The Rights of Citizens

[Mary3]

Do citizens have a right to question the workings of government and public authorities without being flogged?

Citizens not only have the right to question, but it's our duty to do so.

I didn't read the entire pages of this thread but, all I can say is THEY WORK FOR US, they should never forget it, if they do, they need to go away into private sector where they can't hurt anyone.

[Psycho1]

We have the right and the responsibility to question government. To not question those in power is lunacy. I have already questioned why the reorganization meeting is scheduled for 5:30 PM, on January 3. Paul Clark held meetings at 5:30 to keep attendance to a minimum. Is Wally exhibiting similar tendencies so early in the game?

As for our friend Niagara, he/she is here for the sole purpose of stirring the pot, with nothing to add. Perhaps, in time, if ignored they will fade away never to be heard from again.

[dtwarren]

You need to show that anyone else was specifically excluded from this alleged meeting.

Anyway, all five of the new WS Town Board members are Democrats, so there will be no issue starting Jan. 1st regarding "Closed Caucuses" or the Open Meetings Law, which, in my opinion, is a joke anyway.

No. All that is needed to prove a violation is that no or inadequate notice of the meeting was given to the public or press and no provision for them to attend and observe was made. If no one knew of the meeting it follows that no one could attempt to attend in order to be denied entry. See Warren v. Giambra, 12 Misc. 3d 650, 813 N.Y.S.2d 892.

As to your second point that is not entirely correct either. Once they conduct public business as opposed to discussing it the Open Meetings Law is violated. In Humphrey v. Posluszny, 175 A.D.2d 587 the Fourth Department held "We reject respondents' contention that the May 6, 1990 meeting was exempt from the requirements of the Public Officers Law, relating to open meetings, because that meeting constituted a "political caucus" of the Village of Lancaster Independent Party (see, Public Officers Law § 108[2][a], [b]). It is undisputed that a quorum of the Village Board was present at the meeting. When the Legislature amended the Public Officers Law in 1985 (L 1985, ch 136, § 1), it implicitly rejected the reasoning in Sciolino v Ryan (81 AD2d 475, affg 103 Misc 2d 1021) that exempt meetings of political caucuses were those discussing private matters of a political party as opposed to public business. The Legislature found that the public interest was promoted by "private, candid exchange of ideas and points of view among members of each political party concerning the public business to come before legislative bodies" (Legislative Intent of L 1985, ch 136, § 1). Nonetheless, what occurred at the meeting at issue went beyond a candid discussion, permissible at an exempt caucus, and amounted to the conduct of public business, in violation of Public Officers Law § 103(a) (see, Public Officers Law § 100). Accordingly, we declare that the aforesaid meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings Law."

I disagree with your opinion that the Open Meetings Law is a joke. The public has a right to observe the debate and discussion of public business in order for them to observe their elected officials to form their opinion on whether or not these officials have the public's best interest in mind so as to make an informed decision to vote for them at the next election.

[dtwarren]

I believe we have a lot of good info here. FOIL works but not that well. The town will drag their feet and when they do give you something, its as little info as possible. I'm really interested in ARticle 78. Do you have more information on it?

You do not have to wait for the Town. If the Town does not acknowledge your request or a response is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time you may consider that a constructive denial and begin the administrative and then judicial appeals process.

[Mona]

To all...

Everyone is all in in!! Experiment will carry on.

I have been out of touch. Christmas has taken over my life and work!! Seems like the request to hang light, put up trees and unload the large packages never ceases.

In regard to the reorg. meeting. Was that calendar set already? Maybe Wally does not realize that it is an inconvenient time.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

You need to show that anyone else was specifically excluded from this alleged meeting.

regarding "Closed Caucuses" or the Open Meetings Law, which, in my opinion, is a joke anyway.

Am I to understand that what some in here are stating as fact that a town board can only be able to discuss town issues as a group in an open forum enviroment ? There can be no closed caucuses ? What if they were to all meet in a private outside the town hall, is that some sort of breach of ethics ? I don't see how a council could operate effectively and productively if everything that relates to the council and town business/issues has to be discussed with public eyes and ears being privy to every move and discussion they have.

If that is BigGuy's contention, I agree with him.

[dtwarren]

For the most part all business of a public body must be conducted in public. The State Legislature in enacting the Open Meetings Law declared the policy of this State as "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 commonwealth will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it." (Public Officers Law section 100)

There are certain exceptions to the Open Meetings Law which are to be narrowly construed. They are set forth in Public Officers Law section 108 as follows:

"§108. Exemptions. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to: 1. judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, except proceedings of the public service commission and zoning boards of appeals; 2. a. deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses. b. for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or of the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations; and 3. any matter made confidential by federal or state law."

In addition to those exemptions the public body can enter into executive session upon a motion passed during an open meeting as provided in Public Officers Law section 105 which provides:

"§105. Conduct of executive sessions. 1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys: a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed; b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer; c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed; d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation; e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law; f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation; g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof. 2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body."

