Source: http://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/ftext/f16526.htm
Timestamp: 2014-11-01 08:51:58
Document Index: 486936225

Matched Legal Cases: ['§86', '§87', '§87', '§4503', '§87', '§3101', '§106', '§105', '§106', '§105', '§87', '§87', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§105', '§108', '§4503', '§105', '§108', '§106', '§89', 'art 1401', '§87', '§1401', '§89', '§84']

FOIL-AO-16526
We are in receipt of your request for an advisory opinion concerning application of the Freedom of Information and Open Meetings Laws to requests made to and actions taken by the Village of Wesley Hills. In your correspondence, you raised many issues, all of which we will attempt to address with the following comments.
First, by way of background, the Freedom of Information Law governs access to records maintained by an agency, such as a village. The Open Meetings Law applies to meetings of public bodies, public access to meetings, notice of meetings, and minutes. While the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions concerning application of these laws, this office has no authority to enforce or compel an entity to comply with those statutes. It is our hope that these opinions are educational and persuasive, and that they serve to resolve village problems and promote understanding of and compliance with the law.
Second, as you are likely aware, the Freedom of Information Law pertains to existing records. Section 89(3) states in part that an agency is not required to create a record in response to a request. We point out that when an agency indicates that it does not maintain or cannot locate a record, an applicant for the record may seek a certification to that effect. Section 89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law provides in part that, in such a situation, on request, an agency “shall certify that it does not have possession of such record or that such record cannot be found after diligent search.” When you consider it worthwhile to do so, you could seek such a certification.
It is noted that the Freedom of Information Law includes within its scope not only records in the physical possession of an agency, but also those that may be kept or maintained for an agency elsewhere. That statute pertains to all agency records, and §86(4) defines the term “record” expansively to mean:
Perhaps most significant is a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in which it was found that materials maintained by a corporation providing services pursuant to a contract for a branch of the State University that were kept on behalf of the University constituted "records" falling with the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law. The Court rejected "SUNY's contention that disclosure turns on whether the requested information is in the physical possession of the agency", for such a view "ignores the plain language of the FOIL definition of 'records' as information kept or held 'by, with or for an agency'" [see Encore College Bookstores, Inc. v. Auxiliary Services Corporation of the State University of New York at Farmingdale, 87 NY 2d 410. 417 (1995)].
In short, insofar as records sought are maintained for the Village, we believe that the Village would be required to direct the person who possesses them to disclose them in accordance with the Freedom of Information Law, or obtain them in order to disclose them to you to the extent required by law.
Further, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law. In our view, perhaps some of the grounds for denial could properly be asserted to withhold some of the records in question. Third, the transmittal or possession of records by the Village’s attorney would not alter the character of the records or necessarily bring them within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. The first ground for denial in the Freedom of Information Law, §87(2)(a), pertains to records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute." For more than a century, the courts have found that legal advice given by a municipal attorney to his or her clients, municipal officials, is privileged when it is prepared in conjunction with an attorney-client relationship [see e.g., People ex rel. Updyke v. Gilon, 9 NYS 243, 244 (1889); Pennock v. Lane, 231 NYS 2d 897, 898, (1962); Bernkrant v. City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, 242 NYS 2d 752 (1963), aff'd 17 App. Div. 2d 392]. As such, we believe that a municipal attorney may engage in a privileged relationship with his or her client and that records prepared in conjunction with an attorney-client relationship may be considered privileged under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Further, since the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law, it has been found that records may be withheld when the privilege can appropriately be asserted when the attorney-client privilege is read in conjunction with §87(2)(a) of the Law [see e.g., Mid-Boro Medical Group v. New York City Department of Finance, Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., NYLJ, December 7, 1979; Steele v. NYS Department of Health, 464 NY 2d 925 (1983)]. Similarly, the work product of an attorney may be confidential under §3101 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Nevertheless, correspondence between the Village Attorney and the applicant’s attorney, if it exists, although in possession of the Village’s attorney, does not consist of privileged communications. In a discussion of the parameters of the attorney-client relationship and the conditions precedent to its initiation, it has been held that:
The Village is the client of the Village attorney; the applicant’s attorney is not. Consequently, communications in possession of the Village attorney transmitted to and from the applicant’s attorney would not fall within the coverage of the attorney-client privilege. On the contrary, we believe that they would constitute agency records that must be disclosed, for none of the grounds for denial would appear to be pertinent or applicable.
Turning to the issues raised with respect to the Open Meetings Law, you referred to the Village’s denial of your request for access to minutes of a particular executive session on the ground that no such minutes exist. As you may be aware the Open Meetings Law contains direction concerning minutes of meetings and provides what might be viewed as minimum requirements pertaining to their contents. Specifically, §106 states that:
In view of the foregoing, as a general rule, a public body may take action during a properly convened executive session except to appropriate public moneys [see Open Meetings Law, §105(1)]. If action is taken during an executive session, minutes reflective of the action, the date and the vote must generally be recorded in minutes pursuant to §106(2) of the Law. If no action is taken, there is no requirement that minutes of the executive session be prepared.
