October 25, 2007
The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence.
We are in receipt of your requests for an advisory opinion concerning application of the Open Meetings Law to a gathering of certain officials and residents earlier this year. Due to the factual scenarios alleged in the materials you submitted, we believe one advisory opinion addressing all of the issues would be most efficient. Accordingly, we offer the following comments.
First, please note that only a court can make a determination whether a gathering is “illegal” or whether there has been a “violation” of the Open Meetings Law. While the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions concerning application of the Freedom of Information Law, this office has no authority to enforce the law or compel an entity to comply with the statutory provisions. It is our hope that these opinions are educational and persuasive, and that they serve to resolve problems and promote understanding of and compliance with the law.
With respect to those who attended a gathering at the office of S&R Development Estates, LLC on February 3, 2007, we note that Richard Troy, in his July 9, 2007 affidavit relates that “my brother and I hosted another meeting, organized by Councilman Bass and attended by Councilman Francis Sheehan, Councilwoman Ettie [sic] Mae Barnes and Councilwoman Diana Juettner.... Councilman Bass and Councilman Sheehan had suggested that is [sic] would be appropriate for Councilwoman Barnes and Councilwoman Juettner to personally meet the principals of S&R since they would be formally voting to implement our Agreement.” (Troy Affidavit, page 18.) Authors of an article in the Scarsdale Inquirer indicated that “Bass said he was out of town for the second meeting. McNally told the Inquirer that ‘Francis Sheehan was there from the start. Eddie Mae Barnes came by literally for five minutes ... Diana Juettner showed up later. Never at any time was there a quorum and never any intent to put a quorum of town board members together.” (Murray and Wolfert, “Developer cries foul in land use dispute” July 20, 2007.) Finally, Supervisor Feiner indicated that he was not advised of the gathering and that notice of the gathering was not given to the public or the news media.
To the extent that the Open Meetings Law may have applied to the actions described above, we offer the following comments.
The Open Meetings Law is clearly intended to open the deliberative process to the public and provide the right to know how public bodies reach their decisions. As stated in §100 of the Law, its Legislative Declaration:
"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it."
It is emphasized that the Open Meetings Law has been broadly interpreted by the courts. In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the Court of Appeals found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a "meeting" that must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD 2d 409, aff'd 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)].
The decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was precipitated by contentions made by public bodies that so-called "work sessions" and similar gatherings held for the purpose of discussion, but without an intent to take action, fell outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals, stated that:
"We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of one's official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect by the enactment of this statute" (60 AD 2d 409, 415).
The court also dealt with the characterization of meetings as "informal," stating that:
"The word 'formal' is defined merely as 'following or according with established form, custom, or rule' (Webster's Third New Int. Dictionary). We believe that it was inserted to safeguard the rights of members of a public body to engage in ordinary social transactions, but not to permit the use of this safeguard as a vehicle by which it precludes the application of the law to gatherings which have as their true purpose the discussion of the business of a public body" (id.).
Further, it was held that "a planned informal conference" or a "briefing session" held by a quorum of a public body would constitute a "meeting" subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law [see Goodson Todman v. Kingston, 153 Ad 2d 103, 105 (1990)].
Based upon the terms of the Open Meetings Law and its judicial interpretation, if a majority of board members gathers to conduct public business, any such gathering would, in our opinion, constitute a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Law. On the other hand, when less than a quorum is present, the Open Meetings Law would not apply. Further, when there is an intent to conduct a meeting, the gathering must be preceded by notice given pursuant to §104 of the Open Meetings Law, convened open to the public and conducted in public as required by the Open Meetings Law.
In this regard, the Open Meetings Law is applicable to meetings of public bodies, such as the Greenburgh Town Board, and §102(2) of the Open Meetings Law defines the phrase “public body” to include:
"...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."
Further, from our perspective, a public body, such as a town board, may validly conduct a meeting or carry out its authority only at a meeting during which a majority of its members has physically convened or during which a majority has convened by means of videoconferencing, and even then, only when reasonable notice is given to all of the members.
Based upon the direction given by the courts, if a majority of the town board gathers to discuss public business, collectively as a body and in their capacities as board members, any such gathering, in our opinion, would constitute a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings 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 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" (emphasis added).
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.” 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 our opinion that a public body may not take action or vote unless reasonable notice is given to all the members. If that does not occur, even if a majority is present, we do not believe that a valid meeting could be held or that action may validly be taken.
In the context of a meeting of a public body, a key question is whether “reasonable notice” was given to all of the members. If a court were to determine that a quorum of the members of the Board were gathered together to discuss town business, and that reasonable notice was not given to the Supervisor, we believe that it would, of necessity, find that the gathering of February 3 was not validly held, and that action purportedly taken at that gathering is a nullity and of no effect.
