This week marks “Sunshine Week,” a week dedicated to that oxymoron of all oxymorons: open government.
Locally, Sunshine Week kicked off Monday with a behind-closed-doors meeting of the Riverhead Town Board in a secure, undisclosed location (outside of Riverhead Town Hall.)
There was a quorum of the board present and the people’s business was discussed. The people were not around, however. The meeting wasn’t noticed to the public or the media. No one else was present besides the Riverhead Republican party leader and, possibly, an attorney.
But that meeting wasn’t a special meeting called especially to dishonor Sunshine Week in Riverhead. No. It’s a meeting that happens every two weeks, the day before each regularly scheduled “official” public meeting of the board.
They call it a “party caucus.”
Yep, that’s right. Our town board meets privately the day before every regular public board meeting to discuss…Well, what they discuss depends on who you talk to, what day of the week it is or even what time of day. I’ve heard conflicting reports, apparently because the esteemed members of this town board aren’t sure what they’re allowed to admit to. That may explain the presence of the attorney.
Here’s a sampling of what’s been discussed at these “informal” board meetings, according to board members who were there:
• issuing a request for proposals for the sale of the Pfeifer Center in Calverton
• selling — or not — the Second Street firehouse
• snow removal
• the future of the town animal shelter
• litigation brought against Councilman George Gabrielsen’s brother
• town board meeting rules of procedure
• upgrading the town’s computer systems
• term limits
• and — my personal favorite — how to handle those pesky reporters asking too many questions. (How? Make sure you coordinate with other board members and touch base with the party leader before answering questions, that’s how.)
I’ve interviewed each of the board members about these “offline” meetings. And each has, either intentionally or inadvertently, disclosed the various topics of town business discussed. For example, Councilman Gabrielsen, in denying an allegation that he tried to influence the board about a lawsuit brought by the town against his brother for alleged code violations, told me he absolutely did not ever try to do that. “Even when we discussed it in caucus, I tried to recuse myself, but they told me I didn’t have to,” Gabrielsen told me in an interview earlier this month.
No one, except party leader Mason Haas, has denied discussing substantive town issues at these “party caucus” meetings.
And Haas denies it unequivocally.
“We’re not talking about RFPs. We’re not talking about litigation. We’re not talking about personnel. We’re only discussing political issues,” Haas told me last night.
Monday night’s discussion of the Pfeifer Center — which the town board has been (publicly) discussing converting to an animal shelter to be operated by the North Fork Animal Welfare League — was about “the dog pound and it not being done,” Haas said.
“We were talking about the political aspects of the candidates not getting it accomplished,” according to the party leader.
“I told Jim [Wooten] he’s got to start getting some things done if he wants to run for office,” Haas said.
Councilman Wooten told me Haas is “trying to help the town board make decisions.”
“But he’s a party leader not a town board member,” Wooten said. “I try to tell him that. He interjects himself more than he should.”
The caucuses, according to Wooten, are a place where the board members “talk about goals, what some of our issues are and how we as a board can help get things resolved and get things done.”
Councilwoman Jodi Giglio said during caucuses, board members discuss “feelings about our interactions with each other, respect for one another and the right procedure to follow. There are no votes or decisions made,” she said.
Councilman John Dunleavy says he believes the state’s Open Meetings Law allows board members in a party caucus to discuss town business as long as they don’t “come up with a plan.”
Monday’s discussion about selling the Pfeifer Center didn’t result in a plan, Dunleavy said. “I gave my opinion. George thought it was a good idea. George and I were on the same page but Wooten certainly wasn’t,” Dunleavy said. Councilwoman Giglio arrived late for the meeting and wasn’t there when this was discussed.
“So no plan was made out of that meeting,” Dunleavy said.
Supervisor Sean Walter, who wasn’t present, said he’s stopped attending the twice-monthly caucuses.
“They are discussing the people’s business behind closed doors,” Walter told me.
Haas said the supervisor told him he wasn’t going to caucuses “for health reasons.” Walter told him the caucuses make his blood pressure go up, Haas said.
“I could see having a caucus once a month, before a party committee meeting,” Walter said. But every two weeks is just too much.”
When does a “caucus” become an illegal closed door meeting? Of course, the answer is not simple; the Open Meetings Law was written by politicians who made sure to carve out enough exceptions to every rule sufficient to almost completely obfuscate its meaning — and defeat its purpose.
Political party caucuses are exempt from the open meetings requirement. And in 1985 the exemption was expanded to specifically allow the discussion of public business in party caucus meetings.
The idea behind the exemption is to allow members of one political party to develop political strategy, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the Committee on Open Government in the N.Y. Department of State.
But when all members of a legislative body are members of the same party, Freeman says, the caucus exemption is not as broad.
“The only judicial decision dealing with a legislative body consisting solely of members of one political party indicates that a discussion of public business must be conducted in public in accord with the Open Meetings Law,” Freeman said in a phone interview last week.
“Only when an issue involves purely political party business may a closed political caucus be held,” he said.
So if the law grants permission to the five members of Riverhead’s all-Republican town board to meet behind closed doors to discuss “purely political party business”, how will the public know if board members adhere to the law’s requirements?
According to the court decision Freeman referenced, Buffalo News v. City of Buffalo Common Council:
“When dealing with a Legislature comprised of only one political party, it must be left to the sound discretion of honorable and honest legislators to clearly announce the intent and purpose of future meetings and open the same accordingly consistent with the overall intent of Public Officers Law article 7 [the Open Meetings Law.]”
From my interviews with each of the five town board members, it seems pretty clear that they are discussing public business in these closed caucus meetings — despite the party chairman’s denials.
Thing is, Open Meetings Law be damned, there’s nothing anyone can really do about it — except shine a light on it, which is what I’m hoping to do here.
If we let the sunshine in, maybe the sound discretion of our honorable and honest legislators will blossom.
Next in this series:
‘Open’ is more than a formality
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.