The Town of Fayette is pushing back against a recent news report that claimed the Town violated New York's Open Meetings Law by holding two public meetings at the same time in different locations.
In a statement released by the Town Attorney, officials say the report -- published by the Finger Lakes Times -- was legally inaccurate and based on a non-binding policy opinion from the state's Committee on Open Government, not a court ruling.
The controversy centers around the events of November 18, when the Town Board met at 6:50 p.m. at the town offices and the Planning Board convened at 7 p.m. at the Fayette Fire Hall. Critics, including residents who wanted to attend both, said the conflicting schedules made that impossible and amounted to a violation of the law.
But the town's attorney says otherwise. "The Open Meetings Law requires that meetings be properly noticed, open to the public, and recorded by minutes," the statement says. "It does not regulate the timing or sequencing of meetings, nor does it prohibit two different public bodies from meeting at the same time in different locations."
The attorney also noted that only a judge -- through a legal process known as an Article 78 proceeding -- can determine whether a violation of the Open Meetings Law has occurred. The Committee on Open Government, which was cited in the original report, has an advisory role and no enforcement power under the law.
"There is not a single court decision in New York that has ever invalidated a meeting simply because another meeting of a different municipal body was occurring at the same time," the attorney wrote, citing precedent from the New York Court of Appeals that municipal interpretations of the law carry equal legal weight to those of COOG.
The town's statement also criticized the Finger Lakes Times for not contacting the Town Attorney's office or Planning Board counsel before publication, calling the story "misleading to the public" and incomplete.
Recent reporting concerning the November 18 Town Board and Planning Board meetings, including the headline suggesting that the Town "violated" the Open Meetings Law, is misleading and legally incorrect.
The article relied on an informal comment from counsel for the Committee on Open Government expressing a policy concern about simultaneous meetings. The public should be aware that under Public Officers Law section 109, COOG's role is advisory, and under section 107, only a court, through an Article 78 proceeding, may find an Open Meetings Law violation or impose a remedy.
The Open Meetings Law requires that meetings be properly noticed, open to the public, and recorded by minutes. It does not regulate the timing or sequencing of meetings, nor does it prohibit two different public bodies from meeting at the same time in different locations. Courts have never interpreted the statute to require municipalities to coordinate meeting schedules to ensure that every member of the public can attend multiple meetings occurring on the same evening.
In addition, there is no provision of the Open Meetings Law, and no reported New York case nor a published COOG advisory opinion that treats it as unlawful for two different town public bodies to hold properly noticed meetings at the same time in different locations. There is also not a single court decision in New York that has ever invalidated a meeting simply because another meeting of a different municipal body was occurring at the same time within the same town. The New York Court of Appeals has made clear that COOG's interpretations are neither binding nor entitled to greater deference than a municipality's own reasonable construction of the statute, Buffalo News, Inc. v. Buffalo Enterprise Dev. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 488, 496.
For these reasons, the headline stating that the Town "violated" the Open Meetings Law is inaccurate and misleading to the public. The article relied solely on an informal policy comment and, in doing so, did not treat the Town Board fairly or fully and accurately present the governing law. It is also notable that, although the Times contacted Supervisor Trout, the reporter did not reach out to my office or to counsel for the Planning Board before publication, which resulted in a story that lacked the full legal context. The assertion that the Town violated any law, rule, or regulation is incorrect and unsupported by any binding legal authority.