Minutes of executive sessions need not include information that may be withheld under the Freedom of Information Law. From our perspective, when a public body makes a final determination during an executive session, that determination will, in most instances, be public. For example, although a discussion to hire or fire a particular employee could clearly be discussed during an executive session [see Open Meetings Law, §105(1)(f)], a determination to hire or fire that person would be recorded in minutes and would be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law. On other hand, if a public body votes to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a public employee, minutes reflective of its action would not have include reference to or identify the person, for the Freedom of Information Law authorizes an agency to withhold records to the extent that disclosure would result in an unwarranted personal privacy such as unsubstantiated charges or allegations [see Freedom of Information Law, §87(2)(b)].
On occasion, public bodies have taken action by what has been characterized as “consensus.” If a public body reaches a consensus upon which it relies, we believe that minutes reflective of decisions reached must be prepared and made available. In Previdi v. Hirsch [524 NYS 2d 643 (1988)], the issue involved access to records, i.e., minutes of executive sessions held under the Open Meetings Law. Although it was assumed by the court that the executive sessions were properly held, it was found that "this was no basis for respondents to avoid publication of minutes pertaining to the 'final determination' of any action, and 'the date and vote thereon'" (id., 646). The court stated that:
"The fact that respondents characterize the vote as taken by 'consensus' does not exclude the recording of same as a 'formal vote'. To hold otherwise would invite circumvention of the statute.
"Moreover, respondents' interpretation of what constitutes the 'final determination of such action' is overly restrictive. The reasonable intendment of the statute is that 'final action' refers to the matter voted upon, not final determination of, as in this case, the litigation discussed or finality in terms of exhaustion or remedies" (id. 646).
If the Board reached a "consensus" that is reflective of its final determination of an issue during an executive session, we believe that minutes must be prepared that indicate its action, as well as the manner in which each member voted. We note that §87(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law states that: “Each agency shall maintain...a record of the final vote of each member in every agency proceeding in which the member votes.” As such, members of public bodies cannot take action by secret ballot.
Perhaps more importantly, there are two vehicles that may authorize a public body to discuss public business in private. One involves entry into an executive session. Section 102(3) of the Open Meetings Law defines the phrase "executive session" to mean a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded, and the Law requires that a procedure be accomplished, during an open meeting, before a public body may enter into an executive session. Specifically, §105(1) states in relevant part that: "Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only..."
As such, a motion to conduct an executive session must include reference to the subject or subjects to be discussed and the motion must be carried by majority vote of a public body's membership before such a session may validly be held. The ensuing provisions of §105(1) specify and limit the subjects that may appropriately be considered during an executive session. Therefore, a public body may not conduct an executive session to discuss the subject of its choice. The other vehicle for excluding the public from a meeting involves "exemptions." Section 108 of the Open Meetings Law contains three exemptions. When an exemption applies, the Open Meetings Law does not, and the requirements that would operate with respect to executive sessions are not in effect. Stated differently, to discuss a matter exempted from the Open Meetings Law, a public body need not follow the procedure imposed by §105(1) that relates to entry into an executive session. Further, although executive sessions may be held only for particular purposes, there is no such limitation that relates to matters that are exempt from the coverage of the Open Meetings Law.
The provision pertaining to litigation, §105(1)(d), permits a public body to enter into executive session to discuss "proposed, pending or current litigation." While the courts have not sought to define the distinction between "proposed" and "pending" or between "pending" and "current" litigation, they have provided direction concerning the scope of the exception in a manner consistent with the description of the general intent of the grounds for entry into executive session suggested in my remarks in the preceding paragraph, i.e., that they are intended to enable public bodies to avoid some sort of identifiable harm. For instance, it has been determined that the mere possibility, threat or fear of litigation would be insufficient to conduct an executive session. Specifically, it was held that:
"The purpose of paragraph d is 'to enable a public body to discuss pending litigation privately, without baring its strategy to its adversary through mandatory public meetings' (Matter of Concerned Citizens to Review Jefferson Val. Mall v. Town Bd. Of Town of Yorktown, 83 AD 2d 612, 613, 441 NYS 2d 292). The belief of the town's attorney that a decision adverse to petitioner 'would almost certainly lead to litigation' does not justify the conducting of this public business in an executive session. To accept this argument would be to accept the view that any public body could bar the public from its meetings simply be expressing the fear that litigation may result from actions taken therein. Such a view would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the exception" [Weatherwax v. Town of Stony Point, 97 AD 2d 840, 841 (1983)]. Based upon the foregoing, we believe that the exception is intended to permit a public body to discuss its litigation strategy and related settlement strategy behind closed doors, rather than issues that might eventually result in litigation. Again, §105(1)(d) would not permit a public body to conduct an executive session due to a possibility or fear of litigation. As the court in Weatherwax suggested, if the possibility or fear of litigation served as a valid basis for entry into executive session, there could be little that remains to be discussed in public, and the intent of the Open Meetings Law would be thwarted.
