Below was taken from the NYS Committee on Open Government's web page. It explains a lot of what you as taxpayers should know. You can also FOIL Executive Session minutes! It is time that most of this BOE be removed.
What is a meeting?
The term "meeting" is defined as "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business." As such, when a quorum (a majority of the membership of a public body) gathers for the purpose of discussing public business, the meeting must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which the gathering may be characterized.
Who is covered by the Law?
The Open Meetings Law applies to "public bodies." That term is defined to include entities consisting of two or more people that conduct public business and perform a governmental function for New York State, for an agency of the state, or for public corporations, such as cities, counties, towns, villages and school districts. Committees and subcommittees of these entities are also included within the definition. Consequently, city councils, town boards, village boards of trustees, school boards, commissions, legislative bodies, and committees and subcommittees consisting of members of those groups all fall within the framework of the Law.
How do I know if a meeting is going to be held?
The Law requires that notice of the time and place of all meetings be given prior to every meeting. If a meeting is scheduled at least a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. When a meeting is scheduled less than a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media "to the extent practicable" at a reasonable time prior to the meeting. Notice to the public must be accomplished by posting in one or more designated public locations.
I attended a meeting; and the public body closed the meeting to the public, citing "personnel matters." Is this legal?
The Law provides for closed or "executive" sessions under certain circumstances prescribed in the Law. It is noted that an executive session is not separate from an open meeting but rather is a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. The Law requires that a public body take several steps to close the meeting. First, a motion must be made during an open meeting to enter into executive session; second, the motion must identify the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered; and third, the motion must be carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body.
Citing "personnel matters" is not a sufficient ground for going into an executive session. The motion to go into executive session should be more specific. For example, a motion could be made to enter into executive session to discuss "the employment history of a particular person." The person would not have to be identified.
It is important to point out that a public body cannot vote to appropriate public monies during a closed session. Therefore, although most public bodies (except school boards in most instances) may vote during a properly convened executive session, any vote to expend public monies must be taken in public.
The Law also states that an executive session can be attended by members of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
Can I speak at a meeting?
The Law is silent with respect to public participation. While it has been advised that a public body does not have to allow the public to speak, many choose to permit public participation. In those instances, it has been advised that a public body must treat all persons in a like manner. For instance, the public body can adopt reasonable rules to ensure fairness; i.e., allowing those who want to speak a specific period of time to express their views.
I requested minutes of a town board meeting and was told that I could not have them until they were approved. Is this right? No. The Law states that minutes of open meetings must be made available within two weeks of the meeting; minutes of executive sessions must be made available within one week of the executive session. It has been suggested that if the minutes have not been approved, they may be marked "draft," "unapproved," or "non-final" when they are disclosed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
No they are not. I am a consultant and many of my clients went through the process of answering this question when Gov Spitzer declared that all public meetings must be web cast.
The reason they are not public meetings is that "no official decisions" or "official votes" are being made in these meetings by the governing board or authoritative persons. These workshops are more used for fact finding and discussion, sort of like meetings when DOT does a meeting in a town when they do a project. This is why they use the term "workshop". This is my interpretation and not official legal language.
There could be another legal opinion, but this is how many state agencies were interpreting it.
Looks like she isn't too bored. Amazing, glad we're still paying her. Check out this link:
http://www.capitalregionfunding.com/LoanOfficers.aspx
I am so impressed with the East Greenbush residents that are keeping on top of things. As seen in the above blog, finding her working already. See thats what happens in the real world you dont do your job, you get fired and then you have to find another job. But no, our east greenbush Board fires you because you dont do your job then pays you 160,000.00. AND I AM told she is getting paid till DECEMBER NOT JUNE. Give me a break, please someone with 1/2 a brain please run for office. Please Please
I attended the BOE meeting this week and though Larry Edsen did a great job explaining the reassessment process and its affects.
However, I have to say that Jim MacArevey is out to lunch and clueless to say the least. When it became apparent that people owning older houses that have not been valued properly will end up paying more in taxes he had the nerve to say that it is not fair and people who have built newer houses should have to keep paying more since they new the tax rates when they built their houses.
Thus, as it looks, those of us with newer houses have been overpaying our share of taxes for years, while those with older houses have been paying less than they should. Mr.MacArevey thinks its ok for me to overpay my taxes because I must be able to afford it.
I wonder if Jim owns an older house that is not propoerly valued and he is getting a great deal right now?
It was a very self-serving and mis-guided comment that shows his lack of value.
Pending litagation, an specific employee or student and negotiations are executive session items, and not open to public access.Those items are for informational purposes for the BOE. The only time a vote could be taken in executive session would be for the purpose of instituting a 3020A or the comparable CSEA finding.....which are required by NYS Education law! This information can be checked for accuracy, but I believe it is correct!!!
I have an older house and it was recently reaccessed as of last year.