Next, separate from the notice requirement involving the members of a public body and §41 of the General Construction Law is that imposed by the Open Meetings Law. Section 104 of that statute provides that:
"1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before each meeting.
2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.
3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice."
Stated differently, if a meeting is scheduled at least a week in advance, notice of the time and place must be given to the news media and to the public by means of posting in one or more designated public locations, not less than seventy-two hours prior to the meeting. If a meeting is scheduled less than a week an advance, again, notice of the time and place must be given to the news media and posted in the same manner as described above, "to the extent practicable", at a reasonable time prior to the meeting. Although the Open Meetings Law does not make reference to "special" or "emergency" meetings, if, for example, there is a need to convene quickly, the notice requirements can generally be met by telephoning or faxing notice of the time and place of a meeting to the local news media and by posting notice in one or more designated locations.
Further, the judicial interpretation of the Open Meetings Law suggests that the propriety of scheduling a meeting less than a week in advance is dependent upon the actual need to do so. As stated in Previdi v. Hirsch:
"Whether abbreviated notice is 'practicable' or 'reasonable' in a given case depends on the necessity for same. Here, respondents virtually concede a lack of urgency: They deny petitioner's characterization of the session as an 'emergency' and maintain nothing of substance was transacted at the meeting except to discuss the status of litigation and to authorize, pro forma, their insurance carrier's involvement in negotiations. It is manifest then that the executive session could easily have been scheduled for another date with only minimum delay. In that event respondents could even have provided the more extensive notice required by POL §104(1). Only respondent's choice in scheduling prevented this result.
"Moreover, given the short notice provided by respondents, it should have been apparent that the posting of a single notice in the School District offices would hardly serve to apprise the public that an executive session was being called...
"In White v. Battaglia, 79 A.D. 2d 880, 881, 434 N.Y.S.ed 637, lv. to app. den. 53 N.Y.2d 603, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 421 N.E.2d 854, the Court condemned an almost identical method of notice as one at bar:
"Fay Powell, then president of the board, began contacting board members at 4:00 p.m. on June 27 to ask them to attend a meeting at 7:30 that evening at the central office, which was not the usual meeting date or place. The only notice given to the public was one typewritten announcement posted on the central office bulletin board...Special Term could find on this record that appellants violated the...Public Officers Law...in that notice was not given 'to the extent practicable, to the news media' nor was it 'conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations' at a reasonable time 'prior thereto' (emphasis added)" [524 NYS 2d 643, 645 (1988)].
Based upon the foregoing, absent an emergency or urgency, the Court in Previdi suggested that it would be unreasonable to conduct meetings on short notice, unless there is some necessity to do so.
Lastly, when there is an intent to ensure the presence of less than a quorum at any given time in order to evade the Open Meetings Law, there is a judicial decision that infers that such activity would contravene that statute. As stated in Tri-Village Publishers v. St. Johnsville Board of Education:
"It has been held that, in order for a gathering of members of a public body to constitute a 'meeting' for purposes of the Open Meetings Law, a quorum must be present (Matter of Britt v County of Niagara, 82 AD2d 65, 68-69). In the instant case, there was never a quorum present at any of the private meetings prior to the regular meetings. Thus, none of these constituted a 'meeting' which was required to be conducted in public pursuant to the Open Meetings Law.
"We recognize that a series of less-than-quorum meetings on a particular subject which together involve at least a quorum of the public body could be used by a public body to thwart the purposes of the Open Meetings Law...However, as noted by Special Term, the record in this case contains no evidence to indicate that the members of respondent engaged in any attempt to evade the requirements of the Open Meetings Law" [110 AD 2d 932, 933-934 (1985)].
In Tri-Village, the Court found no evidence indicating an intent to circumvent the Open Meetings Law when a series of meetings were held, each involving less than a quorum of a board of education. Nevertheless, one might interpret the passage quoted above to mean that, when there is an intent to evade the Law by ensuring that less than a quorum is present, such an intent would reflect a failure to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
In sum, if there was an intent to circumvent the Open Meetings Law in the context of this situation, it is possible that a court would find that the Open Meetings Law had been infringed. On the other hand, if there was no such intent, based on the affidavit and the article quoted at the beginning of this opinion, it would appear that the event did not constitute a meeting of a public body and that the Open Meetings Law would not have applied.
On behalf of the Committee on Open Government, we hope this is helpful to you.
Camille S. Jobin-Davis
cc: Town Council