Town Balks at State's Latest Open-Meeting Demands
Bedford challenges revised law that deems proposed resolutions public documents, even before the town board has acted on them; online posting requirement also in question.
A new state law, reversing a longstanding town policy, would give Bedford residents a look at proposed resolutions before the town board has adopted them.
Under an amendment to the Open Meetings Law, records scheduled to be discussed at a public meeting would be made available at the meeting or earlier. It says in part that "any proposed resolution . . . scheduled to be the subject of discussion by a public body during an open meeting shall be made available . . . prior to or at the meeting during which the records will be discussed."
That would allow anyone at the meeting to follow board members’ tinkering with a resolution, even when they specify only, say, “the third line of the second paragraph on page one.” But the town appears ready to stand by its longtime policy of treating proposed resolutions, those not yet adopted by the town board, as “draft” documents, and thus not subject to public access.
“Although the language of the amendment seems clear on its face,” Town Attorney Joel Sachs said in response to a question today, “the present [Freedom of Information Law] exempts draft resolutions from FOIL as intra-agency communications.”
Insisting “this is not as easy as it appears,” he said his law firm was “researching the issue.” The firm, Keane & Beane of White Plains, represents a number of municipalities.
On Tuesday, as the board discussed the forthcoming amendment, Sachs renewed advice he has provided in the past. “If you have a resolution before this board,” he told the members, “that is a draft. . . . We don’t believe that is covered by this [amendment].”
While the Open Meetings Law assures residents of their right to be present when a public body convenes, their “ability to understand or contribute to the decision-making process may be minimal and frustrating,” the state’s Committee on Open Government said in a statement saluting the amendment.
“The purpose of the legislation is simple: those interested in the work of public bodies should have the ability, within reasonable limitations, to see the records scheduled to be discussed during open meetings prior to the meetings,” the statement said.
In a second potential conflict with the state’s revised statute, the town plans to ignore an apparent requirement to make meeting documents available online. The amendment asks that the records of any municipality with "a regularly and routinely updated website . . . be posted on the website to the extent practicable."
But Town Clerk Lisbeth "Boo" Fumagalli said that fulfilling such a demand would be unnecessarily expensive. The board agreed and plans instead to make those meeting records available for inspection at town hall. Copies could be obtained at 25 cents a page.
Parker Renamed to Wetlands Panel
The town board reappointed Carol Parker to a three-year term on the Wetlands Control Commission, the volunteer panel charged with protecting Bedford’s water-supply areas.
“Carol has been a very active and valued member of the commission,” Supervisor Lee V.A. Roberts said in supporting Parker’s request to continue on the five-member commission, which remains shorthanded by one member.
In addition to unanimously approving Parker’s reappointment, the board scheduled Feb. 15 to interview four candidates for the seat that had been held by Richard Strongwater, who has resigned.
Among its duties, the panel reviews every application for a construction permit within 100 feet of a wetland.
In other action, the board:
SET Feb. 7 for a public hearing on the new affordable housing ordinance, an amalgam of longtime Bedford codes and relatively recent county provisions that will govern the town’s participation in Westchester’s fair-housing agreement.
BOUGHT for Building Department use a Ford Fusion, at a price of $25,602.68, paying for the hybrid auto with money allocated and set aside two years ago.
APPROVED June 6 for the Katonah Fire Department’s annual parade.
David Cohen
6:14 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
I really do not understand the objection. The whole point of the law is to require that government provide the citizenry with the tools to become actively involved in the governmental process. Our representatives work for US. The idea that a "draft" is not a public document is laughable on its face. Our Town Board should be ashamed at this attempt to maintain the distance between the people and their government.
David Gabrielson
7:11 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
I don't understand the headline. The Board has no problem with the new law. All of the materials that are provided to every board member for boards that meet with an agenda (including zoning, planning, wetlands, conservation, etc.), will be available to the public. I don't understand the reference to a "longtime policy" of not sharing resolutions.... The headline makes it seem as though we're opposed to running an open government, and that's simply not true.
Bea Rhodes
9:13 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
And in addition to David Cohen’s comments, I must admit to some confusion as to not posting all these documents on the Town’s website. I imagine that most of them are on someone’s PC and the conversion process to PDF is a simple one if needed. As to server issues, I don’t understand that either, the upgrades are fairly recent and I would think that before the upgrades were implemented there would have been a careful assessment of the Town’s storage needs.
Chris Burdick
9:17 am on Thursday, January 19, 2012
We should do our utmost to ensure maximum transparency practicable. Doing so involves cost which the amendment to the Open Meetings Law recognizes. We need to know what is entailed in the actual mechanics – scanning the documents, posting them and using server space, among other things. There is cost involved in all this. We need to know what it is. Clearly we shouldn’t be posting to the website every shred of paper. Subject to cost considerations, I would favor posting the non confidential items in the Town Board’s agenda package and those of the permitting boards.
I also take issue with the headline. As mentioned in the article, Joel Sachs explained at the meeting that his firm is further researching the requirements and how best to faithfully implement them. I think we should await the outcome of that research which I would expect would be available shortly given the early February effective date of the amendment.
Bea Rhodes
2:31 pm on Thursday, January 19, 2012
You may find this link useful, http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/RecordsDiscussedatMeetings.html