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.
Real questions from New Yorkers, answered by the coalition. Search first, your question may already be here.
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 am a reporter working on a story about a public school district that has faced several allegations of teachers having inappropriate relationships with students. Those teachers undergo NY 3020-A proceedings and often reach an agreement to surrender their teaching licenses.
However, when we file FOIL requests for documents, the records we receive make no mention of what the teachers are actually accused of. We know the accusations from a deposition in a civil case, but we’re hoping to find the paper trail within the district. We’ve learned that some teachers were able to surrender their licenses before facing a fact-finding hearing, and in one case, the district entered into an agreement with a teacher, allowing him to take medical leave instead of facing punishment. These teachers were all rumored to have committed sexual misconduct.
We’re wondering why there is no record in the district’s possession disclosing the accusations against these teachers. Is this a loophole? Is there a specific document we should be asking for?
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.
The Village of Saugerties recently voted on a resolution spontaneously, without prior notice, and without including it on the agenda.
A village trustee simply asked for the Board to vote on it during a Board meeting. The public was not informed that a vote might be taken. Is that legal?
Thank you for your response. This sort of thing happens often—the Village Board will vote on items that aren’t on the agenda.
Thank you for your question.
Dog license information, as indicated in the opinion by the NY Committee on Open Government, should be disclosed. You can review that opinion here:
Opinion on Dog License Information
In another opinion, the Committee stated:
Opinion on Dog Bite Victim Information
“While the name, address, telephone number, or other personally identifiable details concerning a dog bite victim could properly be withheld, the location of a dog bite incident, a description of how the bite occurred, and the name of a health professional who provided treatment would be available.”
Regarding injury reports, the Committee also stated:
“Portions of the injury reports may be withheld or redacted insofar as disclosure could identify the injured person.”
With respect to HIPAA, the following was noted in another determination:
“Critical in my view is the assertion in the determination of your appeal that injury report forms are completed by ‘certified medical staff’ who qualify as ‘health care providers’ subject to HIPAA. Because that is so, insofar as the information contained on the forms consists of ‘protected health information’ as defined in federal HIPAA regulations, I believe that a denial of access based on HIPAA is appropriate and consistent with the law. A ‘health care provider’ is a person or entity that provides ‘care, services, or supplies related to the health of an individual,’ and ‘protected health information’ includes material collected from an individual and ‘created or received’ by a health care provider.”
In your case, you could and should receive redacted information. A specific HIPAA policy may not be necessary for the County to claim HIPAA protection, but an argument could be made that a dog control officer is not a health care provider subject to HIPAA.
I suggest filing an appeal and referencing these opinions to strengthen your case for obtaining some of the information you requested.
I understand your frustration. The contact information for elected officials should be available to the public.
Back in 2017 and 2018 as part of a report we did, we looked at whether contact information for elected officials and department heads were posted online.
We did not do your town of Newfane.
Thanks for contacting me regarding your article
An important aspect of government transparency is ensuring that the public can observe and understand the discussions and actions taken by government officials. Since not everyone can attend meetings in person, government meetings should be livestreamed whenever possible, with recordings made available online afterward.
If the town of Malta is already livestreaming its town board meetings, there is no legitimate reason not to extend this practice to Planning Board meetings. Both the Town Board and the Planning Board should fully commit to transparency by livestreaming all meetings.
Caucus meetings, which consist of elected members from the same party, can occur behind closed doors and exclude members of other political parties.
Republican legislators are allowed to meet with staff members of the Democratic County Executive, or even the Democratic County Executive themselves, as long as only Republican legislators are present. The key factor is the party enrollment of the legislators, not the party affiliation of staff or others.
Caucus meetings represent a significant loophole in the Open Meetings Law. They should be limited to discussions about caucus leadership or other internal party matters, not public business. However, under the current law, public business can still be discussed. Some places have addressed this by passing local laws that prohibit public business from being discussed during caucus meetings.
This meeting does not appear to violate the Open Meetings Law.
The Open Meetings Law applies when a quorum of the town board or a quorum of school board members meet to conduct public business. If a board consists of five members, then two can meet and discuss public business without violating the law.
Based on your description, it doesn’t seem that a quorum of either the town board or school board was present.
A FOIL request may not yield any records, but it’s still worth trying if you’re interested in obtaining documentation related to the meeting.
Thank you for contacting our organization.
The agenda and meeting documents should be posted online at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Failing to do so is a violation of the NY State Open Meetings Law.
Meeting minutes or a recording should be posted online within two weeks after a meeting, and not doing so is also a violation of the Open Meetings Law.
Your next options are:
1.Follow up with the town clerk, stating your understanding of the law that meeting agendas, documents, and minutes should be posted online, and ask when this will be corrected.
2.Engage a local news reporter to cover this issue, as media attention can often prompt action.
3.Bring this up at the next board meeting during the public comment period.
4.Hire an attorney to sue the town for violating the law, though this can be expensive and time-consuming.
5.Join the NY Coalition for Open Government for $30 per year to connect with other concerned citizens across the state interested in open government issues. Information on becoming a member is available on our website at www.nyopengov.org.
Our organization is working to reform the Open Meetings Law. A significant part of the problem is the lack of penalties for violations, and there should be a faster, more affordable way to address complaints like yours.
Elected officials and the public have the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. It should not take months for a city councilmember to have their questions answered, and FOIL requests submitted by the Niagara Gazette should not be ignored.
It’s clear that either the mayor is embarrassed by the amount of legal fees incurred or is too stubborn to provide an answer—both are unacceptable responses.
The public has a right to know, and keeping them in the dark is not how city government is supposed to operate.
