Authorizes the court to declare that a public body has violated the open meetings law or to declare that actions taken by a public body are void

3 Co-sponsors

• Donna Lupardo
• Nelson Castro
• William Magnarelli

3 Multi-sponsors

• Robert Castelli
• Janet Duprey
• Marcus Molinaro

BILL NUMBER:A10196

Title of bill

An act to amend the public officers law, in relation to the enforcement of the open meetings law

Purpose or general idea of bill

This bill strengthens the open meetings law by providing two alternatives to court invalidation of an action taken when any aspect of a meeting is closed in violation of the law. First, a court could stay the implementation of an action and remand the action to the public body for reconsideration. Second, a court could, upon finding a violation of law by a public body, require mandatory training for the members of such public body

Summary of specific provisions

Subdivision 1 of Section 107 of the public officers law is amended to allow a court to impose mandatory training by the Committee on Open Government about the open meetings law upon the public body, or, alternatively, to stay the implementation of an action taken by the public body and remand it for further reconsider- ation back to the public body without prejudice.

Justification

Section 107 of the public officers law permits a court to invalidate action taken behind closed doors in violation of the open meetings law. In New York, invalidation is discretionary, and "good cause" to void action must be shown. Moreover, judicial decisions indi- cate that action taken by a public body may not be subject to invali- dation when the law is violated during a series of closed meetings held for the purpose of discussion only, but when "action" is taken later at an open meeting (see Woll v. Erie County, 83 AD 2d 792 and Dombroske v. West Genesee Central School District, 452 NYS 2d 146 (1983); also Bergan v. Vallette, supra). Therefore, if a public body deliberates toward final action behind closed doors in violation of the law, and later takes "action" during an open meeting, there may be nothing to invali- date. Stated differently, to avoid the most significant penalty that may be imposed by the law, a public body might deliberate in private in violation of the law but escape the penalty by taking action in public.

Therefore, the provisions of this legislation would broaden the court's ability to declare a public body's actions as invalid and remand such a decision, in whole or in part, back to that public body without preju- dice so that the issue may be properly and entirely discussed in public. In addition, it would allow courts to impose mandatory training on the open meetings law on public officers involved in the violation of that law.

Prior legislative history

New Bill.

Fiscal implications

None to the State.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall have become a law.