Daniel T.

Warren
836 Indian Church Road
West Seneca, New York 14224-1235
January 13, 2015
Erie County Legislature
92 Franklin Street
Buffalo, New York 14202
RE:

VIA Fax: (716) 858-8895

Compliance with the Open Meetings Law

Dear Honorable Members,

I am writing to you in regards to the Legislatures apparent lack of compliance with the
Open meetings law.
As you may know I was the plaintiff in Warren v. Giambra, 12 Misc3d 650, 813 NYS2d
892 (Erie Cty, 2006), which after a bench trial found that your body had violated the Open
Meetings Law on a number of occasions in late 2004 and early 2005.
As a result of those violations of the Open Meetings Law the People of Erie County made
a number of changes to the County Charter to insure that the issues of that time not be
repeated. One of those changes was to provide that the Legislature appoint an open meetings
advisor which I understand is currently Legislator Joseph Lorigo.
I also understand that the Majority Caucus is comprised of Legislators Joseph Lorigo (C),
Lynn Dixon (I), John Mills (R), Kevin Hardwick (R), Ted Morton (R) and Ed Rath (R).
When this majority caucus meets it is required to comply with all provisions of the Open
Meetings Law since it constitutes a quorum of the Legislature and the caucus exemption is
inapplicable according to the attached advisory opinion from Mr. Freeman of the Committee on
Open Government.
This includes the notice provisions contained in Public Officers Law 104:
1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least
one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be

conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at

least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be
given to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be
conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a
reasonable time prior thereto.
3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed
to require publication as a legal notice.
4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice
for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be
used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public
has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
5. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and
place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of
this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public bodys
internet website.
While it appears that the above notice provisions are being followed for regularly
scheduled meetings of the Legislature I do not see that it is being complied with for meetings of
the majority caucus for since at least January 2014. Since the Legislature complies with the
above requirement of conspicuously posting on the public bodys internet website for regular
meetings of the full Legislature, the majority caucus should be able to do so as well.
Similarly since the Legislature complies with Public Officers Law 103(e) by providing
proposed resolution, law, rule, regulation, policy or any amendment thereto, that is scheduled
to be the subject of discussion by posting such on the website there is no apparent reason that
majority caucus should not do the same as well.
I hereby demand that the Erie County Legislature, and the majority caucus in particular,
CEASE and DESIST from violating the Open Meetings Law and immediately come into
compliance with it.
If the Erie County Legislature, and the majority caucus in particular, fails to come into
full compliance with the Open Meetings Law I will seek appropriate relief in the Courts.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Daniel T. Warren

Daniel Warren
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Freeman, Robert J (DOS) [Robert.Freeman@dos.ny.gov]

Monday, January 12, 2015 10:42 AM
Daniel Warren (d.warren@roadrunner.com)
FW: Request for an Advisory Opinion
F3044.pdf; F3597.pdf

From: dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 10:17 AM
To: 'Daniel Warren'
Subject: RE: Request for an Advisory Opinion

Mr.Warren:

BasedonadecisionrenderedbytheAppellateDivision,FourthDepartment,whichincludesErieCounty,thegatherings
towhichyoureferredheldtodiscussCountybusinesswouldnotbepoliticalcaucusesexemptfromtheOpenMeetings
Law,butrathermeetingsthatfallwithinthecoverageoftheOpenMeetingsLaw(OML)whentheyinvolvediscussions
ofCountybusiness.Thatdecision,NewYorkersforConstitutionalFreedomsv.NewYorkStateSenate[98AD3d285
(2012)],dealtwiththeissuesthatyouraised,foritpertainedagatheringofarepublicanmembersoftheStateSenate,
constitutingamajorityofthatbody,withtheGovernor,ademocrat,andNewYorkCityMayorBloomberg,wholobbied
onbehalfoftheMarriageEqualityAct.Inbrief,itwasdeterminedthatthegatheringwasvalidlyclosedbasedonthe
exemptionconcerningpoliticalcaucusesfoundin108(2)oftheOML,andthatthepresenceofguestswhoarenot
membersofthatbodyorregisteredrepublicans,didnoteliminatetheapplicabilityofthatexemption.

Inthesituationthatyoudescribed,theErieCountyLegislatureconsistsofelevenmembers,andfourrepublicans,one
memberoftheconservativepartyandanotherwhoisamemberoftheindependenceparty,gathertogetherand
conductpoliticalcaucuses.Itisassumedthatthosegatheringsareconductedinprivate.

