These days, most of us use emails as naturally as we talk. They are an efficient way to communicate.

But those who are elected to public office — including town boards, village boards, and school boards — need to be aware that emails among board members discussing public business come under New York’s sunshine laws.

There are two — The Open Meetings Law and The Freedom of Information Law. Emails are certainly an easy and efficient way for board members to receive meeting packets ahead of a scheduled session so they can be informed on what matters they will discuss in public. Board members are wise to ask questions about the agenda or share knowledge and expertise about a matter to be discussed.

But what board members cannot do is deliberate through emails or line up as if voting to decide on a matter.  Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government, has issued several advisory opinions, stating that a series of communications by individual board members or telephone calls among the members which result in a collective decision, a meeting or vote held by means of a telephone conference, by mail or email would be inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law.

He cites the law’s legislative declaration: “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.”

If public business is conducted by email, phone, or mail, the intent of letting the public observe deliberations cannot be realized, Freeman writes.

We noted earlier this year that the Berne-Knox-Westerlo School board created a new position without ever discussing it in public. While a board may properly meet to discuss in closed session who should fill a position, the discussion of creating that position should be held in public.

In a 1995 case, Victor W. Gordon et al v. Village of Monticello, the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court decided attorneys’ fees should be awarded to the plaintiffs “given the intentional and flagrant nature of the Open Meetings Law violations.” The court papers describe how, at a public meeting, the village board passed a resolution, as had been agreed previously, in closed session, creating the position of village attorney and “within minutes” — with no public deliberation — made the appointment “as privately pre-arranged by the board at the earlier, closed meeting.”

The decision, written by the late Judith Kaye, then chief judge of the state, notes, “The Open Meetings law, passed in 1976 after the crisis of confidence in American politics occasioned by Watergate, was intended — as its very name suggests — to open the decision-making process of elected officials to the public while at the same time protecting the ability of the government to carry out its responsibilities.”

The New York State School Boards Association has put out a useful guide to email usage, which we urge school districts to consult.

In our March 22 edition, we published two stories by our Hilltown reporter, H. Rose Schneider, about divisions on the Berne Town Board — one involved the expulsion of two Buddhist tenants from a town-owned retreat house at Switzkill Farm, once a Buddhist center, and the other involved appointments being made by the town board.

Berne Councilman Dennis Palow shared with Schneider many of the emails that board members had exchanged on these issues — both matters of public interest. Our story noted Palow was the source of these emails, and Schneider contacted each of the elected officials involved, both to confirm the emails’ content and to give the officials a chance to air their views.

The Berne board is entitled to have a policy that it will discuss matters of appointing someone in closed session — the Open Meeting Law allows this although it does not require it. But the law, at the same time, sets out the procedure that must be followed for an executive session. A vote must be taken in public, at an advertised meeting, to go into to the closed session and then, after the executive session, the board must return to the open meeting to vote on any motions.

To deliberate through email is not in keeping with the law.

We have received some criticism about publishing parts of these emails — we declined to run them all as Councilman Palow had wished; instead we used excerpts, set in context, on matters of public interest. Such emails — among elected officials discussing public business — are rightfully accessible under New York’s other sunshine law, the Freedom of Information Law.

The Local Government Records Law requires, as its name suggests, the preservation of local government records, covering “any book, map, photograph, or other information-recording device, regardless of physical form or characteristic that is made, produced, executed or received by any local government or officer thereof pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”

If a board member discusses town business in an email on a private account — as with the Berne board members’ emails — it is considered a town record and can therefore be requested under the Freedom of Information Law.

We urge towns, villages, and school districts, if they haven’t already, to use designated municipal or school-district email addresses, allowing records of their emails to be easily stored and preserved so that FOIL requests can be readily answered.

If such a system is not in place, towns should instruct board members in protocols — for instance cc-ing the town clerk — that ensure emails discussing public business are preserved and accessible.

Under the Local Government Records Law, a board member may delete emails only as the law permits. To avoid running afoul of the law, we urge school districts and municipalities to consult the guidelines provided by the State Archives on best practices for email management. A place of central control is advised to avoid duplication and to ensure legal compliance.

This system would protect board members, too, because if they unwittingly deleted emails dealing with public business, that could be considered a dereliction of statutory duty, violating an oath of office, and even leading to removal from office.

So, in short, electronic communication comes with constraints under the law.