I expressed earlier that I would do my best to get a better understanding of what has taken place and believe I have some answers, but nothing that really excuses the events that have taken place. I still can't figure out how to make an original post, so I'll post here. I have spoken with a few different board members who helped me arrive at the following "conclusions" without saying anything definite.
Apparently, as elected officials, the BOE is PERSONALLY liable to be sued if they speak about the settlement in any way. Their silence, is an effort to protect their personal finances under penalty of law and for this, I don't necessarily blame them. If only they were as vigilent about protecting our collective tax dollars, as they are about protecting themselves after the fact, we might not be in this mess.
Having spoken to a few members and understanding this aspect, I was encouraged to draw my own conclusions based on the facts, and near as I can tell, this is what I've come up with. Forgive me if I have failed at getting better answers.
I immediately concluded that a mistake was made, either Dr. Furlong in accepting the position or the BOE in hiring her. Since Dr. Furlong is getting paid for not working, I doubt the mistake was hers. Having sufficient information to indicate that Dr. Furlong was not the best candidate or perhaps that another candidate was a better fit, it seems likely the BOE made the error.
In a superintendant's contract, there is typically a one year buy out clause. Once the BOE realized they made a drastic mistake, the only way to minimize the damage was to excercise the buy out. Unfortunately, that deal was struck, as a matter of public record, around Dec. 17th. Dr. Furlong is to be paid until the end of the school year in June, as stated in the BOE release.
What the BOE doesn't say is that if she doesn't find a job as a super apparently, (given the other post showing she is working elsewhere), she is to be paid until Dec. 17th of this year '08 according to the buy out clause of her contract.
The BOE, (forgive me for saying so), apparently was more intent on finding a candidate outside of the district and Mr. Brewer's influence, than they were on a candidate with the right qualifications. Dr. Furlong was the only one who fit this discription. The BOE had sufficient information on the other candidate and recommendations to support his hire and acted independantly, as is their right to do.
Unfortunately, it is an extreme act of arrogance to presume that they as a school board, know more about what the district needs and wants, than the panels of parents and other community members who participated in the process.
Before there is good news, I believe there is more bad. I am of the opinion that, given the anger of residents, they will be unsuccessful in passing a budget. Unfortunately, that hits the students and teachers in the district more than anyone, and at no penalty to the board. A contingency budget requires the cutting of all non-mandated programs which are programs many of us would consider essential in todays society, (all day kind., sports, arts, etc.).
It is my opinion that this board, take it among themselves, to cut as dramatically as possible, everywhere they can and demonstrate that their error, did not cost taxpayers. The cutting of some services would be for one year and could include items such as after school busing, perhaps put off certain purchases, for a period of one year until we get past this incident.
Ideally, those items could be returned in the following year. Any other solution puts this district at risk of a state mandadted budget with cuts that effect every student and individual involved in the district. Not really a great solution. Although the $160-$200K that is at issue here, may in fact be a small fraction of an $80 million dollar budget, I get the sense that this is a matter of principle and a means of making the BOE accountable to taxpayers as is their duty.
The good news? We do have some dedicated people in a great school distric. We still have great teachers and administrators. We DO have a few board members that have the ability to contribute in a positive way and in my opinion, do not need to be replaced. Among them are Karen Curran and Marie Curley. Mr. Sullivan I do not know nor have I met and Linda Jones I do know, but unfortunately, in my opinion, seems to have been pressured by other board members, which at the heart of the matter is the problem on the board. Board members should feel at liberty to express their opinion without pressure.
I'd also like to add, that I DO applaud the BOE for appointing Dr. Guptil as interim Super. I give her credit for apparently being willing to sit on a powder keg with a road flare. I find it ironic that one of the very people the BOE found it unnecessary to interview originally, is the current solution.
My outspoken nature should not detract from my desire to participate as part of the solution in this situation, rather than continuing to focus on the problem. I do not believe we can move forward until we have identified where we went wrong in the first place. Inasmuch as I will not impugn the character of any one individual by name, I will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to where the problems may lie.
I hope you find this helpful, I wish I had more definitive answers, but it seems any certain answers will forever reside with the board.
Michael Cristo
Dear Anonymous - all houses were reassesed last year, but they have not taken effect yet. That will happen this year with the first tax payments under the new assessments due in the Fall. That is when things will get interesting.
We seem to get a new assessment every couple of years, so I don't think the increase will be too shocking.
The town of East Greenbush has not reassed in about 27 years or so. Nassua does re-assess every 5 years. Not sure where you live.
My point is: Even though I live in an older house, I pay my Fair Share of taxes.
If anyone should be angry about paying more taxes is the residents that lived here for a long time. They are the ones who can't afford their property asnymore because of the never ending increase.
The one's with the new house already know what they are going to pay in the beginning,(Or at least should find out), where we wait every few years for the next increase.
Post a Comment