Local officials repeatedly emphasized their commitment to transparency Tuesday night while conducting a municipal meeting entirely in executive session, citing the importance of openness, public trust, and “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 on the door explaining that the meeting would be conducted privately.
“We want to be as transparent as possible,” said Township Supervisor Gerald Lane, speaking briefly in the hallway before the doors closed. “That’s why we’re telling you we’re meeting.”
A Commitment, Reaffirmed
Lane said the decision to hold the meeting in executive session was made to ensure candid discussion among officials.
“Transparency doesn’t mean every conversation has to happen in public,” he said. “It means people know conversations are happening.”
Officials stressed that nothing inappropriate would be discussed, despite the meeting being closed.
“This is routine,” said Supervisor Linda Marshall. “We do this all the time.”
When asked why the entire meeting required privacy, Marshall said the issues involved were “sensitive in nature.”
She declined to elaborate.
The Agenda, Vague
According to the posted agenda, the meeting would address “ongoing municipal matters” and “strategic considerations.”
No specific topics were listed.
Residents said the lack of detail was frustrating.
“I came because I wanted to understand what they’re working on,” said local resident Tom Alvarez. “Apparently that’s exactly why I can’t be in there.”
Township officials said more information would be shared at a later date.
“We’ll report out what we can,” Lane said.
Public Excluded, Temporarily
Residents were asked to wait outside while officials met inside the council chamber.
Several residents lingered in the hallway for nearly an hour, hoping the meeting would eventually open to the public.
It did not.
At one point, a township staff member emerged to reassure those waiting that the meeting was “going well.”
“That was it,” Alvarez said. “That was the update.”
Executive Session, Explained
Executive sessions are permitted under state law for specific purposes, such as discussing personnel matters, litigation, or property negotiations.
Officials declined to specify which category applied in this case.
“It’s a combination,” said Marshall. “Several things.”
Asked whether the meeting could have been split into public and private portions, Lane said it was more efficient to keep it closed.
“We didn’t want to start and stop,” he said.
Efficiency, Lane added, was also part of transparency.
Trust Requested
Officials repeatedly asked residents to trust the process.
“We were elected to make decisions,” said Supervisor Karen Liu. “That’s what we’re doing.”
Liu emphasized that residents would have opportunities to weigh in later.
“There will be time for public input,” she said.
Asked when that time would be, Liu said it would depend on how discussions progressed.
Residents Respond
Several residents expressed skepticism.
“They keep saying they’re transparent,” said local resident Diane Foster. “But I can’t see anything.”
Another resident questioned why transparency needed to be mentioned so often.
“If they have to keep saying it, that worries me,” he said.
Some residents left before the meeting concluded.
“There’s no point waiting,” Alvarez said. “They’re not opening that door.”
Meeting Concludes
After nearly two hours, officials exited the chamber and thanked residents for their patience.
Lane said the meeting had been productive.
“We had a very honest conversation,” he said.
Asked whether any decisions were made, Lane said the discussion was “preliminary.”
“We’re just laying groundwork,” he said.
Residents asked what the groundwork was for.
“It’s too early to say,” Lane said.
Information, Later
Officials said details from the meeting would be shared “when appropriate.”
Meeting minutes, they said, would reflect that an executive session had occurred.
“There will be a record,” Marshall said.
That record will not include details of the discussion.
Experts Weigh In
Open-government advocates say executive sessions can be overused.
“They’re meant to be limited exceptions,” said Dr. Samuel Roth, a public policy expert. “Not the default.”
Roth said repeated assurances of transparency can sometimes indicate discomfort with scrutiny.
“True transparency is quiet,” he said. “It doesn’t need to be announced.”
Asked whether public trust is affected by closed meetings, Roth said it depends on outcomes.
“If people feel decisions are made without their input, trust erodes,” he said.
Officials Stand Firm
Township officials defended their approach.
“We’re doing everything by the book,” said Lane. “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’d feel more assured if they could see that accountability.
Looking Ahead
Officials said future meetings may include public sessions once discussions move forward.
“We’re not hiding anything,” said Marshall. “We’re just not ready to share it yet.”
Residents said they’d be watching.
“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.
