COMMITTEE on OPEN GOVERNMENT (5445):
With regard to the language of the law, §104 of the Open Meetings Law pertains to notice of meetings and requires that: “1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting. 2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto. 3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice. 4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.” Additionally, in 2009, a new subdivision (5) states that: “5. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.”
"In White v. Battaglia, 79 A.D. 2d 880, 881, 434 N.Y.S.ed 637, lv. to app. den. 53 N.Y.2d 603, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 421 N.E.2d 854, the Court condemned an almost identical method of notice as one at bar: "Fay Powell, then president of the board, began contacting board members at 4:00 p.m. on June 27 to ask them to attend a meeting at 7:30 that evening at the central office, which was not the usual meeting date or place. The only notice given to the public was one typewritten announcement posted on the central office bulletin board...Special Term could find on this record that appellants violated the...Public Officers Law...in that notice was not given 'to the extent practicable, to the news media' nor was it 'conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations' at a reasonable time 'prior thereto' (emphasis added)" [524 NYS 2d 643, 645 (1988)]. Based upon the foregoing, absent an emergency or urgency, the Court in Previdi suggested that it would be unreasonable to conduct meetings on short notice, unless there is some necessity to do so. If there was no urgency associated with the issue considered during the meeting to which you referred, in my view, it should not have been held on such short notice. More importantly, even if there is an emergency that necessitates scheduling and conducting meetings quickly, the Open Meetings Law requires that notice be given. It is not difficult to accomplish compliance with §104; notice of the time and place of a meeting can be given to the news media by email, fax or phone; notice can quickly posted in one or more conspicuous public locations; and when it is feasible for an entity to do so, notice can be posted on the entity’s website without delay. COOG 5445
No time is mention , this not in compliance with OML. But further , truth be told they would have known the date when the RFP Letter was placed in public notice, that passed resolution made on July 10, 2019 meeting. Proper planning, scheduling etc. would have already accomplished by developing the RFP (Request for Proposals ) itself can be run in length from a few pages up 500 pages, depending on the project.
However, the people should have already been made aware of this date/time, the proposal letter and the RFP should have been provided with Agenda Documents, as a resolution needed to be passed to accept both documents as written, required by OML . Such a simple thing, yet the board and the clerk show nothing but blantant disrespect to the people.
Sample of a RFP legal notice
A great many violations have occurred at this meeting. Ones that put the people at an even bigger risk. They also exemplify that the board is grossly hiding behind a shroud .
It has been established there would be no rush if the laws were followed, and had the board sent out bids before July 10, 2019, we would not be behind 8 months on this project, as the SEQR documents stated that the project was to begin in MAY 2019 and finished in December of 2019. Since B&L helped with the SEQR documentation, there should have been no delay on the boards part to get the RFP and proposal letter prepared including an appropriate date for opening bids.
The major concern according this article is how the board voted and concerns of who they voted for. Both GMU and NYS Finance laws address several issues.
Committee on Open Government 5575
You raise three questions regarding the use of a “Telephone Conference” for the purpose of attendance and participation in a meeting subject to the OML by a member of a public body. In our opinion, voting and action by a public body may be carried out only at a meeting during which a quorum has physically convened, or during a meeting held by videoconference. In our view, a member of a public body may not attend a meeting by telephone, be counted for quorum purposes, or cast a vote by telephone.
Section 102(1) of the Open Meetings Law defines the term “meeting” to mean “the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business, including the use of videoconferencing for attendance and participation by the members of the public body.” Based upon an ordinary dictionary definition of “convene”, that term means:
“1. to summon before a tribunal; 2. to cause to assemble syn see ‘SUMMON’” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1965).
In view of that definition and others, we believe that a meeting, i.e., the “convening” of a public body, involves the physical coming together of at least a majority of the total membership of such a body, i.e., the Village Board of Trustees, or a convening that occurs through videoconferencing. We point out, too, that §103(c) of the Open Meetings Law states that “A public body that uses videoconferencing to conduct its meetings shall provide an opportunity to attend, listen and observe at any site at which a member participates.” These provisions clearly indicate that there are only two ways in which a public body may validly conduct a meeting. Any other means of conducting a meeting, i.e., by telephone conference, by mail, or by e-mail, would be inconsistent with law
First, by way of background, it is emphasized that the definition of "meeting" [Open Meetings Law, §102(1)] has been broadly interpreted by the courts. In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a "meeting" that must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD 2d 409, aff'd 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)].
I point out that the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was precipitated by contentions made by public bodies that so-called "work sessions" and similar gatherings held for the purpose of discussion, but without an intent to take action, fell outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed, stated that:
"We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of one's official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect by the enactment of this statute" (60 AD 2d 409, 415).
The court also dealt with the characterization of meetings as "informal," stating that:
"The word 'formal' is defined merely as 'following or according with established form, custom, or rule' (Webster's Third New Int. Dictionary). We believe that it was inserted to safeguard the rights of members of a public body to engage in ordinary social transactions, but not to permit the use of this safeguard as a vehicle by which it precludes the application of the law to gatherings which have as their true purpose the discussion of the business of a public body" (id.).
I direct your attention to the legislative declaration of the Open Meetings Law, §100, which states in part that:
"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.
Based on the foregoing, the Open Meetings Law is intended to provide the public with the right to observe the performance of public officials in their deliberations. That intent cannot be realized if members of a public body conduct public business as a body or vote by phone, by mail, or by e-mail.
In sum, I agree with your inference that the "process" by which the four members of the Board constructively took action appears to have been inconsistent with law. COOG 3732
According to the times article, "the board needs to go the lowest bidder, is not in compliance with GMU law nor what is provided by NYOSC.
Sec. 163.00 Record of Obligations
163.00 Record of obligations.
a.
The chief fiscal officer in counties and cities, the clerk in towns and villages, the clerk or secretary or such other officer as the finance board shall designate in school districts and district corporations, shall keep a complete record of each issue of bonds and notes, which shall include:
1.
The type thereof.
2.
The amount thereof.
3.
The number of obligations in the issue.
4.
The rate of interest thereon.
Confirming that date of the meeting would have been known when RFP went out.
The board fails to establish "emergency" to vote... "a public emergency arising out of an accident or other unforeseen occurrence or condition whereby circumstances affecting public buildings, public property or the life, health, safety or property of the inhabitants of a political subdivision or district therein, require immediate action which cannot await competitive bidding or competitive offering, contracts for public work"
Our health and safety over water issues were established in the stepehns era, when approval was granted by the then mayor and board of trustee to run the original lines , as well as the NYSDOH.
And once again, there is another violation of OML regarding Agenda Documents.
And as recently provided by an Ilion resident (posted on FB pg. Clean water for Ilion)
Comments