A push is growing to make some pandemic-era changes to the state's open meetings law permanent before they expire next year.

Transparency advocates are hoping to see a hybrid of in-person and virtual participation, with specific in-person expectations for elected officials.

Rachael Fauss is senior policy advisor for Reinvent Albany, one of a number of good government, disability and transparency groups pushing state lawmakers to change the state's open meetings law in 2024.

She says getting it right is critical to serving the public.

“It’s a really important part of the transparency of our state government,” she said. “The open meetings law is about how the public can watch and see government decisions happen.”

Fauss said the recommendations are meant to ensure reliable remote access for individuals with disabilities and those who can't attend in person, while also ensuring opportunity for face-to-face accountability and media presence.

They include:

  • Requiring all state and local public bodies currently subject to OML to provide free, unrestricted remote video and voice access to the public for all their public meetings
  • Where bodies allow or are required to take public comment – such as hearings or other public meetings – require that the public can provide real-time spoken comment either in-person OR remotely
  • Requiring a quorum of members of elected bodies such as the state legislature and local legislatures to be present in person
  • At a minimum, require the presiding officer of appointed boards and commissions or non-elected agency or authority personnel to be present in-person for public meetings
  • Requiring public bodies to provide at least one in-person, accessible meeting location that allows the public to attend per existing requirements
  • Requiring the state Office of Information and Technology Services (ITS) to facilitate use of widely available, low-cost applications that meet federal accessibility guidelines and international standard

There are also recommendations to amend language to remove loopholes in the current law while also allowing members of public bodies with disabilities to participate remotely while still counting toward the quorum of in person attendees.

Disability advocacy groups who participated emphasize that whether an elected official or a member of the public, accessibility is paramount to a functioning government.

“The ability to petition the government shouldn’t be restricted to people who can make the trek to Albany or a county seat, which is why disability groups strongly support these changes in the Open Meetings Law,” said Joe Rappaport, executive director at the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled. “The hybrid model would encourage greater participation in the workings of government by all New Yorkers, with the added benefit that decision-makers will hear from a wider swath of the public.”

State Assemblyman John McDonald heads the Committee on Governmental Operations, which has jurisdiction over how public meetings are run. He says he supports Reinvent Albany’s recommendations, particularly continuing to expand virtual access.

“There’s been greater participation from the public,” he says of the changes made since the pandemic “As someone who has been in office for 20-25 years now I’ve always found that the more the public participates the better the process over all.”

Earlier this month, the state Committee on Open Government released its annual report, which covers the open meetings law. The committee stressed its support for expanded accessibility but says language in the current law can be confusing for public bodies. They suggested that clarification is needed when it comes to in person participation requirements and there may be benefits to reducing in-person quorum requirements in some cases.

Paul Wolf, president of the New York Coalition for Open Government, which also participated in the proposal, stresses the need to underscore the importance of both in-person and virtual participation in any changes made to the law or quorum requirements.

“We don’t favor all virtual,” he said. “We favor what’s called a hybrid. If you want to attend in person you should be able to attend in person if you’re a member of the public.”

As for officials themselves, Fauss says there is room for the relaxation of in-person quorums for state agencies and non elected officials, but at least a percentage of elected officials should be expected to show up.

“The dividing line should be ‘were you elected to do this, did you run for office? Or are you volunteering to do this?’ It’s a different standard and our groups are okay with that,” she said.

The law is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2024, giving the governor and the Legislature the upcoming session to figure out any changes.