Open Govt./Freedom of Information Laws
Defining the Role of Kent Fiscal Watch
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 10:52pmDefining the Role of Kent Fiscal Watch (In Response to Chairman K. Micheal
Rose's comments)
Micheal writes "Might there be justifiable reasons for the delays in
accessing the broadcast capabilities allotted to the Town Board? One
reading these comments here would walk away with a "conspiracy theory"
reaction, thinking it is only due to an overbearing sense to control what
the world sees, hears and is permitted to think." I think it was/is the
duty of our elected officials to justify to us the delay for whatever
reasons they might have had. This is a matter of depriving all Kent
residents who were FIOS customers of whatever public information was
broadcast on Comcast for more than one year. Many inferences could be made,
but would it not be preferable if our elected officials respected us enough
to have made a statement of their intent and/or difficulties? Even today, a
statement from all five members of explanation would be greatly appreciated.
He continues, "Let's all please take a step back and review from a more
center-focused standpoint. Kent Fiscal Watch is a non-profit organization
that should not exhibit a particular political viewpoint. We can, and
should, help our fellow town residents to understand what is happening about
the town. We should report, not make policy issues." I believe that no
political viewpoint was exhibited in demanding equal treatment for FIOS
customers. And as far as policy is concerned, it is the duty of our
legislators to make policy that is supported by a majority of their
constituents. I personally, and many of my colleagues, are not in agreement
with the Board's decision to remove cameras from the Workshops, where one
has the opportunity to speak to issues of policy before they become law. As
a matter of fact, Kent Fiscal Watch has agreed to film those workshops as
long as we can raise funds to do so. Anyone reading this is welcome to send
us a donation to enable us to continue taping the workshops so that Comcast
and FIOS customers can view their government in action.
While I agree with our Chairman that neutrality is important, that should
not remove us from our role as watchdogs of the actions/inactions of any
elected official. While we focus on Kent and Putnam, we are not confined to
local issues only. Our job in KFW, as I see it, is to criticize and lay
bare all government that is less than completely transparent, that breaks
any of the rules by which they are compelled to proceed, that seeks to act
with subterfuge, or that fails to represent us. Our neutrality extends only
to refrain from party politics, or the endorsement of any particular
candidate.
We are in the midst of a highly contentious election. I urge each of us and
all of our readers to vote, an action that I consider our minimum civic
duty...no matter for whom you vote. That is what I see as neutrality. Our
job, as members of Kent Fiscal Watch, is to ensure that the elected operate
on an open basis, that they respond in policy to the will and interest of
their residents, and that they exercise prudent fiscal restraint. When we
have government that conforms to that standard, then KFW will no longer be
necessary. Our further responsibility, as individuals, should be to learn
as much as we can about the candidates, the issues and to make our decisions
based on information and good sense...and to protect our right to make those
decisions.
I hope others will weigh in on this most important matter...our roles as
members of KFW and/or private individuals. And, if you agree that the
workshops should be taped for all to see and hear, please send a check for
whatever amount you can so that we can continue to tape the workshops and
often overlooked smaller meetings.
Cordially,
Joyce Mitchell
Town meetings are now broadcast live on Community Channels
Submitted by cnarbey on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 7:27pmTo further update Michael Rose's posting of Friday morning, it was announced at the Town Board meeting tonight that the meeting (and all future meetings), would be broadcast live on Comcast channel 95 and Verizon Fios channel 28.
I received the following e-mail from the Supervisor's Confidential Secretary Assistant today at 3:31 p.m.:
"Dear Kent Residents,
The Kent Town Board is excited to announce that the Town Board Meetings, Planning Board Meetings and Zoning Board Meeting are now LIVE on Verizon FIOS Channel 28.
Thanks,
Tess de Leon-Connors
Confidential Secretary to the Supervisor"
Town Board Workshops are "town meetings", so whether these will be video recorded and broadcast is not stated. Michael Rose is of the opinion that the Board's policy of not making a video record of Workshops is unchanged and so I assume that that is the case.
This development is a welcome improvement in the information available to taxpayers and other constituents. The Town Board is to be praised for this - pity there was no earlier communication (as far as I am aware), so that letters and postings didn't have to be made. Councilman Greene appears to me to have not known about the implementation of this improvement, as his letter to "The Putnam Courier" got the discussion moving.
