NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing

 

OML-AO-3680

September 30, 2003

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

I have received your letter in which you described a dispute between yourself as Town Clerk of the Town of Groton and the Town Board. The Town Board appears to have taken action to place advertisements in a local newspaper endorsing the candidacy of your opponent in a primary. When the Board was asked about "political ads, sponsored by the Town Board [and the] Planning Board, and whether action to place those ads were taken at a meeting and who authorized their publication, the Supervisor responded by asserting that "we [the Town Board] all authorized it." When that answer was met with surprise, the Supervisor again said "We all authorized it as a group."

You have asked whether either the Town Board or the Planning Board could have authorized the publication of the ads without having done so at a meeting by means of a vote of their members.

From my perspective, a public body, such as the Town Board or Planning Board, may take action only during a meeting conducted in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. In this regard, I offer the following comments.

It is noted at the outset that there is nothing in the Open Meetings Law that would preclude members of a public body from conferring individually, by telephone, via mail or e-mail. However, a series of communications between individual members or telephone calls among the members which results in a collective decision, or a meeting or vote held by means of a telephone conference, by mail or e-mail would in my opinion be inconsistent with law.

In my view, voting and action by a public body may be carried out only at a meeting during which a quorum has physically convened, or during a meeting held by videoconference. The Open Meetings Law pertains to public bodies, and §102(2) 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."

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, including the use of videoconferencing for attendance and participation by the members of the public body." 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 such a body, i.e., the Town Board, or a convening that occurs through videoconferencing. I point out, too, that §103(c) of the Open Meetings Law states that "A public body that uses videoconferencing to conduct its meetings shall provide an opportunity to attend, listen and observe at any site at which a member participates."

The provisions in the Open Meetings Law concerning videoconferencing are newly enacted (Chapter 289 of the Laws of 2000), and in my view, those amendments clearly indicate that there are only two ways in which a public body may validly conduct a meeting. Any other means of conducting a meeting, i.e., by telephone conference, by mail, or by e-mail, would be inconsistent with law.

As indicated earlier, the definition of the phrase "public body" refers to entities that are
required to conduct public business by means of a quorum. The term "quorum" is defined in §41 of the General Construction Law, which has been in effect since 1909. The cited provision, which was also amended to include language concerning videoconferencing, 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, gathered together in the presence of each other or through the use of videoconferencing, 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 on the foregoing, again, a valid meeting may occur only when a majority of the total membership of a public body, a quorum, has "gathered together in the presence of each other or through the use of videoconferencing." Moreover, only when a quorum has convened in the manner described in §41 of the General Construction Law would a public body have the authority to carry out its powers and duties. Consequently, it is my opinion that a public body may not take action or vote by means of e-mail.

There is no authority to take action outside of a meeting, and in the only decision dealing
with a vote taken by phone, the court found the vote to be a nullity. In Cheevers v. Town of Union (Supreme Court, Broome County, September 3, 1998), which cited and relied upon an opinion rendered by this office, the court stated that:

"...there is a question as to whether the series of telephone calls among the individual members constitutes a meeting which would be subject to the Open Meetings Law. A meeting is defined as 'the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business' (Public Officers Law §102[1]). Although 'not every
assembling of the members of a public body was intended to fall within the scope of the Open Meetings Law [such as casual encounters by members], ***informal conferences, agenda sessions and work sessions to invoke the provisions of the statute when a
quorum is present and when the topics for discussion and decision are such as would otherwise arise at a regular meeting' (Matter of Goodson Todman Enter. v. City of Kingston Common Council, 153 AD2d 103, 105). Peripheral discussions concerning an item of public business are subject to the provisions of the statute in the same manner was formal votes (see, Matter of Orange County Publs. v. Council of City of Newburgh, 60 AD2d 309, 415 Affd 45 NY2d 947).

"The issue was the Town's policy concerning tax assessment reductions, clearly a matter of public business. There was no physical gathering, but four members of the five member board discussed the issue in a series of telephone calls. As a result, a quorum of members of the Board were 'present' and determined to publish the Dear Resident article. The failure to actually meet in person or have a telephone conference in order to avoid a 'meeting' circumvents the intent of the Open Meetings Law (see e.g., 1998 Advisory Opns Committee on Open Government 2877). This court finds that
telephonic conferences among the individual members constituted a meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Law..."

The Supervisor's admission that "we all authorized it as a group", that the Board, according to the minutes, placed ads in the local paper, indicates that the Board took action in private, and not during a meeting held in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. If that is so, I believe that the Board would have failed to have complied with law. In that circumstance, as in Cheevers, I believe that a court would find its action to be a nullity and determine that it failed to comply with law.

I hope that I have been of assistance.

Sincerely,

 

Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director

RJF:jm

cc: Town Board
Planning Board