Celebrating Public Deliberations – Town Council in Clarkstown

Disagreement between members of the Town Council actually resulted in public deliberations about policy at the most recent meeting of the Council. This represents a change from previous practice and we can only hope that it is the beginning of a new direction for the Town Council.

Lack of deliberations in public has been the hallmark of Town Council meetings in Clarkstown. Members of the Town Council on most occasions will respond to questions from citizens, with some notorious exceptions, but it is rare to hear members of the Town Council discussing policy amongst themselves in a formal meeting. Yet they should. Here is the relevant passage from the New York Open Meetings Law:

It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants. It is the only climate under which the commonweal will prosper and enable the governmental process to operate for the benefit of those who created it.

I should note that the Town Council has been careful to observe other aspects of the Open Meetings Law. They are careful not to gather a technical quorum (3 members, which would then become convened meeting) when discussing matters of policy. They have been complimented by the Committee on Open Government for their strict observation of this technical requirement. However, they have implemented a procedure that gets around the intent of the Open Meetings Law – that their deliberations be in public. Their procedure is as follows: A proponent floats a policy proposal among them. They can then respond individually to the proponent. All of the differences of opinion are passed through the proponent. In this way the deliberative process complies with the technical requirements of the Open Meetings Law, but fails to meet the intent of the Open Meetings Law – it hides the deliberations from public view.

At one point in the last meeting of the Town Council that changed. The subject was the vote to increase the salaries of the members of Town Council. Mr. George Hoehmann took the floor, said that he was not willing to vote to increase his own salary, and proposed that the resolution be amended show that his salary would not be increased. That statement led to a discussion between Mr. Hoehmann, Ms. Hausner, Mr. Gromack, and Ms. Mele as Town Attorney. Mr. Hoehmann and Ms. Hausner spoke their comments directly into the microphone – recognizing that this was deliberation in a public meeting and ensuring that the public would have good access to the deliberations. Mr. Gromack and Ms. Mele, on the other hand, leaned away from the microphone to address Mr. Hoehmann – implying that neither Mr. Gromack nor Ms. Mele welcomed having their participation in deliberations heard by the public.

I would suggest that Mr. Gromack and Ms. Mele still have a lot to learn about the proper conduct of government that is accountable to the public. Congratulations to Mr. Hoehmann and Ms. Hausner for honoring the intent of the Open Meetings Law and welcoming the public to hear deliberations of the Town Council.