Mr. Jon Moscow, Executive
Parents Coalition for Education in New York City, Inc.
24-16 Bridge Plaza South, Suite 404
Long Island City, NY 11101
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.
Dear Mr. Moscow:
I have received your letter and the materials attached to it. You have requested an advisory opinion concerning the status of "School-Based Management/Shared Decision Making" (SBM/SDM) committees in New York City public schools under the Open Meetings Law.
According to your letter:
"When districts were required to set up school planning committees under State Education Dept. Regulation 100.11, schools which had SBM/SDM committees were allowed to continue these committees, rather than form new committees under 100.11. As SBM/SDM has been incorporated into the UFT contract, these committees fell under 100.11(h) which states that where a district had implemented a plan for participation of teachers in school-based decision making as a result of a collective bargaining agreement, the district 'shall incorporate such negotiated plan as a part of the district plan required by this section.'"
By way of background, I believe that it is useful to review pertinent provisions of the Commissioner's regulations. Section 100.11(b) states in relevant part that:
"By February 1, 1994, each public school district board of education and each board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) shall develop and adopt a district plan for the participation by teachers and parents with administrators and school board members in school-based planning and shared decisionmaking. Such district plan shall be developed in collaboration with a committee composed of the superintendent of schools, administrators selected by the district's administrative bargaining organization(s), teachers selected by the teachers' collective bargaining organization(s), and parents (not employed by the district or a collective bargaining organization representing teachers or administrators in the district) selected by their peers in the manner prescribed by the board of education or BOCES, provided that those portions of the district plan that provide for participation of teachers or administrators in school-based planning and shared decisionmaking may be developed through collective negotiations between the board of education or BOCES and local collective bargaining organizations representing administrators and teachers."
Section 100.11(d) provides in part that:
"The district's plan shall be adopted by the board of education or BOCES at a public meeting after consultation with and full participation by the designated representatives of the administrators, teachers, and parents, and after seeking endorsement of the plan by such designated representatives."
"Each board of education or BOCES shall submit its district plan to the commissioner for approval within 30 days of adoption of the plan. The commissioner shall approve such district plan upon a finding that it complies with the requirements of this section..."
Additionally, §100.11(e)(1) states that:
"In the event that the board of education or BOCES fails to provide for consultation with, and full participation of, all parties in the development of the plan as required by subdivisions (b) and (d) of this section, the aggrieved party or parties may commence an appeal to the commissioner pursuant to section 310 of the Education Law. Such an appeal may be instituted prior to final adoption of the district plan and shall be instituted no later that 30 days after final adoption of the district plan by the board of education or BOCES."
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, the Open Meetings Law is applicable to meetings of public bodies, and §102(2) of that statute defines the phrase "public body" to mean:
"...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."
Second, recent decisions indicate generally that advisory bodies having no power to take final action, other than committees consisting solely of members of public bodies, fall outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. 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, 542 NYS 2d 373, 374, 151 AD 2d 642 (1989); Poughkeepsie Newspapers v. Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force, 145 AD 2d 65, 67 (1989); see also New York Public Interest Research Group v. Governor's Advisory Commission, 507 NYS 2d 798, aff'd with no opinion, 135 AD 2d 1149, motion for leave to appeal denied, 71 NY 2d 964 (1988)].
In this instance, however, although the committees in question do not have the ability to make determinations, according to the Commissioner's regulations, they perform a necessary and integral function in the development of shared decision making plans. As stated earlier, the regulations specify that a district plan "shall be developed in collaboration with a committee." As such, a committee must, by law, be involved in the development of a plan. The regulations also indicate that a plan may be adopted by a board of education or BOCES only "after consultation with and full participation by" a committee, and that the Commissioner may approve a plan only after having found that it "complies with the requirements of this section", i.e., when it is found that a committee was involved in the development of a plan. Further, an appeal may be made to the Commissioner if a board has failed to permit "full participation" of a committee.
In the decisions cited earlier, none of the entities were designated by law to carry out a particular duty and all had purely advisory functions. More analogous to the issue presented here in my view is the decision rendered in MFY Legal Services v. Toia [402 NYS 2d 510 (1977)]. That case involved an advisory body created by statute to advise the Commissioner of the State Department of Social Services. In MFY, it was found that "[a]lthough the duty of the committee is only to give advice which may be disregarded by the Commissioner, the Commissioner may, in some instances, be prohibited from acting before he receives that advice" (id. 511) and that, "[t]herefore, the giving of advice by the Committee either on their own volition or at the request of the Commissioner is a necessary governmental function for the proper actions of the Social Services Department" (id. 511-512).
Again, according to the Commissioner's regulations, which have the force and effect of law, a plan cannot be adopted absent "collaboration" and participation by the committees that are the subject of your inquiry. Since they carry out necessary functions in the development of shared decision making plans, I believe that they perform a governmental function and, therefore, are public bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law.
In my opinion, the same conclusion can be reached by viewing the definition of "public body" in terms of its components. A committee is an entity consisting of more than two members; it is required in my view to conduct its business subject to quorum requirements (see General Construction Law, §41); and, based upon the preceding commentary, a committee conducts public business and performs a governmental function for a public corporation, such as a school district or a BOCES.
Lastly, while the Commissioner's regulations make reference to "school-based" committees, there is no statement concerning their specific role, function or authority. It is my understanding, based upon a discussion with a representative of the State Education Department, that school-based committees carry out their duties in accordance with the plans adopted individually by boards of education in each school district, and that those plans are intended to provide the committees in question with a role in the decision making process. When, for example, a plan provides decision making authority to school-based committees within a district, those committees, in my opinion, would clearly constitute public bodies required to comply with the Open Meetings Law. Similarly, when a school-based committee performs a function analogous to that of the shared decision-making committee, i.e., where the school-based committee has the authority to recommend, and the decision maker or decision making body must consider its recommendations as a condition precedent to taking action, I believe that the committee would be a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law, even when the recommendations need not be followed.
In sum, due to the necessary functions that the committees in question perform pursuant to the Commissioner's regulations and the plans adopted in accordance with those regulations, I believe that they constitute "public bodies" subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
I hope that I have been of some assistance. Should any further questions arise, please feel free to contact me.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Ramon C. Cortines, Chancellor