In our view, therefore, only to the extent that the Board discusses its litigation strategy and related settlement strategy could an executive session be properly held under §105(1)(d). We note, too, that the courts have provided direction with respect to the sufficiency of a motion to discuss litigation, it has been held that: "It is insufficient to merely regurgitate the statutory language; to wit, 'discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation'. This boilerplate recitation does not comply with the intent of the statute. To validly convene an executive session for discussion of proposed, pending or current litigation, the public body must identify with particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the executive session" [Daily Gazette Co. , Inc. v. Town Board, Town of Cobleskill, 44 NYS 2d 44, 46 (1981), emphasis added by court].
With respect to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege, relevant is §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law:
When an attorney-client relationship has been invoked, it is considered confidential under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Therefore, if an attorney and client establish a privileged relationship, the communications made pursuant to that relationship would in our 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 (1889); Pennock v. Lane, 231 NYS 2d 897, 898 (1962)]. However, such a relationship is in our 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.
Insofar as the Board seeks legal advice from its attorney and the attorney renders legal advice, we believe that the attorney-client privilege may validly be asserted and that communications made within the scope of the privilege would be outside the coverage of the Open Meetings Law. Therefore, even though there may be no basis for conducting an executive session pursuant to §105 of the Open Meetings Law, a private discussion might validly be held based on the proper assertion of the attorney-client privilege pursuant to §108, and legal advice may be requested even though litigation or possible litigation is not an issue. In that case, while the litigation exception for entry into executive session would not apply, there may be a proper assertion of the attorney-client privilege.
We note that the mere presence of an attorney does not signify the existence of an attorney-client relationship; in order to assert the attorney-client privilege, the attorney must in our view be providing services in which the expertise of an attorney is needed and sought. Further, often at some point in a discussion, the attorney stops giving legal advice and a public body may begin discussing or deliberating independent of the attorney. When that point is reached, we believe that the attorney-client privilege has ended and that the body should return to an open meeting.
While it is not our intent to be overly technical, as suggested earlier, the procedural methods of entering into an executive session and asserting the attorney-client privilege differ. In the case of the former, the Open Meetings Law applies. Since a motion to enter into executive session must be made during an open meeting, and since §106(1) requires that minutes include references to all motions, the minutes of an open meeting must always include an indication that an executive session was held, as well as the reason for the executive session. In the case of the latter, because the matter is exempted from the Open Meetings Law, the procedural steps associated with conducting executive sessions do not apply. It is suggested that when a meeting is closed due to the exemption under consideration, a public body should inform the public that it is seeking the legal advice of its attorney, which is a matter made confidential by law, rather than referring to an executive session.
Finally, in contrast to the comment you attribute to the records access officer, that her job is to protect the Village’s interests, the Freedom of Information Law and ensuing regulations require that the records access officer coordinate the Village’s response to requests for records.
By way of background, §89(1) of the Freedom of Information Law requires the Committee on Open Government to promulgate regulations concerning the procedural implementation of that statute (21 NYCRR Part 1401). In turn, §87(1) requires the governing body of a public corporation (i.e., a county, city, town, village, school district, etc.) to adopt rules and regulations consistent with those promulgated by the Committee and with the Freedom of Information Law. Further, §1401.2 of the regulations provides in relevant part that:
“(a) The governing body of a public corporation and the head of an executive agency or governing body of other agencies shall be responsible for insuring compliance with the regulations herein, and shall designate one or more persons as records access officer by name or by specific job title and business address, and when requests are accepted via email, an email address, who shall have the duty of coordinating agency response to public requests for access to records. The designation of one or more records access officers shall not be construed to prohibit officials who have in the past been authorized to make records or information available to the public from continuing to do so.”
In short, the records access officer must "coordinate" an agency's response to requests. Frequently the records access officer is an agency officer or employee who has familiarity with an agency’s records. For example, the town clerk is designated as records access officer in the great majority of towns, for he or she, by law, is also the records management officer and the custodian of town records.
The Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
“If circumstances prevent disclosure to the person requesting the record or records within twenty business days from the date of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the request, the agency shall state, in writing, both the reason for the inability to grant the request within twenty business days and a date certain within a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances, when the request will be granted in whole or in part.” Based on the foregoing, an agency must grant access to records, deny access in writing, or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days of receipt of a request. When an acknowledgement is given, it must include an approximate date within twenty business days indicating when it can be anticipated that a request will be granted or denied. If it is known that circumstances prevent the agency from granting access within twenty business days, or if the agency cannot grant access by the approximate date given and needs more than twenty business days to grant access, however, it must provide a written explanation of its inability to do so and a specific date by which it will grant access. That date must be reasonable in consideration of the circumstances of the request.
The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon “the circumstances of the request.” From my perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to itsIt is our, an that I point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure. As the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has asserted:
cc: Hon. Julie Pagliaroli