OM 99-08 (1999).

• Case Date: May 20, 1999
• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Attorney General Opinions 1999. OM 99-08 (1999). State of Rhode IslandDepartment of the Attorney GeneralOM 99-08 (1999)OM 99-08 Providence School BoardOM Advisory 99-08May 20, 1999Joseph Rotella, Esq.Providence School BoardProvidence, Rhode Island 02903Re: Providence School BoardRequest for Open Meetings Act Advisory Opinion Dear Mr. Rotella: We acknowledge receipt of your letter faxed to this Department on May 20, 1999. You are the legal counsel for the Providence School Board (Board) and in that capacity you are requesting an advisory opinion on the Open Meetings Act (OMA). In your letter you relate that the Board has scheduled an informational session with President Gordon Gee of Brown University concerning the search process to name a new Superintendent for the Providence Public Schools. It is your understanding that President Gee will present general information regarding the search process and update the Board concerning its status. You expect that the members of the Board will ask President Gee questions. This session has been advertised as an executive session, but according to your representations, the Board plans to hold this meeting in open session. You are requesting an advisory opinion concerning "whether or not this meeting which was advertised as an executive session may be held in open session without violating the Open Meetings Law." At the outset we note that the OMA mandates that all "public bodies" hold open meetings unless closed pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-46-4 and 42-46-5. Based upon the information conveyed in your letter, we are of the opinion that this discussion is not proper for executive session. Presumably, the Board had planned to convene in executive session pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-5(a)(1), which permits a public body to convene in executive session for "discussions of the job performance, character, or physical or mental health of Mr. Joseph Rotella May 20, 1999 Page 2 of 3 a person or persons." Based upon your representation that President Gee will be providing information of a "general nature with no specific reference to any individual," we believe that this discussion falls outside the ambit of subsection (a)(1). See Moon v. East Greenwich Fire District, OM 96-23 (closed session to open job applications was improper). But see Finnegan v. Scituate Town...