To the Editor:

We are writing to voice our concerns about the Open Meetings Law as it applies to the town of Guilderland. We were heartened when we read your editorial in the Jan. 13, 2022 paper “Democracy withers out of public view,” Jan 20, 2022].

Many of us sat in disbelief as well when we realized there had been an unannounced, secret meeting before the regular town board meeting. The Open Meetings Law is very clear about what is proper and what is not as far as a  public body meeting to discuss the business with which it is entrusted.

The fact that the Coalition for Open Government also called the town out as evidenced by its Facebook post also shows that the coalition too took issue with how this meeting was conducted. This particular group pays very close attention to this subject and weighs in frequently on this topic across the state, but also very frequently here in the Capital Region.

There are several issues regarding the Open Meetings Law that need further investigation and action. Of primary interest to us is that there is absolutely no penalty of any kind if a governmental entity does not follow this law.

The only recourse available is to call the municipality out in an editorial as you did, ask for an advisory opinion from the state’s Committee on Open Government, or pursue an Article 78 proceeding. We understand that there are a number of groups who are working on this kind of legislation, but we have not yet seen or heard anything to share at this time.

In terms of amendments or changes to the Open Meetings Law, our governor made changes so that it is easier for governmental groups to conduct virtual meetings. Unfortunately, there is nothing that addresses how shortcomings can be addressed.

For example, minutes are not needed if the meetings are taped and posted on a website. What happens when there are technical difficulties and the public cannot hear what is going on? How does this meet the criteria of being “open” when no one can hear what is going on?

Is closed captioning a substitute? I would hope not for a couple of reasons: First, what shows up in a text box may not actually be what was said and second, you cannot read the text box on your television screen, so how is the public able to view the meeting under the context of the Open Meetings Law?

This becomes more of a problem if there is a public hearing and the public cannot comment. (Please see the last meeting of the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency held on Jan. 25, 2022).

This has happened more than once in Guilderland where public meetings were continued without notice to the public that there were technical difficulties, or a meeting continued without the public being able to hear, observe, or participate in a public hearing.

There have been times when the public wanted to comment, but could not. Of course the only people who would be on hold would be a developer or property owner, so the committee or board may not be aware that there was an issue until after the meeting ended.

Once a public hearing is closed, no other comments are accepted, or could they be because the committee then immediately votes on the project. This too, is not open government and we believe should not be allowed to be accepted as such.

We are hoping that this is the only instance of various boards meeting before public meetings to discuss the night’s business. If it is not, I would hope that they see the error of meeting in this fashion.

As a public entity, especially with committees and boards, it is in everyone’s best interest to be as transparent as possible and not give the impression that all decisions are made behind closed doors.

Robyn Gray

Chairwoman

Steering Committee

Guilderland Coalition

for Responsible Growth

30