Thank you for contacting me and making me aware of this important issue. My comments are as follows:
Prioritizing public comment in the way that has been proposed is a bad idea and would most likely not survive a legal challenge. I have never heard of a public body requiring people to provide written proof of residency, employment or ownership of real property in order to speak at a public meeting. In a public meeting where the public is allowed to comment, everyone should be treated the same way. Having a tiered caste system where certain classes of people are given priority to speak is a terrible way to run a Saratoga Springs City Council meeting.
Perhaps the City Council should consider expanding their public comment period to more than 30 minutes, so that everyone can be heard regardless of their status.
Below are opinions from the Committee on Open Government, which have addressed this issue.
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o2717.htm
“It is reiterated that the Open Meetings Law provides a right to attend to the “general public”; a resident of East Meadow, Island Trees or even Albany would have the same right to attend a meeting of the Levittown Board of Education as a resident of the District. That being so, I do not believe that a public body could validly require that those who attend or seek to attend identify themselves by name, residence or interest. In short, it is my view that any member of the public has an equal opportunity to partake in an open meeting, and that an effort to distinguish among attendees by residence or any other qualifier would be inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law and, therefore, unreasonable.”
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5607.htm
“Section 103(a) of the Open Meetings Law states that “Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public…” Based on that provision, the public may attend meetings of public bodies irrespective of their identities or residence. A resident of the County or Timbuktu has the same right to attend meetings of the County Legislature. That being so, it has been advised that a public body may request that a person provide his or her name or other identifier, but that a person may not be required to do so in order to attend, speak or otherwise participate relative to a meeting of a public body. Identifying oneself should, in my view, be optional.
Several reasons are offered for that advice. First, in general, significance of a comment or point of view involves its content, not the identity of the individual who may have spoken or written. Second, over the years, this office has been contacted by women who are victims of batterers. They have wanted to offer a point of view or information, but in order to avoid harm, there has been reluctance to disclose their names or addresses. In a different context, situations involving school board meetings have been described in which a parent offers a comment, and there is retribution directed later at his or her child.”
