Residents urged to learn Open Meetings Law for transparency in local government

Editor:

NYS has an Open Meetings Law that is key to transparent government at all levels. The law was updated May of 2024. Click here to see the most recent copy.

A few salient points regarding general meetings:

• Meetings and portions of meetings can be recorded by members of the public, as long as they aren’t disruptive. Boards can make rules regarding the location of the equipment, but can not stop someone for recording or ask them to leave.
• The Open Meetings Law requires public bodies (including municipal boards) to make available the documents it will consider at a meeting at least 24 hours beforehand. If the municipality uses a website, they need to put it there. This way, during the comment period prior to the vote, the public congregants have the opportunity to comment on the documents before they’re voted on.
• All meetings scheduled outside of the already published meeting schedule need to be declared to the news media (not as a legal notice) and posted conspicuously in at least one public place along with a regularly updated website (if one exists).

Executive Sessions:

A public body needs to be specific when they go into executive session. The public should know specifically why the board is meeting in private. Because municipalities can elect to go into executive session at times (but are never required to), I’d like to highlight a few of the most common reasons, and the specificity required for the public to be informed of the topic.

Section D: discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation:

• “I move to go into executive session to discuss litigation or a pending legal matter.” This motion is not specific enough under the law, as you have the right to know the name of the litigation being discussed.
• It is the opinion of the Committee that the litigation exception is intended to permit a public body to discuss its litigation strategy and pending or threatened litigation behind closed doors, rather than issues that might possibly result in litigation. As legal matters or possible (as opposed to pending or threatened) litigation could be the subject or result of nearly any topic discussed by a public body, an executive session could not in our view be held to discuss an issue merely because there is a possibility of litigation, or because it involves a legal matter. Click here for full advisory opinion.
• It is insufficient to merely regurgitate the statutory language; to wit, “discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation.” This boilerplate recitation does not comply with the intent of the statute. To validly convene an executive session for discussion of proposed, pending or current litigation, the public body must identify with particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the executive session. Click here for full advisory opinion.

Section E: collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law:

• “I move to go into executive session to discuss union contract negotiations.” This motion is not specific enough under the law as the name of the collective bargaining union should be stated so that you have some idea as to what union they are discussing.
• Similarly, with respect to “negotiations,” the only ground for entry into executive session that mentions that term is §105(1)(e). That provision permits a public body to conduct an executive session to discuss “collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law.” Article 14 of the Civil Service Law is commonly known as the “Taylor Law”, which pertains to the relationship between public employers and public employee unions. As such, §105(1)(e) permits a public body to hold executive sessions to discuss collective bargaining negotiations with a public employee union. Click here for full advisory opinion.
• With regard to contracts, none of the grounds for entry into executive session deals in general with contractual matters, contract discussions or negotiations. The only provision that touches directly on contract negotiations is §105(1)(e), which authorizes a public body to enter into an executive session regarding “collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law.” Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, commonly known as the “Taylor Law,” pertains to the relationship between public employers and public employee unions. As such, §105(1)(e) deals with collective bargaining negotiations between a public employer and a public employee union. Click here for full advisory opinion.

Section F: the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation:

• “I move to go into executive session to discuss a personnel matter.” This motion is not specific enough under the law. While the name of a person does not have to be disclosed, you should be informed if the discussion is regarding hiring someone, firing someone, disciplining someone, etc.
• “I move to go into executive session to discuss the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation.” This is improper as there are 14 different reasons stated in this motion and the public has no idea what the reason is for the executive session. A correct motion would be a motion to discuss “the termination of a particular person” or to discuss “the appointment of a particular person.”
• When a discussion concerns matters of policy, such as the manner in which public money will be expended or allocated, the functions of a department or perhaps the creation or elimination of positions, I do not believe that §105(1)(f) could be asserted, even though the discussion may relate to “personnel”. For example, if a discussion involves staff reductions or layoffs due to budgetary concerns, the issue in my view would involve matters of policy. Similarly, if a discussion of possible layoff relates to positions and whether those positions should be retained or abolished, the discussion would involve the means by which public monies would be allocated. In none of the instances described would the focus involve a “particular person” and how well or poorly an individual has performed his or her duties. To reiterate, in order to enter into an executive session pursuant to §105(1)(f), I believe that the discussion must focus on a particular person (or persons) in relation to a topic listed in that provision. As stated judicially, “it would seem that under the statute matters related to personnel generally or to personnel policy should be discussed in public for such matters do not deal with any particular person.” Click here for full advisory opinion.

This is a complex topic, but residents who are aware of their rights make the government and those who serve within it more effective. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Jess Marciano

Medina

Marciano is a trustee on the Medina Village Board.