WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. From the Mayor’s Office. September 17, 2007: City Hall announced today that Robert Freeman Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government has ruled in the distant past (1994) that a caucus involving a majority of governing officials taking action out of the public eye, setting policy is not permitted, and cited New York court decisions putting this ruling in place. Freeman's letter on matters of caucusing and legislative bodies is on the Open Government website.

Wood said he had received no communication from  Camille Jobin-Davis, the Assistant Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government that she had modified or “backed off” from her ruling of Friday in which she noted “If these four members (Councilpersons Boykin, Malmud, Roach and Power), including the President, did not discuss their decision to send this letter during a public meeting, I do not believe that they could validly have acted. Even if the letter was circulated for signing without discussion, I believe it to be action taken outside the requirements of the law.” The unsubstantiated (to this hour report), was printed in the news media Saturday morning.

The  Robert Freeman take on caucusing and policy making,  Wood said could be found on the Open Government website:  “ I have a ruling right off the Freeman website that shows a caucus is o.k., but you cannot discuss a public issue  in a caucus, you can only discuss strategy, and you cannot come to conclusions on public issues. I don’t know that they (the Committee on Open Government) are backing off. I don’t agree that they are backing off. Her e-mail seemed to indicate to me that was the final word. They are not allowed to discuss public issues and come to the conclusions about them outside the view of the public, and that’s exactly what they did.”

One case is Humphrey vs. Posluszny and involved a meeting of a village board with its Police Benevolent Association. The Appellate Division found that the discussion went to the step of policy making. Mr. Wood contends that the four Democrats (consisting of a majority) were doing that when they announced they would “avail  ourselves of all measures at our disposal to bring this ill-considered proposal (the RFQ) to a quick end.”

A  second case, Buffalo News versus the City of Buffalo Common Council in which the Common Council members consisted of members of all one party which met to formulate a budget policy. Here, too, the New York Supreme Court Second Department found they were  in violation of the Open Meetings Law.

The complete letter, for the record, of  Mr. Freeman, Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. The relevant sections of the letter are highlight in blue type:

February 11, 1994

Mr. Isidore Gerber


The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solelyupon the facts presented in your correspondence.

Dear Mr. Gerber:

As you are aware, I have received your letter of January 12. You have asked that I furnish information concerning judicial interpretations and advice pertaining to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and political caucuses under the Open Meetings Law.

In this regard, it is noted at the outset that the Open Meetings Law provides two vehicles under which a public body may meet in private. One is the executive session, a portion of an open meeting that is closed to the public in accordance with §105 of the Open Meetings Law. The other arises under §108 of the Open Meetings Law, which contains three exemptions from the Law. When a discussion falls within the scope of an exemption, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law do not apply.

Of relevance to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law:

"...any matter made confidential by federal or state law."

When an attorney-client relationship has been invoked, the communications made pursuant to that relationship are considered confidential under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Consequently, if an attorney and client establish a privileged relationship, the communications made pursuant to that relationship would in my view be confidential under state law and, therefore, exempt from the Open Meetings Law.

In terms of background, it has long been held that a municipal board may establish a privileged relationship with its attorney [People ex rel. Updyke v. Gilon, 9 NYS 243 (1989); Pennock v. Lane, 231 NYS 2d 897, 898 (1962)]. However, such a relationship is in my opinion operable only when a municipal board or official seeks the legal advice of an attorney acting in his or her capacity as an attorney, and where there is no waiver of the privilege by the client. Further, after a public body has
sought and obtained legal advice from its attorney and has started to discuss and deliberate a matter of public business, I believe that the attorney-client privilege would end and that the Open Meetings Law would apply.

With regard to political caucuses, since the Open Meetings Law became effective in 1977, it has contained an exemption concerning political committees, conferences and caucuses. Again, when a matter is exempted from the Open Meetings Law, the provisions of that statute do not apply.
Questions concerning the scope of the so-called "political caucus" exemption have continually arisen, and until 1985, judicial decisions indicated that the exemption pertained only to discussions of political party business. Concurrently, in those decisions, it was held that when a majority of a legislative body met to discuss public business, such a gathering constituted a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law, even if those in attendance represented a single political party [see e.g.,
Sciolino v. Ryan, 81 AD 2d 475 (1981)].

Those decisions, however, were essentially reversed by the enactment of an amendment to the Open Meetings Law in 1985. Section 108(2)(a) of the Law now states that exempted from its provisions are: "deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses." Further, §108(2)(b) states that:

"for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and
caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations..."

Therefore, in general, either the majority or minority party members of a legislative body may conduct closed political caucuses, either during or separate from meetings of the public body.

Many local legislative bodies, recognizing the potential effects of the 1985 amendment, have taken action to reject their authority to hold closed caucuses and to continue to conduct their business open to the public as they had prior to the amendment.

There have been recent developments in case law regarding political caucuses that suggest that the exemption concerning political caucuses has in some instances been asserted as a means of excluding the public from gatherings that have little or no relationship to political party
activities or partisan political issues.

One of the decisions, Humphrey v. Posluszny [175 AD 2d 587 (1991)], involved a private meeting held by members of a village board of trustees with representatives of the village police benevolent
association. Although the board characterized the gathering as a political caucus outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held to the contrary. In a brief
discussion of the caucus exemption and its intent, the decision states that:

"The Legislature found that the public interest was promoted by 'private, candid exchange of ideas and points of view among members of each political party concerning the public business to come before legislative bodies' (Legislative Intent of L.1985,ch.136,§1). Nonetheless, what occurred at the meeting at issue went beyond a candid discussion, permissible at an exempt caucus, and amounted to the conduct of public business, in violation of Public Officers Law §103(a) (see, Public Officers Law §100. Accordingly, we declare that the aforesaid meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings Law" (id., 588).

The Court did not expand upon when or how a line might be drawn between a "candid discussion" among political party members and "the conduct of public business." Although the decision was appealed, the appeal was withdrawn, because the membership on the board changed.

The second decision, Buffalo News v. City of Buffalo Common Council [585 NYS 2d 275 (1992)], involved a political caucus held by a public body consisting solely of members of one political party. As in Humphrey, the court concentrated on the expressed legislative intent regarding the exemption for political caucuses, as well as the statement of intent appearing in §100 of the Open Meetings Law, and found that:

"In a divided legislature where a meeting is restricted to the attendance of members of one political party, regardless of quorum and majority status, perhaps by that very restriction it would be fair to
assume the meeting constitutes a political caucus. However, such a conclusion cannot be drawn if the entire legislature is of one party and the stated purpose is to adopt a proposed plan to address the deficit before going public. In view of the overall importance of Article 7, any exemption must be narrowly construed so that it will not render Section 100 meaningless. Therefore, the meeting of February 8, 1992 was in violation of Article 7 of the Open Meetings Law... "When dealing with a
Legislature comprised of only one political party, it must be left to the sound discretion of honorable legislators to clearly announce the intent and purpose of future meetings and open the same accordingly consistent with the overall intent of Public Officers Law Article 7"
(id., 278).

I hope that the foregoing serves to clarify your understanding of the Open Meetings Law, and that I have been of assistance. As you requested, a copy of this response will be forwarded to the Chairman of the Sullivan County Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director

RJF:jm

cc: H
o