First, the groundwork.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the open meetings law applies whenever a gathering of members of a governmental body satisfies two requirements:
(1) there is a purpose to engage in governmental business and
(2) the number of members present is sufficient to determine the governmental body’s course of action.
Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102.
The first part of the Showers decision is defined here:
State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 553, 572-74, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993).
The second part depends on what form of decision making authority the governemental body operates under:
1. Simple majority
2. Negative quorums
3. Walking quorums
4. Telephone conference calls
5. Multiple meetings
It is clear from the current discussion that a meeting did occur and the purpose of that meeting was to conduct the govermental body's purpose.
Next, we examine the 'notification' question: Aren't they suppose to put it on the agenda that they would be discussing me in closed session and that I have a right to request it be done in open session or at least be there for the meeting.
The two most basic requirements of the open meetings law are that a governmental body:
(1) give advance public notice of each of its meetings, and
(2) conduct all of its business in open session, unless an exemption to the open session requirementapplies.
In the current discussion, there is no mention that notification of the meeting is at issue so we assume that the meeting itself was notified as per law. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(1) One such provision is the contents of such notice which requires "time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2).
Based on the above, it appears that unless the personnel discussion was included in the notification (and it could have been provided for by simply stating 'personnel discussion') then the notification fails.
For example, the court of appeals has held that the subject matter designation “licenses” was specific enough to apprise members of the public that a liquor license would be considered for approval. State ex rel. H.D. Ent. v. City of Stoughton, 230 Wis. 2d 480, 486, 602 N.W.2d 72 (Ct. App. 1999). Cf. Olson v. City of Baraboo, 2002 WI App 64, 252 Wis. 2d 628, ¶¶ 13-17, 643 N.W.2d 796
The second point is dependent upon a study of current 'open meetings exclusions' which follows. 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. The notice 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. at 98 (1977). 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.
Now, as to the exemptions to the 'open meetings law' there are 11 such:
1. Judicial or quasi-judicial hearings
2. Employment and licensing matters
a.Consideration of dismissal, demotion, discipline, licensing and tenure
b. Consideration of employment, promotion, compensation and
performance evaluations
3. Consideration of financial, medical, social or personal information
4. Conducting public business with competitive or bargaining implications
5. Conferring with legal counsel with respect to litigation
6. Considering applications for probation or parole, or considering strategy for
crime detection or prevention. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(d).
7. Specified deliberations by the state council on unemployment insurance
and the state council on worker’s compensation. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(ee)
and (eg).
8. Specified deliberations involving the location of a burial site. Wis. Stat. §
19.85(1)(em).
9. Consideration of requests for confidential written advice from an ethics
board. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(h).
10.Considering specified matters related to a business ceasing its operations
or laying off employees. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(i).
11. Considering specified financial information relating to the support of a
nonprofit corporation operating an ice rink owned by the state. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.85(1)(j).
Also, although there is no specific requirement that a contemplated closed session be noticed to the public, the subject matter of such a session must be included in any such meeting notification.
Again, although the Wisconsin Supreme court has already weighed in on the issue of voting in closed session, the act has since been amended and muddied the waters. The Wisconsin Attorney General advises a governmental body should vote in open session, unless doing so would compromise the need for the closed session. Accord, Epping, 218 Wis. 2d at 524 n.4 (even if deliberations were conducted in an unlawful closed session, a subsequent vote taken in open session could not be voided).
The above discussion is intended to allow you to better understand your situation. However, since no one except you was in attendence at this meeting the ONLY part of your post I can legitimately comment on is the reading of the results of the closed meeting which is perfectly legal and required under the Wisconsisn Open Meetings statute.
How it sounds to you is of little consequence and not actionable.
