Smith v. City University of New York

• Decision Date: 11 February 1999
• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 910,92 N.Y.2d 707
• Parties: , 708 N.E.2d 983, 133 Ed. Law Rep. 559, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1381 In the Matter of Joseph SMITH et al., Appellants, v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 910

685 N.Y.S.2d 910

92 N.Y.2d 707, 708 N.E.2d 983, 133

Ed. Law Rep. 559,

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1381

In the Matter of Joseph SMITH et al., Appellants, v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 11, 1999.

Ronald B. McGuire, New York City, for appellants.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Mordecai Newman and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel), for respondents.

S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand and Jane E. Kirtley, of the Virginia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, for Student Press Law Center and another, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELLACOSA, J.

This case turns solely on a statutory interpretation question. The issue is whether the Fiorello H. LaGuardia Community College Association, Inc. (Association, Inc.) is subject to this State's Open Meetings Law, as a public body that was performing a governmental function in the circumstances presented by this case. We hold that the Association, Inc. is a public body and is subject to Public Officers Law article 7.

I.

LaGuardia Community College is one of six two-year colleges, operated pursuant to Education Law articles 125 and 126 by the City University of New York (CUNY). The Association, Inc. is an organization comprised of administrators, faculty members and students. It is authorized to review proposed budgets, to allocate student activity fees and to authorize disbursements. CUNY collects a student activity fee from all students as a condition of enrollment. The Association, Inc. maintains the student activity fees in an account in its name.

At a December 8, 1993 meeting, the Association, Inc. voted to suspend publication of a student newspaper, The Bridge. A subcommittee was designated to conduct an investigation into whether the newspaper violated any college by-laws governing student publications. This related to publication and distribution of an article in The Bridge containing offensive statements about Jews. Respondent Dean of Student Affairs, the presiding officer of the Association, Inc., disapproved a purchase order for the next issue of The Bridge. A suspension of the newspaper pending the investigation was put into effect.

On March 30, 1994, the Association, Inc. held a closed meeting--the one at issue in these proceedings--at which the subcommittee submitted its investigation report. During that meeting, the Association, Inc. lifted the suspension but imposed restrictions on The Bridge, including a prepublication review by the Association, Inc. It also allocated student activity fees to several organizations for a variety of purposes.

Appellant Smith was student editor-in-chief of The Bridge. Smith and coappellant Maitland, a broadcast journalist, attempted to attend the March 30th meeting. Security guards prevented them from entering even beyond the lobby of the building where the meeting was being held. The Director of Security informed the two appellants that the meeting was closed by the Dean of Student Affairs who, as President of the Association, Inc., presided at the meeting.

Minutes of the March 30, 1994 meeting were circulated on April 5, 1994 to the Association, Inc.'s members, the College President, Smith, and the Faculty Advisor for The Bridge. They detailed the actions and appropriations made by the Association, Inc. On May 5, 1994, revised minutes of the March meeting were released to these same individuals, indicating that additional funds had been allocated at the meeting.

On August 3, 1994, Smith and Maitland commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. They asserted that the Association, Inc.'s closure of its March 30, 1994 meeting, at which student activity fees were appropriated and restrictions were placed on The Bridge, violated New York State's Open Meetings Law.

After a hearing, Supreme Court adjudged and declared that the Association, Inc. is a "public body" which violated the Open Meetings Law by holding the closed meeting on March 30, 1994; ordered that all future meetings of the Association, Inc. be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Public Officers Law; annulled actions taken by the Association, Inc. at the meeting with regard to The Bridge; and determined that petitioners were entitled to costs and attorneys' fees to be determined at a separate hearing. Supreme Court thereafter fixed costs and attorneys' fees as of that point in the judicial proceedings.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law, and dismissed the petition (241 A.D.2d 410, 661 N.Y.S.2d 599). The court held that the Association, Inc. was not a public body. It also did not pass on the amount of the fees allowed by Supreme Court. In disagreeing with Supreme Court, the intermediate appellate court reasoned that the Association, Inc. performed merely an advisory function and thus did not have final decision-making power over money allocations (id., at 413, 661 N.Y.S.2d 599). The court added that the Association, Inc. did not exercise sovereign power because the funds it oversees, generated by student activity fees, are segregated, within its own account, from the University's general revenues and, thus, do not constitute State funds (id.).

Petitioners' appeal as of right on constitutional grounds was dismissed by this Court (91 N.Y.2d 921, 669 N.Y.S.2d 262, 692 N.E.2d 131), and we then granted their motion for leave to appeal. We now reverse and conclude that the Association, Inc. is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law which it violated in these circumstances.

II.

The key Open Meetings Law provision declares "[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public," except for executive sessions (Public Officers Law § 103[a] ). A "public body" is defined as:

"any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof, * * * or committee or subcommittee or other similar body of such public body" (Public Officers Law § 102[2] ).

The Open Meetings Law is designed to ensure that public business is conducted in an observable manner; to promote this goal, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law are to be liberally construed (see, Matter of Gordon v. Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124, 126-127, 637 N.Y.S.2d 961, 661 N.E.2d 691).

We agree with Supreme Court on the cardinal question. In our judgment, the Association, Inc. performs substantially more than a mere advisory function with respect to college activities and expenditures and, therefore, exercises a quintessentially governmental function. In determining whether an entity is a public body, various criteria or benchmarks are material. They include the authority under which the entity was created, the power distribution or sharing model under which it exists, the nature of its role, the power it possesses and under which it purports to act, and a realistic appraisal of its functional relationship to affected parties and constituencies.

This Court has noted that the powers and functions of an entity should be derived from State law in order to be deemed a public body for Open Meetings Law purposes (see, Matter of American Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y., 79 N.Y.2d 927, 929, 582 N.Y.S.2d 983, 591 N.E.2d 1169). In the instant case, the parties do not dispute that CUNY derives its powers from State law and it surely is essentially a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law for almost any imaginable purpose. The Association, Inc. contends, on the other hand, that it is a separate, distinct, subsidiary entity, and does not perform any governmental function that would render it also a public body.

It may be that an entity exercising only an advisory function would not qualify as a public body within the purview of the Open Meetings Law (see, Goodson Todman Enters. v. Town Bd., 151 A.D.2d 642, 643, 542 N.Y.S.2d 373, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 614, 547 N.Y.S.2d 848, 547 N.E.2d 103; Matter of Poughkeepsie Newspaper Div. of Gannett Satellite Information Network v. Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force on N.Y. City Water Supply Needs, 145 A.D.2d 65, 67, 537 N.Y.S.2d 582; Matter of Daily Gazette Co. v. North Colonie Bd. of Educ., 67 A.D.2d 803, 804, 412 N.Y.S.2d 494). More pertinently here, however, a formally chartered entity with officially delegated duties and organizational attributes of a substantive nature, as this Association, Inc. enjoys, should be deemed a public body that is performing a governmental function (compare, Matter of Syracuse United Neighbors v. City of Syracuse, 80 A.D.2d 984, 985, 437 N.Y.S.2d 466, ...