Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against defendant, alleging defendant violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21. The complaint claimed defendant deliberated and decided it would vote to appoint a specific candidate to fill a vacancy on the Board of Education in closed session and then resumed its public session to nominate and vote the candidate onto the Board.
The OPMA contains several exceptions to the requirement for open public meetings, including as relevant here, N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8), the so-called personnel exception. The exception states: "A public body may exclude the public only from that portion of a meeting at which the public body discusses any: . . . matter involving the . . . appointment . . . of any specific prospective public officer . . . ." N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8).
Relying on Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Board of Education of Manville, 201 N.J. Super. 65 (Law Div. 1984), the trial court found N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) did not apply because that case held the personnel exception inapplicable to elected officials. The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment, voided the Board member's appointment, and subsequently denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, defendant argues it did not violate the OPMA because it was permitted to discuss the candidate in closed session and then nominate and vote to appoint the candidate in public session. It claims the trial court misinterpreted Gannett.
The court affirms as modified, and concludes defendant violated the OPMA. The record showed Board members reviewed and ranked their top choices before the public meeting. Once in its closed session, Board members discussed the pros and cons of the top three candidates and agreed to nominate a specific candidate. When the public session resumed, the floor was opened for nominations, a Board member nominated the consensus candidate, another member seconded the nomination, and the Board voted—all without taking questions or comments from the public regarding the candidates or having a public discussion.
However, the court disapproves of the holding in Gannett that N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) does not apply to elected officials appointed by a board because it is unsupported by the plain language of the statute. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) applied here since defendant was discussing a matter involving the appointment of a specific prospective public officer.
The court holds a board may discuss candidates it intends to appoint in closed session. However, when it resumes the public session, it must explain any decisions taken during the closed session and allow public discussion about those decisions and other matters the public wishes to raise, before it moves to nominations and a vote to fill a vacancy.