Perez v. City University, 6 N.Y.3d 522 (2006)

A committee within a public university system performs a governmental function, and is therefore subject to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law, when it exercises responsibilities delegated by the legislature and functions as a proxy for authorized faculty councils.

Summary

This case addresses whether the Hostos Community College Senate and its Executive Committee are subject to New York’s Open Meetings Law (OML) and Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The Court of Appeals held that these entities do perform a governmental function because they have been charged with responsibilities delegated by the legislature to the CUNY Board, and they function as a proxy for the faculty councils authorized by the CUNY bylaws. The court further clarified that while the OML does not prohibit secret ballots, FOIL requires a record of each member’s final vote, thus precluding secret ballots.

Facts

Petitioners Chong Kim and Aneudis Perez were denied access to meetings of the Hostos Community College Senate and its Executive Committee, respectively. Kim was turned away from a meeting where curriculum changes were approved via secret ballot. Perez was barred from an Executive Committee meeting where he sought to deliver a petition. The College Senate, established by the Governance Charter, is responsible for recommending policy on all college matters and formulating academic policy. The Executive Committee organizes the Senate’s work. The CUNY Board of Trustees delegated some of its authority to faculty councils; the College Senate acts in place of this council at Hostos Community College.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the College Senate and Executive Committee were subject to OML and FOIL. Supreme Court granted the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding the Senate was merely advisory and thus not subject to these laws. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Hostos Community College Senate and its Executive Committee perform a “governmental function” such that they are subject to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law.
2. Whether the Open Meetings Law or the Freedom of Information Law prohibits secret ballots by the College Senate.

Holding

1. Yes, because the College Senate and its Executive Committee have been charged with responsibilities delegated by the Legislature to the CUNY Board and function as a proxy for the faculty councils authorized by CUNY bylaws.
2. No, the Open Meetings Law does not prohibit secret ballots, but the Freedom of Information Law does because it requires a record of each member’s final vote.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that both the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law aim to ensure transparency in governmental decision-making. The Court stated, “[I]n enacting the Open Meetings Law, the Legislature sought to ensure that ‘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’ (Public Officers Law § 100).” They reiterated that these laws should be construed liberally. To determine whether an entity performs a governmental function, the court considers the entity’s authority, power distribution, role, and relationship to affected parties. The Court distinguished this case from purely advisory bodies, emphasizing the Senate’s significant role in policy-making. The court highlighted that the College Senate is the sole legislative body on campus authorized to send proposals to the CUNY Board of Trustees. The court quoted from the lower court decision, stating, “[T]he college senate and the executive committee thereof constitute integral components of the governance structure of Hostos Community College. The senate and its executive committee perform functions of both advisory and determinative natures which are essential to the operation and administration of the college.” (195 Misc 2d 16, 33 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2002]). Regarding secret ballots, the Court noted that while the OML only requires a record of motions, proposals, resolutions, and other matters formally voted upon, the FOIL mandates a record of each member’s final vote, thus precluding secret ballots. The Court concluded that “under the Freedom of Information Law, voting by the College Senate and the Executive Committee may not be conducted by secret ballot.”