Opinion ID: 221342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The TAB's Access Policy

Text: The NYCTA describes its long-term access policy as one of presumptive openness to the public. Under that policy, a person who wishes to observe a TAB hearing must twice obtain the consent of the respondent whose case is being heard. If the respondent objects either time, the observer must be excluded from the hearing. A prospective observer must give TAB security personnel her name and inform them of her wish to observe a hearing. When the respondent is called, TAB officials are supposed to call the observer as well. The hearing officer, who meets respondents at the door leading to the hearing rooms, then asks the respondent if he objects to the observer's presence at the hearing. If the respondent objects, the observer may not enter. If the respondent does not object, the three proceed to a hearing room. There, the observer must state her name for the record, and the hearing officer again asks whether the respondent objects to the observer's presence. If he does not, the hearing can proceed. If the respondent does object to the observer's presence, the observer must leave before the hearing begins. TAB personnel do not ask why a respondent objects to an observer's presence and do not attempt to evaluate the reason, significance, or propriety of the observer's presence. A respondent's objection by itself conclusively bars an observer from a hearing. Although this policy was only put in writing in March 2009, after the NYCLU complained to the NYCTA about access to TAB hearings, Martin Schnabel, the NYCTA's vice president and general counsel, testified that the policy had been in place for many years as an unwritten practice. Mr. Schnabel also stated that the NYCTA Board and the Metropolitan Transit Authority played no role in adopting the access policy, which has not been formally promulgated as a rule. Instead, he testified, the matter was discussed among ... TAB personnel and Transit Authority legal personnel. But, he continued, the ultimate judgment as to what the policy should be at this juncture is mine. Mr. Schnabel stated his belief that allow[ing] people to attend regardless of the wishes of the respondent may well have the effect of chilling the appearance of some percentage of respondents, who would feel their privacy so invaded by an open hearing as to lead them to decline to have a hearing at all. Mr. Schnabel explained that the rationale underlying the policy was preventing such a chilling effect on respondents who might otherwise avail themselves of the opportunity to contest their notices of violation, but who would do so in person only if they had the power to exclude third parties from their hearings. Mr. Schnabel further testified that he had collected no evidence and conducted no studies on which he based his conclusion that open access would discourage respondents from seeking TAB hearings. The NYCTA did submit a declaration from Debra Siedman DeWan, a long-time TAB hearing officer, who listed reasons respondents might wish to maintain [their] privacy when testifying. These included the existence of embarrassing medical conditions or other physical or mental illnesses; an inability to pay the fines; and the fear that a parent or a parole or probation officer would learn of the hearing.