Open Meetings and Recording Requirements
Submitted by kmichlrose on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:07amI feel as though I need to jump in and post on this topic.
Might there be justifiable reasons for the delays in accessing the broadcast capabilities allotted to the Town Board? One reading these comments here would walk away with a "conspiracy theory" reaction, thinking it is only due to an overbearing sense to control what the world sees, hears and is permitted to think.
Let's all please take a step back and review from a more center-focused standpoint. Kent Fiscal Watch is a non-profit organization that should not exhibit a particular political viewpoint. We can, and should, help our fellow town residents to understand what is happening about the town. We should report, not make policy.
To this point, KFW has been paramount in taking the Town Budget over the past few years and making it available in “plain English” for all to read, understand and discuss in an open forum. Perhaps, if the public expresses the interest, we could work to bring the legalese meetings into plain English as well? This might make KFW a good source then for Joe Citizen to read what’s happening in an easily understandable way. (Personally, I feel that people often underestimate Joe Citizen’s abilities to comprehend – much to their detriment).
For the record, Board meetings are now being televised. Workshops are not. This is not to say that a member of the public is not permitted to come to a workshop meeting and record, either video or audio, as long as they are not interfering with the work being done. Nothing to my understanding prohibits KFW from then placing the complete recordings on this site to allow for public access and review – thus helping those of us who, due to work, family or other commitments, are unable to attend public meetings.
I encourage everyone to voice their opinions and concerns freely and to allow this to be the forum we all intended it to be - one where topics are raised, debates ensure and the public is informed.
K. Michael Rose
Chair, Kent Fiscal Watch
Video recording of Town Board meetings
Submitted by cnarbey on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:23pm
"The Putnam County Courier" issue of October 7 carried a letter written by Town Board member John Greene criticizing the Board's policy of selective video recording of its meetings, especially those of "workshop' activity. Mr. Greene exhorts residents to pressure the Board to have all meetings video recorded and broadcast.
Joyce Mitchell wrote to the newspapers in stronger vein (see this website, under "Open Govt./Freedom of Information Laws" category).
I have written a letter to "The Courier" (and other local newspapers) in support of Mr. Greene's position, as follows:
Dear Sir,
Re.: Video Kent meetings
I am writing to support Mr. John Greene’s letter published in your Oct. 7 issue.
Kent Fiscal Watch (www.kentfiscalwatch.org) has advocated with the current and previous Town Boards for open, transparent government – an issue of principle in good government. I am a member, but the following is my personal viewpoint.
I support Mr. Greene’s call to residents to contact the Board and demand that they provide video broadcast of all Town Board meetings.
Mr. Greene could have added that, in the more than 2 years that Verizon has had a franchise to deliver cable TV, the Board has made little effort to use the community broadcasting that Verizon provides. The Town has banked the franchise fee, but has used little of that revenue to provide information to the public.
I think that residents are unaware of how uncommunicative the current Board is. Not only does this Board appear to suppress public scrutiny of town business, it appears to flout the NY Open Meetings Law. Proper notice of Town meetings is not provided. Public participation in meetings is strictly limited or denied. Meetings appear “choreographed”, giving appearance of pre-meeting rehearsals, which should also be open to the public. Meetings are conducted in “legalese”, not plain English.
I find it ironic that the present Supervisor, during her predecessor’s administration, arranged for Mr. Robert Freeman (Chair, Committee on Open Government) to come and address the Board, town employees and residents about the Open Meetings Law. Now she appears to flout the same law.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
II strongly urge all residents to call, write or e-mail the Town Board members and demand that all meetings be video recorded and broadcast on Verizon's Community Channel, as well as Comcasts. Open government is a vital aspect of our democracy. This Board must honor that principle. The appointed Town Counsel and the elected Town Clerk appear to be failing in their duty to counsel the Board to follow the law.
Letter to the Editor
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Wed, 07/21/2010 - 8:47am
Dear Editor,
I am a subscriber and regular reader, a resident of the Town of Kent,and a founding member of Kent Fiscal Watch.
I read with interest and sad amusement Ms. Panny's article in the July 15th edition about the Kent Town Board in which she quotes Supervisor Doherty lamenting the lack of public attendance at the workshops and meetings. It is precisely due to Ms. Doherty's policies that the meetings are no longer attended.
