Republican members of the Dunkirk Common Council in recent years have touted how transparency is needed when dealing with public issues. On Tuesday night, that group went back on its word.

For no good reason whatsoever, the legislative body decided to go into executive session to discuss an amended resolution regarding how to handle traffic-ticket prosecution. The amendment offered 40% of traffic violation fine income to the city attorney, Richard Morrisroe, and 10% to his paralegal. In the previous version of the resolution, Morrisroe was to get 50% and the paralegal wasn’t mentioned.

So, the important question here is this: what was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the public’s eye during the council meeting? It certainly did not meet the criteria of executive session under the New York state open meeting laws.

Those include:

¯ Matters which would imperil the public safety if disclosed.

¯ Any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer.

¯ Information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed.

¯ Discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation.

¯ Collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law.

¯ 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.

¯ The preparation, grading or administration of examinations.

¯ The proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by the public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value of the real property or securities.

What Common Council did Tuesday night was illegal. So much for its vow of “transparency” while working for the constituency.