Open Meetings

At a recent legislative committee meeting, the city’s law department and council members stated that a Charter Review Commission is not a public entity subject to Open Meetings Law. They claimed that state law—specifically home rule provisions—prevents the city from requiring the commission to follow Open Meetings Law.

But how is that the case? Even if state law does not explicitly mandate open meetings for a Charter Review Commission, it does not appear to forbid such a requirement either. Shouldn’t Open Meetings Law take precedence?

According to the law:

“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affecting a public body which is more restrictive with respect to public access than this article shall be deemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than this article.”

If Open Meetings Law applies broadly to public bodies, wouldn’t that include a Charter Review Commission? I’d appreciate any legal insights on this issue.

I live in a small city in New York State where public meetings at City Hall are not live-streamed. This means that many residents—such as disabled individuals, senior citizens, housebound residents, and those without transportation—have no way to watch meetings or provide input.

According to the mayor’s office, a proposal to fund live streaming was included in this year’s budget discussions but was voted down. Additionally, the mayor has stated that the city lacks IT staff to implement the service. This issue has been raised multiple times over the years but has repeatedly been rejected.

My question is: Are there funding sources available to help bring live streaming to my city? Many residents remain uninformed about important decisions until after they are made, with little opportunity for input. Without live streaming, only those who can physically attend meetings have access to discussions that affect the entire community. Most of us only learn about decisions after they are posted on the city’s website.

Are there grants or other resources that could help ensure greater transparency and public participation?

Are there any regulations requiring a Town Supervisor to involve and keep Town Board members informed of communications regarding issues that fall under the responsibility of the Board as a whole?

I’m not sure if the term “ex parte communication” applies here, since, theoretically, the Town Board does not consist of “opposing” parties. However, a lack of transparency, failure to share information, and excluding certain factions of the Board from decision-making processes would seem contrary to good governance.

What, if any, guardrails are in place to prevent such issues?

I work at a nonprofit in NYC and closely follow the Procurement Policy Board (PPB) to understand government technology procurement.

This morning, I learned that PPB meetings will now be in-person only. Additionally, they violated the Open Meetings Law (OML) in September by providing only two days’ notice for a meeting and voting on a rule change we had testified against in August. We are currently considering all of our options. Regarding the September meeting, I reached out to the Committee on Open Government (COOG) for an advisory opinion, but they recommended pursuing the matter in court.

I would appreciate a conversation on how to best address and enforce these OML violations.

Since COVID, one of the board members of the Niagara Falls Water Board has continued to attend meetings virtually, including voting, with her camera off. My understanding is that these votes cannot be counted, as she is supposed to be on camera. We have multiple screens in our boardroom and an updated technology system to accommodate virtual attendees.

I thought New York State guidelines on open meetings, post-COVID, required voting members attending virtually to have their cameras on. Has that requirement changed? If not, are this person’s votes considered valid?

I was wondering if Friends of the Library were subject to Open Meetings Law. I am a new member of the board and wanted to be sure we were doing the right thing.

I am wondering if there is a specific law that states a person is not required to give their name and address to speak at a village meeting.

The mayor of my local village requires villagers who want to speak during the public comment portion to state their name and address for the record. While I am fine with stating my name, I do not agree with being required to disclose my address, as it makes my residence public for everyone to know.

I have been asking questions during public participation at our board of education meetings for several months now. Recently, I was told that I am no longer allowed to ask about what we plan to do to retain our teachers and that I am only allowed to ask the school board about policy.

Is this accurate? Can they limit what I am allowed to talk about when I’ve been asking questions for months and now they are changing the rules?

Additionally, while reading this website, I noticed that meetings are supposed to be posted 72 hours in advance. Where do they have to post this information? I don’t think this is happening, as there have been many times when I only heard about a meeting because a board member mentioned it to me. I haven’t seen anything posted anywhere.

I’m also curious about the lack of public discussion during meetings. Often, statements like “all in favor of section 1.1-2.2” are made, and then there is no discussion. The public never sees the back-and-forth on these topics. Board members consistently refer to the “packet” they are given. I have asked for a copy of this packet, but they have not provided it. They only give me the agenda.

I feel like our board is not being transparent with the public, and I’m not sure what to do about it.

Please guide me so I can be better informed about how this process is supposed to work.