January 18, 1996
Mr. Ira Hersch
170 Mill Road
Valley Stream, NY 11581-2524
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. Hersch:
I have received your letter of December 20, which, for reasons unknown, did not reach this office until January 5.
The issue that you raised is whether the Baruch College Committee on Academic Standing of the School of Business is required to comply with the Open Meetings Law. According to your letter and the form attached to it, the Committee has the authority to make binding determinations.
In this regard, I offer the following comments.
First, the Open Meetings Law pertains 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."
Judicial decisions indicate generally that advisory bodies having no power to take final action 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, the entity in question does not appear to be advisory; again, it appears to have the ability render determinations. If that is so, I believe that it would constitute a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law.
Second, it is noted initially that there are two vehicles that may authorize a public body to discuss public business in private. One involves entry into an executive session. Section 102(3) of the Open Meetings Law defines the phrase "executive session" to mean a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded, and the Law requires that a procedure be accomplished, during an open meeting, before a public body may enter into an executive session. Specifically, §105(1) states in relevant part that:
"Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only..."
As such, a motion to conduct an executive session must include reference to the subject or subjects to be discussed and the motion must be carried by majority vote of a public body's membership before such a session may validly be held. The ensuing provisions of §105(1) specify and limit the subjects that may appropriately be considered during an executive session. Therefore, a public body may not conduct an executive session to discuss the subject of its choice.
As I understand the matter, it is unlikely that there would have been a basis for conducting an executive session. The only ground for entry into executive session that appears to relate to the issue, §105(1)(f), authorizes a public body to conduct such a 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."
The language quoted above pertains to a variety of topics as they relate to a "particular person." However, it does not appear that the subjects described in §105(1)(f) relate to the subject considered by the Committee.
The other vehicle for excluding the public from a meeting involves "exemptions." Section 108 of the Open Meetings Law contains three exemptions. When an exemption applies, the Open Meetings Law does not, and the requirements that would operate with respect to executive sessions are not in effect. Stated differently, to discuss a matter exempted from the Open Meetings Law, a public body need not follow the procedure imposed by §105(1) that relates to entry into an executive session. Further, although executive sessions may be held only for particular purposes, there is no such limitation that relates to matters that are exempt from the coverage of the Open Meetings Law.
Of possible relevance to the matter is §108(1) of the Open Meetings Law, which exempts from the coverage of that statute "judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings..." From my perspective, it is often difficult to determine exactly when public bodies are involved in a quasi-judicial proceeding, or where a line of demarcation may be drawn between what may be characterized as quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative or administrative functions. Similarly, often provisions require that public hearings be held; others permit discretion to hold a public hearing. Further, the holding of public hearings and providing an opportunity to be heard does not in my opinion render a proceeding quasi-judicial in every instance. Those requirements may be present in a variety of contexts, many of which precede legislative action.
I believe that one of the elements of a quasi-judicial proceeding is the authority to take final action. While I am unaware of any judicial decision that specifically so states, there are various decisions that infer that a quasi-judicial proceeding must result in a final determination reviewable only by a court. For instance, in a decision rendered under the Open Meetings Law, it was found that:
"The test may be stated to be that action is judicial or quasi-judicial, when and only when, the body or officer is authorized and required to take evidence and all the parties interested are entitled to notice and a hearing, and, thus, the act of an administrative or ministerial officer becomes judicial and subject to review by certiorari only when there is an opportunity to be heard, evidence presented, and a decision had thereon" [Johnson Newspaper Corporation v. Howland, Sup. Ct., Jefferson Cty., July 27, 1982; see also City of Albany v. McMorran, 34 Misc. 2d 316 (1962)].
Another decision that described a particular body indicated that "[T]he Board is a quasi-judicial agency with authority to make decisions reviewable only in the Courts" [New York State Labor Relations Board v. Holland Laundry, 42 NYS 2d 183, 188 (1943)]. Further, in a discussion of quasi-judicial bodies and decisions pertaining to them, it was found that "[A]lthough these cases deal with differing statutes and rules and varying fact patterns they clearly recognize the need for finality in determinations of quasi-judicial bodies..." [200 West 79th St. Co. v. Galvin, 335 NYS 2d 715, 718 (1970)].
It is my opinion that the final determination of a controversy is a condition precedent that must be present before one can reach a finding that a proceeding is quasi-judicial. Reliance upon this notion is based in part upon the definition of "quasi-judicial" appearing in Black's Law Dictionary (revised fourth edition). Black's defines "quasi-judicial" as:
"A term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officials, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature."
Insofar as the Committee's proceedings could be characterized as quasi-judicial, the Open Meetings Law, in my view, would not apply.
Also relevant under the circumstances may be §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law:
"...any matter made confidential by federal or state law." Here I direct your attention to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA", 20 USC §1232g) and the regulations promulgated pursuant to FERPA by the U.S. Department of Education. In brief, FERPA applies to all educational agencies or institutions that participate in funding or grant programs administered by the United States Department of Education. As such, it includes within its scope virtually all public educational institutions and many private educational institutions. The focal point of the Act is the protection of privacy of students. It provides, in general, that any "education record," a term that is broadly defined, that is personally identifiable to a particular student or students is confidential, unless the parents of students under the age of eighteen waive their right to confidentiality, or unless a student eighteen years or over, a so-called "eligible student", similarly waives his or her right to confidentiality. The regulations promulgated under FERPA define the phrase "personally identifiable information" to include:
"(a) The student's name; (b) The name of the student's parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student's family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the student's social security number or student number; (e) A list of personal characteristics that would make the student's identity easily traceable; or (f) Other information that would make the student's identity easily traceable" (34 CFR Section 99.3).
Based upon the foregoing, disclosure of students' names or other aspects of records that would make a student's identity easily traceable must in my view be withheld in order to comply with federal law. Further, the term disclosure is defined in the regulations to mean:
"to permit access to or the release, transfer, or other communication of education records, or the personally identifiable information contained in those records, to any party, by any means, including oral, written, or electronic means."
In consideration of FERPA, if the Committee discusses an issue involving personally identifiable information derived from a record concerning a student, I believe that the discussion would deal with a matter made confidential by federal law that would be exempt from the Open Meetings Law.
Lastly, viewing the matter from a different perspective, insofar as CUNY, Baruch College or the Committee in question maintain records pertaining to you, it appears that you would enjoy rights of access to those records pursuant to FERPA. Therefore, even if meetings of the Committee might justifiably be closed, records maintained by the Committee pertaining to you would likely be accessible to you.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman
cc: Committee on Academic Standing