The Open Meetings Law was created as a tool for the public, to ensure it was able to attend meetings and hear discussions during the decision-making process. But few people have a clear understanding of the laws, and even fewer take advantage of them.
According to legislative declaration in the Open Meetings Law: “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.”
While those rights are guaranteed through the Open Meetings Law, few individuals use them in the small towns throughout the county. Several Chenango County Supervisors said public attendance is something they rarely see at their meetings. “We’re lucky to have a couple people a year attend our meetings. It’s not unusual to see no one at all,” said Lincklaen Town Supervisor Wayne Outwater. The situation is the same in Pharsalia, according to Supervisor Dennis Brown. “The public is always welcome, but usually if there is a concern, they notify me by phone or e-mail,” Brown said. Even at county board meetings, Chairman Richard Decker acknowledged few members of the public are generally in attendance, unless there is a major issue.
While some see the lack of attendance as a sign that residents are happy with the way the government is operating, Outwater said the lack of participation seems to be a sign of the times. “I wish I knew of a way we could get more people involved, but we have a hard time just trying to fill positions on the boards,” he said.
Decker acknowledged that for many people, it is difficult to find the time to attend the meetings, due to personal and family obligations. To ensure information is available to the public, Decker explained, the minutes of the meetings are accessible online, legal notices are placed in the newspaper and supervisors are generally available to answer questions.
However, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the Committee on Open Government, “The presence of the public can make a difference. Public bodies are more likely to comply with the regulations if someone is there.” For that reason, Freeman explained, some organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, send observers to meetings in some areas to ensure proper regulations are being followed.
One of the Open Meetings Law regulations pertains to the information that can be discussed during executive session. According to the Committee on Open Government, there are only eight reasons for an organization to go into executive session, and while the executive session discussion does not need to be made public, the reasons for it do. In order to enter executive session, a motion including the specific reason for the executive session must be passed by a majority of a public body. For instance, making a motion to enter executive session to discuss personnel issues would not be valid, but making a motion to go into executive session to “discuss the employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” would be valid.
While there is little difference between the two examples, Freeman explained that understanding the legal reasons for executive session and verbalizing your thoughts when a motion does not address the legal issues prevents information from being lost forever. “The open meetings law is based upon the precedent of openness. Without reasonable discussion, the public has no way of knowing if a board is complying with the law. If they enter executive session for the wrong reasons, you may lose that information forever,” Freeman said, explaining that no minutes are kept of executive session unless action is taken.
While the smaller towns throughout the county have less demand for executive sessions, at the city and county level, the sessions occur more often, especially at meetings of the finance or personnel committees.
When asked if the sufficient amount of information was always provided for these sessions, Decker said there could have been times when the information was not complete; however he cited a lack of understanding of the laws as the primary reason. “A lot of it is a lack of understanding about what you can do and what you can’t do,” Decker said after a committee member recently advised a committee to make sure they were in compliance with the regulations. “If someone points out that we’re doing something wrong, we’re going to take care of it and make sure we are doing it properly the next time,” he said.