings: The resolution to go into a closed meeting should provide a general description of the issue to be discussed in a way that maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public (my emphasis with bold font).
Rather than “maximizing the information available,” it would appear that the Joint Board is doing its level best to confuse the public by providing different “standard” reasons.
April 15, 2015