Local officials repeatedly emphasized their commitment to transparency Tuesday night while conducting a municipal meeting entirely in executive session, citing openness, public trust, and the importance of “letting residents know we’re having these conversations.”

The meeting, held at Town Hall and listed on the public agenda as a “discussion of key municipal matters,” was closed to the public for its full duration. Residents who arrived hoping to observe proceedings were instead greeted by a sign taped to the entrance explaining that the meeting would be conducted privately.

Township Supervisor Gerald Lane briefly addressed residents in the hallway before the doors were closed, reiterating the administration’s dedication to transparency and accountability.

“We want to be as transparent as possible,” Lane said. “That’s why we’re telling you we’re meeting.”

Lane said the decision to hold the meeting in executive session was made to allow officials to speak candidly.

“Transparency doesn’t mean every conversation has to happen in public,” he said. “It means people know conversations are happening.”

Officials stressed that nothing improper would be discussed, despite the meeting being fully closed.

“This is routine,” said Supervisor Linda Marshall. “We do this all the time.”

Marshall declined to specify why the entire meeting required privacy, saying only that the issues involved were “sensitive in nature.”

The agenda provided little additional clarity. Posted publicly earlier in the day, it listed the meeting topics as “ongoing municipal matters” and “strategic considerations,” without identifying any specific subjects.

Residents said the lack of detail made it difficult to understand why the meeting was closed.

“I came because I wanted to know what they were working on,” said local resident Tom Alvarez. “Apparently that’s exactly why I can’t be in there.”

Officials said more information would be shared at a later date, though no timeline was provided.

Residents were asked to wait outside while officials met inside the council chamber. Several lingered in the hallway for nearly an hour, expecting that at least part of the meeting might eventually open to the public.

It did not.

At one point, a township staff member emerged briefly to reassure those waiting that the meeting was “going well” before returning inside.

“That was the update,” Alvarez said. “That it was going well.”

Under state law, executive sessions are permitted for limited purposes, including personnel matters, litigation, and certain negotiations. Township officials declined to specify which statutory exemption applied to Tuesday’s meeting.

“It’s a combination,” Marshall said. “Several things.”

Asked whether the meeting could have been divided into public and private portions, Lane said it was more efficient to keep the entire session closed.

“We didn’t want to start and stop,” he said.

Lane added that efficiency was itself a component of transparency.

Throughout the evening, officials asked residents to trust the process.

“We were elected to make decisions,” said Supervisor Karen Liu. “That’s what we’re doing.”

Liu said residents would have opportunities to provide input later, once discussions had progressed further.

Asked when that might be, Liu said it would depend on how things developed.

Residents expressed skepticism.

“They keep saying they’re transparent,” said local resident Diane Foster. “But I can’t see anything.”

Another resident questioned the need to repeatedly emphasize transparency.

“If you have to keep saying it, that makes me nervous,” he said.

Some residents left before the meeting concluded.

“There’s no point waiting,” Alvarez said. “They’re not opening that door.”

After nearly two hours, officials exited the chamber and thanked those remaining for their patience. Lane described the meeting as productive and constructive.

“We had a very honest conversation,” he said.

Asked whether any decisions had been made, Lane said the discussion was preliminary and focused on laying groundwork.

Residents asked what that groundwork involved.

“It’s too early to say,” Lane said.

Officials said details from the meeting would be shared “when appropriate.” Meeting minutes, they said, would note that an executive session had occurred.

That record will not include details of what was discussed.

Open-government advocates say executive sessions are intended to be narrow exceptions, not routine practice.

“They exist for specific reasons,” said Dr. Samuel Roth, a public policy expert. “When they become the default, transparency suffers.”

Roth said repeated assurances of openness can sometimes signal discomfort with scrutiny.

“True transparency is quiet,” he said. “It doesn’t need to be announced.”

Township officials defended their approach, saying they followed all legal requirements.

“We’re doing everything by the book,” Lane said. “And we’re proud of that.”

He reiterated that transparency remains a priority.

“We want residents to know we’re accountable,” he said.

Residents said they would feel more confident if they could see that accountability in action.

Looking ahead, officials said future meetings may include public sessions once discussions advance.

“We’re not hiding anything,” Marshall said. “We’re just not ready to share it yet.”

Residents said they’d continue to attend meetings.

“They keep saying they’re transparent,” Alvarez said. “I just wish I could see it.”

Editor’s Note

Township officials did not specify which statutory exemptions justified the executive session. Requests for clarification regarding the scope of discussions were declined.