Open meetings law notes


Open meetings law notes

3/13 QBCC email

Colleagues:

At QCC we are most fortunate to have had our founding faculty place into our Governance Plan and Governing Body Bylaws this passage:

The Steering Committee of the Academic Senate shall represent the interest of and uphold the policies adopted by the Academic Senate when it is not in session. It shall report to the Senate, at its next regular meeting, such College actions that may have been implemented while the Academic Senate was not in session. If such action requires the immediate establishment of new policy, a special meeting of the Academic Senate shall be called.

Thus while the QCC Governing Body, Academic Senate, is not in actual session its Steering Committee can act on its behalf. This has now been announced at QCC and the Steering Committee will keep the Senate informed before it acts on measures that would have needed the Senate action and then seek feedback and then announce the actions taken.

In terms of the OML the body is not meeting but the Committee is and so the Committee might post its announcements to the Senate on the College website for public viewing and comment as provided for members of the Senate.

I am sure that the current Steering Committee will not be acting on matters of likely public controversy by means of this provision of the Governance Plan.

3/12 email from colleague at John Jay describing some issues

Many of our governance committees are subject to the Open Meeting Law and the Perez decision. Guidance is here:

https://www.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/legal-affairs/advisories/OpenMeetingLawsGovernanceBodiesJan22006.pdf

The OML does not allow voting or actions by phone or email. An example of guidance is here

https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/3447.htm

And the key explanation is:

Conducting a vote or taking action via e-mail would, in my view, be equivalent to voting by means of a series of telephone calls, 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)

Videoconference meetings with votes are possible but hard to arrange. Guidance is here:

https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5535.html

And the key explanation is

So long as the public is permitted to attend at any location at which a member participates and can observe the members wherever they may be, I believe that the members may participate and be counted for purposes of attaining a quorum and for voting, and that a meeting may validly be held.

We also need to keep in mind that move to online instruction is not accompanied by a move to general online operations for campuses.

Administration and staff are expected to report for work normally, and offices are expected to operate on campus. Faculty members are welcome no campus and departments, libraries and research facilities are open. We may not want to have importance governance meetings take place where the administrators are in the room and faculty members are listening on the phone or chiming in on issues by email.

CUNY as said: “This week, we urged campuses to reconsider holding non-essential gatherings and community events of more than 50 people during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester.”

A governance meeting is presumably an essential gathering, particularly if the size of the meeting does not exceed 50 people. The location of the meeting might be moved to a space (like a large instructional space or auditorium) where the participates can sit apart from each other.


A followup included:

The formal citation is: Cheevers v. Town of Union, unreported, (Sup. Ct. Broome Co., Sept. 3, 1998)

Since it is unreported it is not easily accessible online. However, this is a description in another document:

http://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/nyssba_pdf/school-district-obligations-oml-08162016.pdf Page 16

A meeting where a school board reviews the transcript and evidence presented at a student disciplinary hearing when parents appeal their child’s suspension to the board would be considered a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, a board vote to uphold or modify the suspension must take place in open session at a meeting conducted under the Open Meetings Law.

Wash your hands and maintain a "social distance."
Website built with Franklin.jl.