Makes provisions regarding enforcement of open meetings law: court may void, stay, or impose a civil penalty

3 Co-sponsors

• Eric Adams
• Darrel J. Aubertine
• Ruben Diaz

Title of bill

An act to amend the public officers law, in relation to 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, "impose a fine of up to five hundred dollars payable by each public body engaged in such violation."

Summary of specific provisions

Section 107 of the public officers law is amended to allow a court to impose a civil penalty upon the public body, or, alternatively, to stay the implementation of an action taken by the public body.

Justification

Section 107.1 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 indicate that action taken by a public body may not be subject to invalidation 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, 462 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 invalidate. 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. In a situation in which a violation is found, but in which invalidation is unreasonable, there may be no sanction, other than a judicial statement that a violation has occurred. The problem that remains, therefore, is that there is little in the way of deterrent to further violations.

Prior legislative history

A.2216 of 2001-02 Codes; A.81A of 2003-04: Third Reading; A.1258 of 2005-06: passed assembly; A.5809 of 2007-08: passed Assembly

Fiscal implications

None to the State.

Effective date

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