Supervisors blast flawed public comment report
RHINEBECK, N.Y. >> Town supervisors in Ulster and northern Dutchess counties blasted a watchdog group that issued a report that erroneously identified them as not allowing public comments.
New Paltz, Olive, Wawarsing, Red Hook, Milan and Rhinebeck received letters on Jan. 27 from the non-profit New York Coalition for Open Government, which incorrectly identified them as being among 177 towns in the state that conduct Town Board meetings “with no public comment allowed.”
However, on Tuesday, organization researcher Annmarie Reeb acknowledged the information was incorrect after reviewing the March 2023 agendas and minutes she said were used as the basis for claims made in the report.
“I take responsibility for the damage that we did and I will be addressing every email that came in,” she said.
The study attempted to determine how many of the state’s 933 towns allow public comments and whether the comments were taken at the beginning or end of meetings. Reeb said efforts were made to distinguish between terms such as “public comment,” “input” or other terms that might identify a section of meetings where people could address boards.
Among the problems was having information researched by the organization’s volunteer membership.
“They all have lives, they have jobs, they have other organizations they’re with,” Reeb said. “It’s not like you’re getting a college intern who is going to dedicate two hours a day to you.”
New Paltz Supervisor Neil Bettez was upset because not only do agendas reflect public comments but there had been no acknowledgment from the organization when he responded to the report. He had included copies of agendas that called for “public input,” with each agenda taking pains to explain how comments could be made in person or via video conference during the two meetings in March 2023.
“Don’t criticize us for what we’re already doing,” he said.
Under the state Open Meetings Law, there is no requirement for an elected municipal board to take public comments, but Bettez pointed out that town boards seem to understand the importance of hearing from the community. He added that there is a balance between listening to concerns and accomplishing business during the sessions, which seemed to be lost in a report that was more bluster than authoritative, because of the organization’s errors.
“If you want to make things better you have to focus on things that are actually relevant,” he said.
“The problem is the next time they say towns aren’t doing ‘xyz’ I don’t know if I’m going to believe these guys because they’ve been wrong in the past and didn’t correct,” Bettez said. “It’s the same as when someone makes public comments and none of it’s based on fact and next time they (make comments) I don’t know if I trust it because they said things in the past that weren’t true.”
The report was further criticized because it had faulty math for the number of towns in Ulster County. That problem was the result of not including the town of Kingston, which has a “questions/comments” section on the agenda, as well
as current Supervisor Paul Landi allowing audience members to voice their thoughts during other items.
There was also a degree of concern over the name of the organization because it is so close to the state Committee on Open Government, a division of the state Department of State, and authorized under state law to provide residents, news organizations and local governments with advisory opinions about how meetings are conducted. The agency is viewed by the state court system as having a seasoned approach to reviews of conduct by public officials and the opinions are given weight during challenges of town, village, county, and school district actions.
Committee on Open Government Assistant Director Kristin O’Neill in a review of information from the three Ulster County towns found agendas and minutes provided the opportunity for public comments.
“I can understand why supervisors who received these letters would be concerned since these apparent mistakes in reporting by the Coalition reflect poorly on municipalities that are, in fact, giving the public the opportunity to be heard at meetings of public bodies,” she wrote in an email. “I hope the Coalition can provide a clarification as to why these municipalities were included in their report as not having public comment available and, if appropriate, issue a corrected report.”
Rhinebeck Supervisor Elizabeth Spinzia was furious about the report and commented about the false information a day after she allowed about eight people to speak on an agenda item spontaneously and separately from the scheduled public comment period. She ordinarily limits comments to the designated agenda spot but has also been known to allow time for public speaking when topics have touched a nerve in the community.
“I’m happy to get public input anytime, so I think it’s a load of c-r-a-p,” she said.
Spinzia found it ironic that while the New York Coalition for Open Government, Inc. has made a mission to hold local government accountable for something it is not obligated to do, the organization did not respond when she sought information about being incorrectly on the list.
“I wanted some more transparency from them but got none,” she said.
“I called them immediately,” Spinzia said. “I left a message and I emailed them. I wanted to know what this is based on (because) I prided myself on input from the community and it’s on our agenda.”