By Tim Healy
tim.healy@newsday.com
Case closed. Or not.
The state attorney general’s office has notified Asharoken’s attorney that it will not issue an opinion on the question of whether the closed caucuses of some of the village board members violate the state’s Open Meeting Law.
Board member Pat Irving raised the question months ago and contacted the state’s Committee on Open Government for an opinion, indicating that village business was discussed at these private caucuses. Irving used to attend these caucuses but stopped after she left the Taxpayer’s Party of Mayor Bill Kelly and the other board members.
In July, the state committee’s executive director, Robert Freeman, replied wrote that political parties are allowed to caucus in closed meetings, but that the Taxpayer’s Party did not qualify as a party under state election law, which defines a party as “any political organization which at the last preceding election for governor polled at least fifty thousand votes for its candidate for governor.”
Kelly ask the state attorney general for an opinion and received a letter from Kathryn Sheingold stating that Freeman’s committee was responsible for issuing opinions on the Open Meeting Law.
“They haven’t done what they’re supposed to do to help local governments when we ask them for opinions that will help us avoid going to court,” Kelly said Wednesday. “So then we have to do independent research, which we did.”
In a letter this week to village board members, Kelly declared "case closed," and wrote that two court opinions, including one from the state court of appeals, support his position that the caucuses are legal. Freeman disagrees.
“My hope always is that when we render an advisory opinion that it encourages compliance with the law,” Freeman said. “But apparently with this mayor that doesn’t seem to be so… Based upon the language of the election law, I don’t believe that the four can conduct a legal closed political caucus.”
“Even if he disagrees with the opinion,” Freeman continued, “Even if he disagrees with the law – why should there be closed political caucuses, especially in a body which is overbalanced one way in terms of what you might characterize as political party membership.
But Kelly was not swayed. “When it’s not defined – a party is not defined under the Open Meetings Law – then there’s a whole slew of ways to construe … the meaning of the word. But the issue is moot. The court of appeals has spoken.”
So what’s next? “I suppose somebody can bring a lawsuit if they want to do that,” Freeman said.
Pat Irving was not sure if she would pursue the matter. “I don’t know,” she said. “Personally I’d like to ask the other trustees, do they feel that continuing caucuses to discuss village business is appropriate.”
READ THE DOCUMENTS