ADV OM 99-03 (1999).

• Case Date: March 22, 1999
• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Attorney General Opinions 1999. ADV OM 99-03 (1999). State of Rhode IslandDepartment of the Attorney GeneralADV OM 99-03 (1999)ADV OM 99-03 TOWN OF GLOCESTERMarch 22, 1999Edward BurlingameTown Council PresidentTown of GlocesterChepachet, RI 02814-0702Re: TOWN OF GLOCESTERADVISORY OPINION ON THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ADVISORY OP. OM 99-03 Dear Council President Burlingame: We acknowledge receipt of your letter transmitted by facsimile on March 19, 1999. You are the President of the Town Council in Glocester and are requesting that the Department of the Attorney General render an advisory opinion to the Town Council on the Open Meetings Act. In your letter you relate that Glocester is a municipality governed by a five member Town Council. The Council is beginning its collective bargaining process with the clerks and police dispatchers employed by the Town and belonging to Local Union 1322 of the Laborers' International Union of North America. In the initial meetings with the union representatives, you desire to have two (2) members of the Town Council act as liaisons with each union group (Clerks and Dispatchers). You indicate that you are inclined to post this as a meeting noticed with executive session pursuant to collective bargaining within forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. You further indicate that there would not be a quorum of the Council present at the meetings and no votes would be taken. We are enclosing for your reference a copy of the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. Zoning Board of the Town of Charlestown, slip op. (R.I.Supreme Council President Edward Burlingame March 22, 1999 Page Two Court, Jan. 22, 1999). In Fischer, the Supreme Court stated that: [Chapter 46 of Title 42] provides that in order for the act to apply, a "public body" must convene and there must be a "quorum" of members present. Section 42-46-2(a) and (d). Id. at p. 2. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial justice's determination that since the requirements of Section 42-46-2(a) and (d) had not been met, the act did not apply. Id. Based on the Fischer decision, if the two members of the Town Council are merely meeting with the union...