By ANDY GARDNER

MASSENA -- The village board on Tuesday tabled a resolution to canvas for an abruptly vacated firefighter position, which drew the ire of the firefighters’ union president. Meanwhile, the board agreed to canvas for a vacant police position for a patrolman who reportedly faced disciplinary action after a suspect escaped custody on his watch.

The board tabled hiring a permanent firefighter whose identity the board and fire department officials would not initially divulge.

“It’s a confidential employee personnel matter,” Mayor Tim Currier said at the meeting. “I’m not at liberty to say in a public forum.”

Later in the evening via email, he said after confirming via the village payroll department that the former firefighter is Brandon Sheet.

At the meeting, Currier said Sheet was removed from the position because they “failed to meet the requirements set forth by civil service guidelines to obtain a permanent position.”

“We dealt with an employee personnel matter involving discipline,” Currier said. “The law prohibits me from speaking specifically about it.”

Firefighters Local 2220 President Walter Bean said the department needs the position to be filled quickly.

“We need this position. Overtime costs are going to start to go up,” Bean said. “That position is also a budgeted amount.”

He noted that the firefighters have assumed the code enforcement duties, which with a short staff, means high overtime costs.

“We took over the code enforcement, we didn’t ask for anything more,” Bean said. “We don’t just sit around all day, we don’t just do our job when the alarm rings.”

He said it will take time to get the person actually working because they have to pass an 11-week fire academy class. They are only offered for two sessions – one in the spring and the other in the fall.

The board okayed canvassing to fill former Patrolman Tyler Condlin’s job.

Currier, a former police chief, would not say why he left the post.

“It’s an employee confidential matter,” he said.

WWNY Channel 7 reported on April 30 that Condlin could have potentially faced disciplinary action stemming from an incident in February where a suspect in custody escaped under his watch.

The story can be read in its entirety here.

Following the meeting, the board voted to go into executive session following a motion form Currier.

Reading verbatim from the state open meetings law, Currier said the session was to discuss “the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation.”

He said the board would take action in executive session, rather than returning to public session.

He cited “the advice of our attorney” for keeping the vote behind closed doors.

A 2012 state Supreme Court case ruled that a public body reading the law verbatim was not enough to constitute a legal executive session.

In Zehner v. Board of Education of Jordan-Elbridge Central School District, the court ruled that the school board cannot recite “statutory categories for going into executive session without setting forth more precise reasons for doing so,” according to the New York State Department of State.

Boards must give more specific information that just reading the law to give the public a clue that they are closing the doors for a legitimate reason, the court decided.

“It may no longer be sufficient for a motion to indicate the discussion pertains to “the employment history of a particular person” or “matters leading to the employment of a particular person” when interviewing candidates for a position. The Court appears to require that the motion indicate the position for which the candidates are being considered. While there may be a few circumstances under which this is not appropriate, it appears that this requirement is not only in keeping with the tenets of the Law, but that it offers clarification that will assist in minimizing speculation regarding the propriety of of discussions that occur in private,” the Department of State said. “Similarly, it can be inferred from the decision that when there is need to discuss an employee’s job performance, and any potential discipline resulting from such performance, the public body should refrain from listing all of the potential issues that could be discussed pursuant to section 105(1)(f); rather, a motion should refer only to those that are intended to be discussed. For example, a motion could simply be “to discuss the employment history of a particular person and matters leading to that person’s potential discipline or suspension.” It remains the view of this office that the name of a person need not be disclosed in a motion to conduct an executive session.”

Read more about the Zehner decision here.