HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe TCAT Public Hearing.PDFFrom: "Randall B. Marcus" <randy@bgdmlaw.com>
tsubiect: RE: TCAT Publlc Hearings -
Date: February4, 2009?:37:5b PM EST
To: "'Jim Gilmore"' <jgilmore@cayuga-heights.ny.us>
Cc: "'VCH-Trustees"'<VCH-Trust-ee-secaiuga-heights.ny.u*, n'Norma Manning,,,<NManning@cayuga_heights.ny.us>
Dear Jim.
I apologize if my answers on the requirements of the open Meetings Law have created any confusion. As I have noted, the state statuteitself does not provide a great degree of detail, and much of fre aplricaoie requirements come from caselaw and opinions of the Nyscommiftee on open Governfient' As a result, it is.not possible to iome up with an aosorute,-,,orack anc wrrite,, rule that applies to everysituation' The requirements.have to be applied io tne siecmc il;i;;ir situation. Based'on ine statute, the casetaw and the retevantopinions' I have recommendgd that no more than three'Trust""i-att"nJ DRAC meetings, largely because if a quorum of the Boardattended' it would be extremefy difficutt to support the position that the meeting was not a meetinq of a public body {the Board) for theconducil of the public busjness (of the Village;. tn ttre case of *re rCnf neariigs, particutadv o""l*" the meeting has been ca'ed by anunrelated public body (TCAT), and it has iriviied Ooth representatives'oi municipaf iou"rnments
"nJmembers of the public, I have reacheda slightly different conclusionl if more than three Tru"tels
"tf,rnJ, out fitr i*"""" number are attending onty in their individual capacityand not in anv manner on behalf of the Village, it would not be difficult to Jrgue that the vittage i;s not convened a Board meeting. Thedistinction between these two situati'rns is laigely between 1r""ting,ih"t iJryt o{rerwise dbi""il ovrr-, convened by an advisorycommittee that was formed by the Board, anJ'a puolic meeting, Giii'"uop"r to oML, convened by an entirety unrelatederrfrry that isspecificatly seeking the input of local municipal oooies.. r" rv i"t"ipi"Lii"ii of the taw, gris oisiinction is sound basis for a differentconclusion in each of these tw.9 cas99.-Aqain, my apotogies tnai t';d;;i have addresseo tnese oistinctions in my prior emaits thatrelated specifically to the situation of DRAC meetinqs.
Very truly yours,
Randy
From: Jim Gilmore fmailto:ioilmore@cavuoa_heiohts.nv.usl
To: Norma Manning
Cc: VCH-Trustees; Randall B. Marcus
Eubject Re: TCAT pubtic Hearings
Norma & RandS
I agree with evelything yor,r've said h-ere gxcep! the lpt sentenceo which is exactly I believe the point in time where Randysaiid a Board quorum could not attend w/regards to the Deer aJrisory committee, even as individuals.
Randy' is it not black and white.."3 board Members only at all times(except for political party caucuses) unless it,s an openand Advertised meeting? Randy, let us know yes/no...irlease.
Thanks all, Jim
p's' I suggest 3 only unless Randls opinion differs. and that you all who wish to go get/w Bea for ahead count, and Beawould you draw names frorn a hat, if 4 or more wish to goi ruar.Ks
On Feb 4,2009, at l:04 pM; Nonna Manning wrote:
Trustees,
lf a quorum of Board members plans to aftend these. he.qri.ngs together as a representative body of the Village, that would cross the lineand constitute a meeting of the Board subject to Q{r- rr trE virrige mates ptans tgsend a 'representative delegation," it shoutd consistof no more than three Board members; however, if Board m*roeE arelm-ply considering attending in their individual capacities, thereshould be no problem.
Regards,
Norma