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 letters, which are respectively dated November 30 and December 13.
Both deal with the status of an ad hoc committee designated by the Clifton Park Town Board. The entity in question, the "Adult Uses Study Committee", consists of citizens and, in Councilman Paolucci's words, "some town employees with specific knowledge that could be helpful in generating solutions", and they have worked with a paid consultant. Although Mr. Goldman indicated that the Town Attorney advised that the Committee is not subject to the Open Meetings Law, the Councilman, who chaired the Committee, wrote that "no one was ever refused access to any....meetings" of the Committee.
Both of you have sought clarification concerning the status of the Committee under the Open Meetings Law.
In this regard, 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."
Based on the foregoing, a public body is, in my view, an entity required to conduct public business
by means of a quorum that performs a governmental function and carries out its duties collectively,
as a body. In order to constitute a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law, a majority of the total
membership of a public body, a quorum, must be present for the purpose of conducting public
business. I note, too, that the definition refers to committees, subcommittees and similar bodies of
a public body. Based on judicial interpretations, if a committee, for example, consists solely of
members of a particular public body, it, too, would constitute a public body. For instance, in the
case of a legislative body consisting of seven members, four would constitute a quorum, and a
gathering of that number or more for the purpose of conducting public business would be a meeting
that falls within the scope of the Law. If that body designates a committee consisting of three of its
members, the committee would itself be a public body; its quorum would be two, and a gathering of two or more, in their capacities as members of that committee, would be a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law.
With specific respect to your area of concern, several judicial decisions indicate generally
that advisory bodies, other than those consisting of members of a governing body, that have 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 Newspaper 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 one of the decisions, Poughkeepsie Newspaper, supra, a task force was designated by then Mayor Koch consisting of
representatives of New York City agencies, as well as federal and state agencies and the Westchester County Executive, to review plans and make recommendations concerning the City's long range water supply needs. The Court specified that the Mayor was "free to accept or reject the recommendations" of the Task Force and that "[i]t is clear that the Task Force, which was created by invitation rather than by statute or executive order, has no power, on its own, to implement any of its recommendations" (id., 67). Referring to the other cases cited above, the Court found that "[t]he unifying principle running through these decisions is that groups or entities that do not, in fact, exercise the power of the sovereign are not performing a governmental function, hence they are not 'public bod[ies] subject to the Open Meetings Law..."(id.).
In the context of your inquiry, the Committee has no authority to take any final and binding
action for or on behalf of the Town. If that is so, the Committee, in my view, would not constitute a public body and, therefore, would not be obliged to comply with the Open Meetings Law. This is not to suggest that the Committee could not hold open meetings, but rather that it is not obliged to give effect to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
I hope that the foregoing serves to clarify your understanding of the Open Meetings Law and that I have been of assistance.
Robert J. Freeman