TheCourtquotedwhatitcharacterizedasthefirstpartofthepoliticalcaucusexemption,whichstatesthatthe
deliberationsofpoliticalcommittees,conferencesandcaucusesmeansaprivatemeetingofmembersofthesenateor
assemblyofthestateofNewYork,orofthelegislativebodyofacounty,city,townorvillage,whoaremembersor
adherentsofthesamepoliticalparty(emphasisaddedbythecourt).TheCourtfoundthattheexemptionpertainsto
membersofalegislativebodyandofferedexamplestoclarifyitspoint,statingthatundersection108(2)(b),thePuerto
Rican/LatinoCaucusoftheStateSenatewouldnotbeentitledtothebenefitoftheexemptiontotheextentthatthe
Caucusiscomprisedofmembersofdifferentpoliticalparties,norwouldtheLegislativeWomensCaucusofNewYork
Statequalifyfortheexemptionwereitcomprisedofmembersofvaryingpoliticalpartiesfromonehouseofthe
legislature(emphasisadded).Rather,theonlycaucusestowhichtheexemptionappliesarethosecomprisedof
membersofthesamepoliticalparty,andthatlimitationarisesfromthelegislaturesinclusionoflanguagerestricting
eligiblecaucusesonlytothoseprivatemeetingsofmembersofthesamepoliticalparty(id.,292293).Theterm
membersinthecontextofthedecisionpertainstomembersofthelegislativebodywhoaremembersofthesame
politicalparty.

Inreferringtothesecondpartoftheexemption,theCourtfocusedontheprovisionthatexemptionapplieswithout
regardtowhetherthecaucusesinvitestafforgueststoparticipateintheirdeliberationsandwhetherthedefinitionof
guestsintheexemptionmustbelimitedtopeopleofthesamepoliticalpartyasthoseofthepoliticalcaucusseeking
theexemption,andthuswhethertheattendanceofMayorBloombergandGovernorCuomo,respectively,atthe
BloombergandCuomomeetingsremovedthosemeetingsfromtheprotectionoftheexemptionbecauseneitherMayor
BloombergnorGovernorCuomoisaregisteredRepublican(id.).
1

Inresolvingthatissue,itwasheld,clearlyanddirectlyWeconcludethattheplainlanguageofthestatutedoesnot
supportplaintiffspositionreferringtoaguestasapersonwhoisinvitedtotakepartinafunctionorganizedby
another(id.).

Insum,becausethegatheringstowhichyoureferredincluderepublican,conservativeandindependenceparty
memberswho,together,compriseamajorityoftheCountyLegislature,insofarassuchgatheringsareheldtodiscuss
ErieCountybusiness,IbelievethattheyconstitutemeetingssubjecttotheOML,andthattheexemptionfromthe
OMLregardingpoliticalcaucuseswouldnotapply.

AttachedareadvisoryopinionsthatdealinpartwiththeprovisionsintheElectionLawdealingwiththesameissueas
wellaspoliticalpartyregistration.

IhopethatIhavebeenofassistance.
BobFreeman
From: Daniel Warren [mailto:d.warren@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 4:30 PM
To: dos.sm.Coog.InetCoog
Subject: Request for an Advisory Opinion

TotheCommitteeonOpenGovernment,

IamwritingtoyouseekinganadvisoryopiniononwhetherthemajoritycaucusoftheErieCountyLegislature
constitutesacaucusasthattermisusedintheOpenMeetingsLaw.

CurrentlytheErieCountyLegislatureiscomposedof11membersandtheyarebrokendownbypartyaffiliationas
follows:

4Republicans
5Democrats
1Conservative
1IndependenceParty

ForapproximatelythepastyeartheRepublicanshavebeendesignatedasthemajoritycaucusasaresultofthe
ConservativepartymemberandtheIndependencePartyMemberhavebeencaucusingwiththe4RepublicanParty
members.

ConservativePartymemberJosephLorigoandIndependencePartymemberLynneDixonarelistedontheofficialweb
pageforthemajoritycaucushere:http://www2.erie.gov/caucus_rep/.

IwouldlikeyouropiniononthefollowingissuesinrelationtotheOpenMeetingsLaw:

1) Whatisthedefinitionofadherentasusedinsection108(2)(b);
2) Whatisthedefinitionofguestasusedinsection108(2)(b)(iii);
3) CouldthetwononRepublicanmembersofthemajoritycaucusbeconsideredaseitheranadherentorguest;
4) Wouldameetingofthemajoritycaucusascurrentlyconstitutedfallwithintheexemptionprovidedbysection
108(2)ormustsuchmeetingbeopentothepublic?

Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.

Yours,

DanielT.Warren
2

836IndianChurchRoad
WestSeneca,NY14224