“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”

— Louis D. Brandeis, United States Supreme Court associate justice

Town board members are lawmakers; they should not be lawbreakers.

In Westerlo, town board members have recently broken both of New York State’s sunshine laws. Perhaps the most famous thought on such laws is that expressed in 1913 by Louis D. Brandeis who later served on the United States Supreme Court: “Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.”

New York has two sunshine laws. The Open Meetings Law went into effect in 1977, giving the public the right to attend meetings of public bodies, like town boards, to listen to debates and watch the decision-making process in action. It requires public bodies to provide notice of the times and places of meetings, and to keep minutes of all actions taken.

“It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the 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,” states the legislative declaration in the Open Meetings Law.

The Freedom of Information Law, which went into effect in 1978, reaffirms citizens’ rights to know how their government operates. “It provides rights of access to records reflective of governmental decisions and policies that affect the lives of every New Yorker,” says the description by the state’s Committee on Open Government.

In Westerlo, the town board has talked for years about how to fix its decrepit highway garage. Town offices moved to the former Westerlo School in 2011, leaving the town court at the garage with a roof that leaks, sometimes in the middle of court sessions.

The board decided on June 2 to borrow to $2.8 million to renovate the town hall and build a new garage despite calls by some residents to have a public presentation beforehand.  The old buildings have been ailing for years. The board had plenty of time to go about the project in the right way, allowing for public input.

After the May 19 town board meeting, when the $2.8 million figure was first discussed, Enterprise Hilltown reporter Marcello Iaia requested documents outlining cost estimates. Documents before a board, as these were, should be available to the public. The town’s clerk, Kathleen Spinnato, said town board members had advised her not to release the documents due to the tentative nature of financial information.

The law defines “record” as “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency...in any physical form whatsoever.” The law also lists a dozen circumstances under which documents can be withheld — such as resulting in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or revealing trade secrets. None of the exceptions apply here.

Estimates of what taxpayers would have to pay to build or restore their town buildings is certainly a matter of public concern and should have been released by the town. As Westerlo’s Freedom of Information Law officer, Clerk Spinnato should be well versed in the law. That is her job, independent of any stipulations board members may try to impose upon her.

Spinnato took an oath of office to uphold the law. So, too, did town board members. The supervisor, Richard Rapp, has been in office for more than 40 years; certainly, he should be aware of the state laws that were adopted during his tenure.

All of the Westerlo Town Board members violated that state’s Open Meeting Law when they met without public notice as a so-called “building committee” to twice tour the town hall and highway garage with engineers working up plans.

The Open Meetings Law states, “The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants.” What kind of control do the citizens of Westerlo have if town buildings are toured and plans for them are discussed at illegal meetings?

The law-breaking was revealed at the June 2 town board meeting when a citizen who regularly attends, John Sefcik, asked, “When did you guys discuss this?”

The town attorney, Aline Galgay, responded, “The board was under a mistaken impression that, because they were functioning as a committee, it was different...than their capacity as a town board.”

Say what?

The law is clear that any gathering of a quorum to discuss town business is a meeting for which there must be notice so the public can attend. We find it hard to believe board members can’t grasp this basic concept.

Other public bodies are remiss in following the law — Berne-Knox-Westerlo, for example, has yet to fulfill a Freedom of Information Law request Iaia made in December, and requires FOIL requests for packets used at meetings, which arrive when they are no longer useful — but Westerlo has a long and egregious history of breaking or evading the law.

In January 2013, two Westerlo Town Board members voted to fill a board vacancy. By state law, a majority of a board — that is three members of a five-member town board — is needed to take action. Rapp said the illegal appointment would stand.

The tax rolls in Westerlo are badly skewed, again in violation of state standards, since a townwide re-evaluation has not been conducted in well over half a century — most properties in Westerlo have taxable values under $3,000. This means newcomers are paying a disproportionate share of taxes.

Many times over the years, Westerlo has violated the state law that requires a town’s preliminary budget be filed by Sept. 30; the town board must be presented with a tentative budget by Oct. 5, at which point the board adopts a tentative plan; and the final budget must be adopted by Nov. 20.

This timeline gives citizens who care a chance to review the proposed spending plan and make their views known.

We’ll end where we began, with some wise counsel from Justice Brandeis: “The most important political office,” he said, “is that of the private citizen.”

We commend the Westerlo citizens who show up at meeting after meeting. They care enough to ask questions that unravel the shroud behind which the board, like a private club rather than an elected public body, often operates.

We urge residents to petition for a permissive referendum on the bond to update the town hall and build a new highway garage — 25 signatures are required. If board members had followed the laws, the citizens might have retained control over their public servants, as the statute states. At least with a referendum, the public will, finally, have control.

— Melissa Hale-Spencer