Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410

Closed session; when; purpose; reasons listed; procedure; right to challenge; prohibited acts; chance meetings, conventions, or workshops

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any public body may hold a closed session by the affirmative vote of a majority of its voting members if a closed session is clearly necessary for the protection of the public interest or for the prevention of needless injury to the reputation of an individual and if such individual has not requested a public meeting. The subject matter and the reason necessitating the closed session shall be identified in the motion to close. Closed sessions may be held for, but shall not be limited to, such reasons as:

(a) Strategy sessions with respect to collective bargaining, real estate purchases, pending litigation, or litigation which is imminent as evidenced by communication of a claim or threat of litigation to or by the public body;

(b) Discussion regarding deployment of security personnel or devices;

(c) Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct;

(d) Evaluation of the job performance of a person when necessary to prevent needless injury to the reputation of a person and if such person has not requested a public meeting;

(e) For the Community Trust created under section 81-1801.02, discussion regarding the amounts to be paid to individuals who have suffered from a tragedy of violence or natural disaster; or

(f) For public hospitals, governing board peer review activities, professional review activities, review and discussion of medical staff investigations or disciplinary actions, and any strategy session concerning transactional negotiations with any referral source that is required by federal law to be conducted at arms length.

Nothing in this section shall permit a closed meeting for discussion of the appointment or election of a new member to any public body.

(2) The vote to hold a closed session shall be taken in open session. The entire motion, the vote of each member on the question of holding a closed session, and the time when the closed session commenced and concluded shall be recorded in the minutes. If the motion to close passes, then the presiding officer immediately prior to the closed session shall restate on the record the limitation of the subject matter of the closed session. The public body holding such a closed session shall restrict its consideration of matters during the closed portions to only those purposes set forth in the motion to close as the reason for the closed session. The meeting shall be reconvened in open session before any formal action may be taken. For purposes of this section, formal action shall mean a collective decision or a collective commitment or promise to make a decision on any question, motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance or formation of a position or policy but shall not include negotiating guidance given by members of the public body to legal counsel or other negotiators in closed sessions authorized under subdivision (1)(a) of this section.

(3) Any member of any public body shall have the right to challenge the continuation of a closed session if the member determines that the session has exceeded the reason stated in the original motion to hold a closed session or if the member contends that the closed session is neither clearly necessary for (a) the protection of the public interest or (b) the prevention of needless injury to the reputation of an individual. Such challenge shall be overruled only by a majority vote of the members of the public body. Such challenge and its disposition shall be recorded in the minutes.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that any meeting be closed to the public. No person or public body shall fail to invite a portion of its members to a meeting, and no public body shall designate itself a subcommittee of the whole body for the purpose of circumventing the Open Meetings Act. No closed session, informal meeting, chance meeting, social gathering, email, fax, or other electronic communication shall be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.

(5) The act does not apply to chance meetings or to attendance at or travel to conventions or workshops of members of a public body at which there is no meeting of the body then intentionally convened, if there is no vote or other action taken regarding any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City (2019) neb · cites it 3× “Section 84-1410(4) provides in part, "No closed session, informal meeting, chance meeting, social gathering, email, fax, or other electronic communication shall be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.”
Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Board (2002) neb · cites it 5× “” In Otey, supra, and Witt, supra, this court considered a lack of sufficient public notice pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1411 (Cum. Supp. 1998); the present case deals with objection to a closed session under Neb.”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha (2007) neb · cites it 2× “Elkhorn argues that these informal meetings gave council members an opportunity to formulate public policy in private, which violated § 84-1410(4). This statute provides that informal meetings shall not “be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.”
Pokorny v. City of Schuyler (1979) neb · cites it 4× “The trial court found that the executive session held at the special meeting on March 16, 1977, also *339 violated section 84-1410, R. R. S. 1943. The statute permits a closed session if it is “clearly necessary for the protection of the public interest or for the prevention of…”
Grein v. Board of Education (1984) neb · cites it 6× “Grein claimed that the closed session of the board was not authorized by § 84-1410. The answer filed by the board alleges that a closed session was necessary for the protection of the public interest or for the prevention of needless injury to the reputation of an individual.”
Robinson v. Morrill Cty. Sch. Dist. 63 (2018) neb · cites it 3× “24 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410 (Reissue 2014).”
State Ex Rel. Upper Republican Natural Resources District v. Honorable District Judges (2007) neb “8 § 84-1410(1). 9 Grein v. Board of Education, 216 Neb.”
Meyer v. Board of Regents (1993) nebctapp · cites it 8× “” See § 84-1410. During this closed session, the Board began its discussion regarding Dr.”
McQuinn v. Douglas County School District No. 66 (2000) neb · cites it 3× “uring McQuinn’s third year of employment as required by § 79-828(2); (3) in not finding that the District failed to follow its own established practice and procedures for evaluations; (4) in finding that Bruckner evaluated McQuinn on several occasions during the 1996-97 school…”
Meyer v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF U. OF NEB. (1993) nebctapp · cites it 8× “" See § 84-1410. During this closed session, the Board began its discussion regarding Dr.”
Hauser v. Nebraska Police Standards Advisory Council (2002) neb · cites it 2× “Wasikowski dealt with a purported closed session violation under § 84-1410, and not with a lack of sufficient public notice under § 84-1411.”
Kanahele v. Maui County Council. (2013) haw “805(3) (West, Westlaw through 1994 Act 245) (“ ‘Action taken’ means a collective decision, a commitment or promise to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of the governmental body”); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-1410(2) (West, Westlaw…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(1) — 4 cases
Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Board (2002) neb “” In Otey, supra, and Witt, supra, this court considered a lack of sufficient public notice pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1411 (Cum. Supp. 1998); the present case deals with objection to a closed session under Neb.”
State Ex Rel. Upper Republican Natural Resources District v. Honorable District Judges (2007) neb “8 § 84-1410(1). 9 Grein v. Board of Education, 216 Neb.”
Meyer v. Board of Regents (1993) nebctapp “” See § 84-1410. During this closed session, the Board began its discussion regarding Dr.”
Meyer v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF U. OF NEB. (1993) nebctapp “" See § 84-1410. During this closed session, the Board began its discussion regarding Dr.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(2) — 1 case
Kanahele v. Maui County Council. (2013) haw “805(3) (West, Westlaw through 1994 Act 245) (“ ‘Action taken’ means a collective decision, a commitment or promise to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of the governmental body”); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-1410(2) (West, Westlaw…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(4) — 5 cases
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City (2019) neb “Section 84-1410(4) provides in part, "No closed session, informal meeting, chance meeting, social gathering, email, fax, or other electronic communication shall be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.”
City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha (2007) neb “Elkhorn argues that these informal meetings gave council members an opportunity to formulate public policy in private, which violated § 84-1410(4). This statute provides that informal meetings shall not “be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(5) — 3 cases
Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City (2019) neb “Section 84-1410(4) provides in part, "No closed session, informal meeting, chance meeting, social gathering, email, fax, or other electronic communication shall be used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the act.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(l)(a) — 1 case
Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Board (2002) neb “” In Otey, supra, and Witt, supra, this court considered a lack of sufficient public notice pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1411 (Cum. Supp. 1998); the present case deals with objection to a closed session under Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(l)(d) — 1 case
McQuinn v. Douglas County School District No. 66 (2000) neb “uring McQuinn’s third year of employment as required by § 79-828(2); (3) in not finding that the District failed to follow its own established practice and procedures for evaluations; (4) in finding that Bruckner evaluated McQuinn on several occasions during the 1996-97 school…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.