TO: Barry Ginsberg
FROM: Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director
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
I have received your letter of June 4. You have asked whether "public officials who
are unable to be physically present at a public meeting [may] participate via telephone if the
other officials of the body are physically present at the meeting site, which is open to the
In this regard, from my perspective, a gathering of a majority of the membership of a public body for the purpose of discussing public business and perhaps taking action at one location would clearly constitute a meeting that falls within the coverage of the Open Meetings Law. However, I do not believe that a member who seeks to participate by phone could validly vote or be counted for purposes of a quorum.
Section 102(1) of the Open Meetings Law defines the term "meeting" to mean "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business". Based upon an ordinary dictionary definition of "convene", that term means:
"1. to summon before a tribunal;
2. to cause to assemble syn see 'SUMMON'" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1965).
In view of that definition and others, I believe that a meeting, i.e., the "convening" of a public
body, involves the physical coming together of at least a majority of the total membership of
the Commission. While nothing in the Open Meetings Law refers to the capacity of a member to participate or vote at a remote location by telephone, it has consistently been advised that a member of a public body cannot cast a vote unless he or she is physically present at a meeting of the body.
The Open Meetings Law does not preclude members of a public body from conferring
individually or by telephone. However, a series of telephone calls among the members which results in a decision or a meeting held by means of a telephone conference would in my opinion be inconsistent with law. Similarly, I believe that the absence of a member from a meeting, a physical convening of a majority of a public body's membership, precludes that
person from voting. In short, the absent person is not part of the "convening."
It is noted that the definition of "public body" [see Open Meetings Law, §102(2)] refers to entities that are required to conduct public business by means of a quorum. In this regard, the term "quorum" is defined in §41 of the General Construction Law, which has been in effect since 1909. The cited provision states that:
"Whenever three of more public officers are given any power or authority, or three or more persons are charged with any public duty to be performed or exercised by them jointly or as a board or similar body, a majority of the whole number of such persons or officers, at a meeting duly held at a time fixed by law, or by any by-law duly adopted by such board of body, or at any duly adjourned meeting of such meeting, or at any meeting duly held upon reasonable notice to all of them, shall constitute a quorum and not less than a majority of the whole number may perform and exercise such power, authority or duty. For the purpose of this provision the words 'whole number' shall be construed to mean the total number which the board, commission, body or other group of persons or officers would have were there no vacancies and were none of the persons or officers disqualified from acting."
Based upon the language quoted above, a public body cannot carry out its powers or duties except by means of an affirmative vote of a majority of its total membership taken at a meeting duly held upon reasonably notice to all of the members. As such, it is my view that a public body has the capacity to carry out its duties only at meetings during which a majority of the total membership has convened.
In conjunction with the situation that you described, I believe that a public body could
choose to enable the absent member to participate by phone. Despite that person'
participation, however, in view of quorum requirements and the definitions of "meeting" and
"convene", he or she could not in my opinion vote or otherwise be counted as a member for
the purpose of §41 of the General Construction Law or the Open Meetings Law. Therefore, if, for example, the vote of those present at a meeting is 2 to 2, the member who may be participating by phone at a remote location could not, in my opinion, validly cast a vote to break the tie or in any instance in which the body votes.
I hope that I have been of assistance.