My understanding is that until a decision is made regarding the disciplinary action it can be redacted.
See opinion below
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f17195.html
Thank you for reaching out.
While it’s true that some items in financial disclosures can be redacted for privacy reasons, public officials generally have a lower expectation of privacy in these matters. Here’s a breakdown of what might be considered reasonable or questionable redactions:
•Home Addresses: This is a common and generally accepted redaction for privacy and security reasons.
•Outside Businesses/Income: Some financial disclosure forms may opt to categorize income in broad ranges rather than specific dollar amounts. However, it’s crucial that the source of outside income be disclosed, as it speaks to potential conflicts of interest.
•Spouse’s Job Title: Redacting the job title of a spouse who works for the county raises a red flag. There’s little justification for this unless it compromises personal safety, and transparency should be prioritized in such cases.
Feel free to send over the forms, and we can further review the specifics.
Thank you for contacting our organization.
What Open Meetings Law violation occurred?
The only recourse that you have is to bring your concern to the attention of the town board in an effort to educate them or to file a lawsuit.
As filing a lawsuit is expensive, education is usually the better route to take.
If you have a local newspaper, you may be able to interest a reporter to bring some publicity to your concern. Sometimes media attention will cause the board to address your concern.
I hope this answers your question.
It is truly an outrageous disservice to the public that the City of Amsterdam has restricted public access to City Hall and other municipal buildings. An appointment should not be required for people to conduct business at a public building. Nor should people’s First Amendment rights to record or take pictures in public spaces be restricted.
Oftentimes, government officials do not respond to phone calls or emails, and now, people who go to City Hall will be turned away and told to schedule an appointment; this is a terrible way to conduct public business. It’s a terrible way to treat the people who pay taxes for the government officials and buildings they can no longer freely speak with and enter.
Adopting such policies is a complete overreaction on the part of city officials and just another example of how Democracy and freedom are dying a slow death. Elected officials should be advocating for transparency by welcoming the public not restricting access to public buildings and treating the public as their adversaries.
Thanks for your question.
Individual board members can certainly explain why they voted the way they did on the superintendent’s raise and contract extension without revealing what was discussed in executive session.
The New York State School Board Association outlined the following regarding executive sessions in a guide they published in 2015:
Pursuant to General Municipal Law, school board members, district officers, and employees may not disclose confidential information acquired in the course of their official duties (Gen. Mun. Law § 805-a(1)(b)).
a. The General Municipal Law does not define the term “confidential information.” According to one state court, interpretation of what is confidential in the school context is best left to the commissioner of education (Komyathy v. Board of Educ. Wappinger CSD No. 1, 75 Misc.2d 859).
According to the commissioner of education, matters discussed in a lawfully convened executive session are confidential, and their disclosure constitutes a violation of the General Municipal Law’s prohibition, as well as a violation of a school board member’s oath of office. This could subject a school board member to removal from the board (Application of Nett and Raby, 45 Ed. Dep’t Rep. 259 (2005)). There would be no such violation if a board collectively decides to release such information or if an individual board member is compelled to disclose it pursuant to law in a judicial proceeding (Id.).
Note: The Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government has stated that information discussed in executive session may be disclosed unless a specific statute requires confidentiality (NYS Department of State, Committee on Open Government OML-AO-4489, Sept. 20, 2007; see also OML-AO-3463, May 28, 2002; OML-AO-3449, April 30, 2002; OML-AO-3219, Oct. 26, 2000). However, the commissioner of education considers that view a “narrow interpretation of the term ‘confidential’” (Application of Nett and Raby).
As indicated above, the NY Committee on Open Government has a different view regarding executive sessions and what can be disclosed. As stated in their opinion:
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o4530.html
“Since a public body may choose to conduct an executive session or discuss an issue in public, information expressed during an executive session is not ‘confidential.’ To be confidential, again, a statute must prohibit disclosure and leave no discretion to an agency or official regarding the ability to disclose.”
Hope this helps.
Yes you can submit a FOIL request to obtain the resumes and employment applications of the individuals who have applied for the Village Administrator position. See the opinion by the NY Committee on Open Government below.
They can redact some information for privacy reasons such as SSN, address, hobbies, etc. items that are not directly related to the employment position.
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f12918.htm
“The first area of inquiry involves any requirement that the District publicize or disclose the
names of those who have applied to fill the vacant position. In this regard, there is nothing in the
Freedom of Information Law or any other law of which I am aware that would require that the
District, on its own initiative, to disclose the names of applicants. However, in response to a request
made under the Freedom of Information Law, I believe that the District would be required to disclose
a record or records identifying the applicants.”
Unfortunately they can take 90 days to respond to your FOIL request, as indicated by the Committee on Open Government opinion below.
You can file an appeal objecting to the delay. Sometimes, they will respond quicker, but not always.
There is nothing in the law that I am aware of that restricts how a public body uses a consent agenda. In fact, there is no requirement in the Open Meetings Law for a public body to use an agenda at all.
Each town board is able to set their own rules and procedures. Other municipalities use a consent agenda where items that have unanimous agreement at a pre-meeting work session are placed on a consent agenda and approved in one motion.
I have seen Amherst meetings where 100 items are approved in one motion, and two or three items are discussed and voted on. It is certainly not a good practice.
All you can do is ask them to stop using the consent agenda the way they are.
Perhaps your organization can send a formal letter to the town board explaining your objections as to the way the consent agenda is being used and ask them to stop.
Copy the news media.
Talk about it during public comment time at the meeting.
Send it to us and we will answer it, free. Selected questions are published here to help the next person.