It would be interesting to know if proposed labor contracts are subject to this law.

Perhaps allowing the BOARD MEMBERS to review them first before meetings might also be an enlightening logical idea.

For the benefit of Wantagh and Seaford readers, there are certain regular reports from the Administration adopted by the Board of Education at each monthly meeting. Not only are these reports generally not shown the the public, but the board members really do not discuss or react to them, other than to vote "Aye" for their apoption.

My expectation is that the Appropriations Status Report (aka Budget Status Report), Report of Budget Transfers, and the Treasurer's Report, at a minimum, should be posted on the District's website at least 24 hours before each monthly business meeting. To keep it clean and efficient, by "posted on the District's website" could mean to provide a hyperlink to each report in the Agenda. That would also allow for an online library of these reports to be created and remain accessible to the public through the District's website without future reaearch and copying costs being incurred by the district or members of the public.

Take a look at the Trumbull Ct school district website: http://www.trumbullps.org/boemin/check/1-6-12.pdf
There you will find each week's non-salary check register posted for public scrutiny. Every check written to anyone for anything other than a paycheck is there for all to see. Both Wantagh and Seaford school boards should do this, as a matter of real transparency.

All I really want to see is the Teacher Contract posted. That's most of the school taxes.

Chris,
I had to stop laughing first before I could concur with you, however, if you ever want a really good fall on the floor lmao expereince take a peek at Seafords technology and facilities. They are still working in PRE y2k mode with copper , DSL and one measly T-1 for internet access and equipment from the year of the flood....not exactly high speed nor large capacity.. possibly smoke signals from the field of dreams would work faster. While I concur fully with your suggestions bascially in a nut shell Seaford does not have the capacity or the technology nor the expertise to accomplish what you are recommending. Sad ...

I don't know the exact capabilities of Seaford's IT. Wantagh has a great IT Director, Don Murphy. He's a PhD and up on leading-edge technology. Breaking my own rule and diverging off-topic, this sounds like a great opportunity for Wantagh and Seaford Districts to consolidate IT Services. Through such an arrangement, Wantagh's IT Department could help bring Seaford up to speed, for what would amount to half the cost in half the time of Seaford trying go it all alone, while Wantagh could lay half the cost on Seaford.

James Marshall, the closed sessions for negotiations are a matter of a different law Article 14 of the Civil Service Law which is referenced at Section 105(e) of Article 7 of the Puiblic Officers (Open Meetings) Law . Do not expect that to change.

Chris, lets just say that it is a great idea that is NOT going happen.

Gov. Cuomo is making inroads however it is up to our local representatives to come forward and be proactive and support the student, become advocates FOR the students and the taxpayers ... Skelos, Fuschillo, et al need to call for a total revision of School funding, and bring a reasonable and swift end to the Teachers unions stranglehold on this states economy. Too much money is being spent by lobbyists to protect and coddle the teachers union and as always money talks. Reality needs to smack someone upside the head in the next election.. Nickle and dime increases in aid is not the answer.... true reform and transparency is..

I've been taking a look at the exact language of this new statute and my quiick reading yields two observations. Bear in mind, I'm definitely not a lawyer but if you happen to believe, as I do, that there's a much greater need for transparency in government there's a little bit of good news and bad news. What I lked is the "justification" offered for this new statute which I'll quote verbatim:

"In many instances, a public body covered by the Open Meetings Law
conducts a discussion of a record which was not made available to the
public prior to or at the meeting. Thus, although members of the public
are present at the meeting, they are unable to observe the proceedings
in a meaningful way. "

Boy is that ever true.

The bad news is that the language leaves plenty of wiggle room for government bodies by leaving it up to them to determine how to implement this law's requirements. I quote again:

"... certain records, which are scheduled to be the subject of discussion by a public
body during an open meeting, shall be made available, to the extent
practicable as determined by the agency or department, prior to or at
the meeting."

That leaves a sizable escape route for any body that wants to circumvent the intent of this law simply by claiming that promulgating relevant document became impractical due to time or other constraints. What this means is that constituents needs to press for a "no excuses" policy when it comes to respecting this statute.

You mean something like, "That report? No, we're not going to actually DISCUSS that report at this meeting. We've already read it at home, and we're only going to vote on it, here. No discussion is required. So, we're sorry, but we won't be giving YOU that report."

There is a parliamentary counter, however, to saying this or that report are not being discussed, only voted upon. Board meetings are governed by Roberts Rules of Order. When any item is moved and seconded, then that item is thereupon open for discussion or debate, regardless of whether or not any discussion or debate actually ensues, prior to a vote being taken.

Having discussions in executive session does not relieve the Board from discussing required items in public, especially when items are discussed in executive session which are not covered by the exclusions spelled out in Section 105 of the Public Officers (Open Meetings) law.

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html

Yes, Section 105.1.f. covers the appointments of interim Trustees being discussed in executive session:

Quote:

§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only...
f. ...matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation....
-End of quote.

Chris, i believe "conduct of executive session" you are refering is in reference to "Employee" discussions and does NOT include or encompass the appointment of an interim trustee , as that is a publicaly voted on positions and the "public" could have voted on these individulas if given the opportunity.
Open debate on the candidates should have been at a publicly held meeting to allow the community to not only have SOME input put to also gauge the decision making process and thoughts of the current memembers. The process was dragged out over three months, for a myriad of reasons, one of which was the fact that the board did not feel the intitial volunteers were what they were looking for. Ironically NONE of the initial individuals who threw their hats into the ring were seriously considered thus the " 90 day WAIT" period until they could " find" someone else more to their liking. It would have been more advantagous to both the board and the community to allow this to unfold in a public meeting with each indidivual being given the opportunity to voice their "stand" and THEN the board should have gone into executive session to discuss pros and cons BUT returning to PUBLIC session for their vote.

Let this NOT reflect on either of the individulas chosen,as the process was the Boards decision, however my question is why didnt either of the interim trustees jump into the POOL initially and what was the impetus to finally decide to volunteer?