(1) She has effectively removed the ability of public participation with her own rules that delay public comments on agenda items until they have no impact on the Board members (purportedly there to represent us) and comment is strictly limited to agenda items.
(2) Citizens are not permitted to establish agenda items.
(3) The meetings are scripted in advance, meaning that the method of developing the script (prior agreement) is in violation of the Open Meetings Law of NY State.
(4) The meetings are conducted in legalese rather than spoken English...the Town Attorney and other highly compensated individuals are always present to answer any questions that may arise on the rare occasions of the workshops.
(5) The workshops are supposed to be the crucible for regulations that follow in the meetings...in other words, where mattters are developed for a final vote. Ms. Doherty has removed the cameras from these workshops so that any public broadcast will be free of disagreement, giving her and her team the appearance of a "professional" demeanor. Apparently the Team Doherty pols don't know that democracy is messy.
(6) Since 2009 or earlier, when a contract was confirmed with Verizon, our town has had the franchised right to a public TV channel for FIOS customers (like Channel 8 on Comcast) for which this Supervisor has refused to take the appropriate actions, leaving FIOS customers without a public access voice and under-informed.
The only remedy to this silencing of dissent would be term limits. This is a discussion we have yet to have, as it will never make it unto the agenda of the Town Board. For those who wish to discuss it, come to a Kent Fiscal Watch meeting (Thursday, July 22nd, 8:00PM at the Lake Carmel Community
Center) or submit your opinions to our website, www.kentfiscalwatch.org
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Mitchell
Put Valley's Open Meeting Controversy-from PlanPutnam Blog
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 9:07amPutnam Valley - Illegal Meetings
By dawnpowell
Advisory Opinion of the Office of Open Government Illegal Meetings
When I was interviewed for the ad hoc Planning Board position, Mr. Tendy asked me how I could work with the Planning Board when I have accused them of having illegal meetings.
I said that the illegal meetings bothered me, and that they should be a concern for everyone on the Town Board. I have heard no objections to illegal meetings from any Board members.
The Planning Board gathers in the backroom without notice to discuss applications before their noticed meetings.
Three members of the Planning Board, as well as their attorney, met with others to discuss and rewrite the expertly written draft zoning code, without formal notice or formal cancellation of meetings, without recording formal decisions, and without minutes. That was Mr. Tendy’s Wordsmith committee.
I received a four page response, dated April 16, 2009, to my inquiry about these meetings from the State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government.
Excerpted from that response:
“ In the context of your inquiry, clearly the Planning Board is a public body. Based on the rationale outlined above, in our opinion, a committee whose membership includes a majority of the Planning Board would also constitute a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law, and in any event, a gathering of a quorum of the Planning Board membership to discuss public business would constitute a meeting of the Planning Board regardless of others present.
Second, we note that the definition of “meeting” (Open Meetings Law, Section 102[1]) has been broadly interpreted by the courts. In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a “meeting” that must be conducted open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD2d 409, aff’d 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)].”
This seems quite clear to me. Both the Planning Board backroom meetings, and the Wordsmith meetings are covered by the Open Meetings Law.
Regarding the rationale for the public’s right to be included in the public process, the opinion also said:
“In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals, stated that:
’We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of one’s official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect by the enactment of this statute’ (60 AD 2d 409,415).”
The public process includes notice and minutes. The Planning Board’s pre-meetings have not been noticed, nor have minutes been recorded. The Wordsmith meetings were not properly noticed, and minutes were not taken.
“Third, as mentioned earlier, the Open Meetings Law requires that notice be given to the news media and posted prior to every meeting. “ (emphasis added)
“Minutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body which shall consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other mater formally voted upon and the vote thereon.”
I do not understand why Mr. Tendy expressed dismay at my continued comments on illegal meetings, yet expressed no distress at all about these meetings. I do not understand why none of the Board members have made any comments about these illegal meetings. I do not understand why it is that I was the one asking the questions of the Committee on Open Government, rather than the Planning Board members, the Town Board members, or the Tendy Wordsmiths members, including the Town Attorney.
I also do not understand why there have been no members of the press reporting on these blatant illegal meetings.
What will it take to have a legal public process in Putnam Valley?
