City's closed meeting violating state guidelines?

The agenda for a closed session involving the city's Executive Committee tonight does not specifically mention what the committee will discuss. The omission may violate a ruling from the state Attorney General on closed meetings.

The agenda reads:

Communication from the City Administrator wishing to convene in closed session to discuss with the Executive Committee, and to confer with legal counsel, concerning strategy with respect to litigation in which the City of Racine is or is likely to become involved.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice's 2007 Open Meetings Compliance Guide reads (emphasis added):

b. Closed session

The notice provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) requires that if the chief presiding officer or the officer’s designee knows at the time he or she gives notice of a meeting that a closed session is contemplated, the notice must contain the subject matter to be considered in closed session. Such notice “must contain enough information for the public to discern whether the subject matter is authorized for closed session under § 19.85(1).” Buswell, 2007 WI 71, ¶ 37 n.7. The Attorney General has advised that notice of closed sessions must contain the specific nature of the business, as well as the exemption(s) under which the chief presiding officer believes a closed session is authorized. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 93, 98. Merely identifying and quoting from a statutory exemption does not reasonably identify any particular subject that might be taken up thereunder and thus is not adequate notice of a closed session. Weinschenk Correspondence, December 29, 2006; Anderson Correspondence, February 13, 2007. In State ex rel. Schaeve v. Van Lare, 125 Wis. 2d 40, 47, 370 N.W.2d 271 (Ct. App. 1985), the court held that a notice to convene in closed session under Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(b) “‘to conduct a hearing to consider the possible discipline of a public employee’” was sufficient.

The Executive Committee may be in the clear, though, following a ruling last year by District Attorney Mike Nieskes. Read a recap of the last challenge to an Executive Committee meeting here.

Update: I talked with City Administrator Tom Friedel this afternoon. He disagreed with our interpretation of the open records law, and, to be fair, the Racine County District Attorney appears to agree with him.

Friedel said the city is being specific when it says it plans to meet "concerning strategy with respect to litigation in which the City of Racine is or is likely to become involved." The city doesn't want to get more specific because it doesn't want to tip its hand and give the opposition an advantage in court.

Speaking on behalf of the state's "Sunshine Laws," we'd argue the city needs to at least reference the case it intends to meet on. It has every right to meet privately to discuss strategy, it just needs to say what it's going to meet privately about.

We really don't post these items to make city government "look bad." Everybody here seems to be acting reasonably. We just believe government functions best when it gives as much information as possible. In this case, we believe more specifics were needed on the Executive Committee's agenda.

Update 2: The meeting was canceled.