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

The public has a right to observe the debate and discussion of public business in order for them to observe their elected officials to form their opinion on whether or not these officials have the public's best interest in mind so as to make an informed decision to vote for them at the next election.

The Public has a right to know everything single thing ? And before it happens or is voted on ? Are you saying discussions of hirings, discussions of bids or purchases or the many other town related business issues of varying degrees that sometimes do need some level of confidentiality should always be open for the public to see and know. You're saying that it would not impede or jeopardize the issues in any capacity at all ? I'd say next to nothing would get accomplished because of the endless line of public naysayers who simply find fault with everything and would be interpreting things as to how they percieve them and rushing to judgement as well as running to whoever to tell them of the particulars they "heard". This in my opinion would border on the old adage "The inmates are running the asylum"

We're all impressed with your legal mumbo jumbo. But we're not in some sort of court here before judges and arbitrators. Can you possibly keep it in laymans terms or try to "dumb it down" (for me, at least) and simplify it in terms that aren't full of legalese speak?

I don't even know if you answered my question.

[dtwarren]

The Public has a right to know everything single thing ? And before it happens or is voted on ? Are you saying discussions of hirings, discussions of bids or purchases or the many other town related business issues of varying degrees that sometimes do need some level of confidentiality should always be open for the public to see and know. You're saying that it would not impede or jeopardize the issues in any capacity at all ? I'd say next to nothing would get accomplished because of the endless line of public naysayers who simply find fault with everything and would be interpreting things as to how they percieve them and rushing to judgement as well as running to whoever to tell them of the particulars they "heard". This in my opinion would border on the old adage "The inmates are running the asylum"

It appears that we cross-posted and my prior post clarifies a lot of what you are asking here.

However, it appears that you are blurring the distinction between the public's right "to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy" and public participation. Except for issues that require a public hearing the public's role is passive and limited to observing. If the public does not like what they have observed there are other avenues to express their displeasure (i.e. when the officials come up for re-election or if it is an item that is subject to a permissive referendum they can petition to have the question placed on the ballot and the voters of the town vote upon it, or in other circumstances seek judicial review of the act under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules).

[dtwarren]

I will try to parse it:

The Open Meetings Law does not apply to meetings:

• judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, except proceedings of the public service commission and zoning boards of appeals;
• deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses. (for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or of the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations); and
• any matter made confidential by federal or state law.

In addition to those exemptions the public body can enter into executive session (public not allowed) to discuss and consider the following:

• matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
• any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
• information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
• discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
• collective negotiations pursuant to the civil service law;
• the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
• the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
• the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

Thank You for parsing. I understand now that most of my concerns are not warranted and the town council does have certain rights in order to conduct business without being held in a stranglehold by too much public meddling. I suppose some in the public would like to remove those rights as well though.

[dtwarren]

Thank You for parsing. I think I better understand that most of my concerns are not warranted and the town council does have certain rights in order to conduct business without being held in a stranglehold by too much public meddling. I suppose some in the public would like to remove those rights as well though.

I believe you are correct and the answer to them is to run for office, but on the other hand there are some elected officials who would prefer to remove the public's right to transparency and accountability and this is where the public has to be vigilant.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

there are some elected officials who would prefer to remove the public's right to transparency and accountability and this is where the public has to be vigilant.

Agreed. The outgoing Supervisor is a "glowing" example of this transparency. As well as a few of his minions, some of who were not elected. There are significant town officials with varying levels of influence that will still be in place in town after the new board is in place who should have been more closely scrutinized in the past but gained favor with the Supervisor looking the other way, they profited in ways most could never have.

[BigGuy]

The bottom line regarding the "Open Meetings Law", in my opinion, is that it allows members of the same political party to Caucus w/o notice or observation by the opposite party.

As I stated, now that all five West Seneca Board Members are Democrats, they may MEET without notification and discuss business. AS ALWAYS, no business may be transacted. This changes a Caucus to a Meeting and wipes out the exemption.

The Open Meetings Law was enacted to ensure that all interested may observe the transaction of the public's business, and watch the government decision making process.

It was not meant to require that every single discussion or meeting to discuss pending or possible public issues is publshed and open to the press and non-members. The key is discussion of vs. the actual transaction of the public's business.

Those holding political office who have something to hide should not be able to use the Open Meetings Law as a shield. In return, those wishing to hinder the honest, open discussion of issues without the need to pander to the press for "quotes and sound bites" should also not be able to use it as a sword.

But, that's just my opinion. Happy Holidays to all!

[Niagara]

As for our friend Niagara, he/she is here for the sole purpose of stirring the pot, with nothing to add.Perhaps, in time, if ignored they will fade away never to be heard from again.

As far as nothing to add, I was the one who requested Mr. Warren assist you fellows in your quest for information.
http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...t=17083&page=3
#22, 33, 34
Seems to me he has been very helpful. Many questions seem to have been clarified with his assistance.

As far as stirring the pot, you and your kin seemed to have stirred it quite well before I appeared. It is you Mr. Facts Man who are guilty of .....irresponsible defamation. Seems to me you like to dish it out, but can't take it.