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

1 Co-sponsor

• Daniel L. Squadron

Title of bill

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

Purpose

This bill strengthens the open meetings law by clarifying the court's authority to invalidate an action taken when the public body acted in violation of the open meetings law. A court could stay the implementation of an action and remand the action to the public body for reconsideration. In addition this legislation would give the court the power, upon finding a violation of law, to require members of the public body in violation of the law to participate in a training session concerning the violation.

Summary of provisions

Section 107 of the public officers law is amended to allow a court to stay the implementation of an action taken by the public body, or, alternatively, require members of the public body in violation of the law to participate in a training session concerning these violations.

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.

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.