I’m a local news editor. Would you be able to cite the statute, Committee on Open Government advisory opinion, or case law in support of these two statements on your Open Meetings Law page?
I’m editing a story about this very subject and I’d love to cite these authorities.
Whether a committee is subject to the Open Meetings Law is a bit tricky.
In advisory opinion 5668, the Committee on Open Government stated:
“Historically, judicial decisions have indicated that advisory bodies having no power to take final action, other than committees consisting solely of members of covered public bodies, fell outside the scope of the OML. As stated in those decisions: ‘it has long been held that the mere giving of advice, even about governmental matters[,] is not itself a governmental function.’ Goodson-Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. Town Board of Milan, 151 A.D.2d 642, 643 (2d Dep’t 1989); see also Poughkeepsie Newspapers v. Mayor’s Intergovernmental Task Force, 145 A.D.2d 65, 67 (2d Dep’t 1989); New York Public Interest Research Group v. Governor’s Advisory Commission, 133 Misc.2d 613 (Supr. Ct., New York Co., 1986), aff’d with no opinion, 135 A.D.2d 1149, motion for leave to appeal denied, 71 N.Y. 2d 964 (1988).”
“… when a committee consists solely of members of a public body, such as a board of education, I believe that the Open Meetings Law is applicable. The phrase ‘public body’ is defined in section 102(2) of the Open Meetings Law to include: ‘…any entity for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof, or for a public corporation as defined in section sixty-six of the general construction law, or committee or subcommittee or other similar body of such public body.’”
This is a tricky issue when a committee consists of a combination of board members and others, as indicated in the opinion below. There must also be a quorum requirement, which is not always the case for some committees.
From advisory opinion 3726:
“Based on the foregoing, a public body is, in my view, an entity required to conduct public business by means of a quorum that performs a governmental function and carries out its duties collectively, as a body. In order to constitute a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law, a majority of the total membership of a public body, a quorum, must be present for the purpose of conducting public business. I note, too, that the definition refers to committees, subcommittees and similar bodies of a public body. Based on judicial interpretations, if a committee, for example, consists solely of members of a particular public body, it, too, would constitute a public body. For instance, in the case of a legislative body consisting of seven members, four would constitute a quorum, and a gathering of that number or more for the purpose of conducting public business would be a meeting that falls within the scope of the Law. If that body designates a committee consisting of three of its members, the committee would itself be a public body; its quorum would be two, and a gathering of two or more, in their capacities as members of that committee, would be a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law.”
As far as adopting a local law that is less restrictive than state law, see advisory opinion 2600:
“As the local laws relate to the Open Meetings Law, §110 of that statute provides that: ‘1. Any provision of a charter, administrative code, local law, ordinance, or rule or regulation affecting a public body which is more restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall be deemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than this article. 2. Any provision of general, special or local law or charter, administrative code, ordinance, or rule or regulation less restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall not be deemed superseded hereby. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of this article to the contrary, a public body may adopt provisions less restrictive with respect to public access than this article.’ Therefore, a local law may permit greater public access than required by the Open Meetings Law, and that is so with respect to the local laws considered here, for they are ‘less restrictive with respect to public access’ than the Open Meetings Law.”
