Board of Trustees

First question: Yes...with the expiration of the Executive Orders on June 24th, including the Order modifying the Open Meetings law,[1] things are "back to normal."

Or, as the Committee on Open Government, the authority on the State's Open Meetings Law (OML), put it:

So, does this mean "trustees who still want/need to attend remotely from home must disclose their address in the meeting notice?"

Various case law and commentary about the OML has confirmed that when a public body needs to meet via teleconference, the public must be able to attend from any remote location "calling in" to the meeting, and that location should be part of the meeting notice.[2]

Or, as the COOG put it in Advisory Opinion 5535 in 2018:

"So long as the public is permitted to attend at any location at which a member participates and can observe the members wherever they may be, I believe that the members may participate and be counted for purposes of attaining a quorum and for voting, and that a meeting may validly be held." [emphasis added]

For large public bodies such as the Regents, the New York Power Authority, and other entities that must hold publicly accessible meetings, and whose board members may reside in far-flung areas of the state, the use of publicly accessible call-in sites comes with an IT team and a budget.

For a public library, whose members generally reside within that library's area of service, this "back to normal" pretty much means that you're back to meetings in person.

Of course, under the Not-for-Profit Corporation law (which, along with the Education Law, governs the conduct of library meetings), a library board of trustees is allowed to conduct meetings telephonically.[3]  When coupled with the requirements of the OML, however, that latitude is severely reigned in--since whatever space is used for the remote call-in must be accessible to the public, and included in the notice.

For this reason, unless a library trustee is very comfortable inviting the public into their home, I advise against using the "dial in from home" option.[4]

NOTE:  This answer does not consider if a trustee needs to attend remotely due to it being an accommodation under the ADA.  That is a separate and critical question; for now, I'll simply say that adherence to the OML should not rule out consideration of ADA issues.

The transparency created by Education Law 260-a's requirement that public libraries abide by the Open Meetings Law is laudable--but is also based on older notions of technology.  Now that the State of New York has lived under different rules for over a year, we might see some changes in legislation.

But for now, we're "back to normal."

I hope this is helpful.

[1] Allowing them to be held via teleconference so long as the meeting is accessible to the public, recorded, and transcribed.  For more comments on this, see "Ask the Lawyer" Executive Order 202 and NY Open Meetings Law and Open Meetings Law and COVID.

[2] See https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5535.html and https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5575.html.

[3] See NFPCL Section 708(c) "Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or the by-laws, any one or more members of the board or of any committee thereof who is not physically present at a meeting of the board or a committee may participate by means of a conference telephone or similar communications equipment or by electronic video screen communication. Participation by such means shall constitute presence in person at a meeting as long as all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time and each director can participate in all matters before the board, including, without limitation, the ability to propose, object to, and vote upon a specific action to be taken by the board or committee."

[4] I recently saw a very good presentation on parliamentary procedure for library boards.  The presenter commented that disclosure of home addresses should not be made, due to safety concerns.  I absolutely agree with that caution, but must emphasize that if a trustee calls in from a remote location, with the emergency modification of the law over, the OML requires that all "locations" of the meeting (including a remote call-in site) must be disclosed.

Before I answer, I would like to thank this unnamed trustee for bringing forward this important issue.  Dealing with personal legal matters is rarely easy; remembering to factor in consideration of one's volunteer obligations at the same time is impressive.

On its surface, this question is a fairly simple exercise:[1] does the status of a library trustee as a plaintiff against the district supporting the library create a "conflict of interest" that would violate the library's bylaws, ethics, or the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law ("NFPCL")?

To address that question, one must first understand what is meant by a "conflict of interest."

The concept “conflict of interest” sounds simple, but often quickly gets, as they say these days, “complicated.”

Why is that?  For a library,[2]  the concept of a "conflict of interest" could consist of layered elements like the petals of one, single (but complex) rose...or it could be a complex, multi-variety bouquet.

What can comprise this bouquet?

Let's start with the rose.

Section 715-a of the NFPCL requires every charitable corporation in New York (a category that includes most libraries), to adopt and enforce a policy "to ensure that its directors, officers and key persons act in the corporation's best interest and comply with applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to the requirements set forth in section seven hundred fifteen of [the NFPCL]."

Let's peel back the petals on this first thorny flower.  In one sentence, 715-a lists a broad expectation (acting in "the corporation's best interest"), a broad mandate ("comply with legal requirements"), and one very specific law to follow (NPFCL 715, which bars "related party transactions").[3]

Let's take that last petal first.  What is a "related party transaction?"

According to the NFPCL's "Definitions" section, a "related party transaction" means "any transaction, agreement or any other arrangement in which a related party[4] has a financial interest and in which the corporation or any affiliate of the corporation[5] is a participant..."

Based on the information provided, the trustee submitting the question is not in a "related party transaction".  The suit is not against the library, and in this scenario, the district who will be named in the suit is not an "affiliate" of the library.  Since the district is required to put the tax vote on the ballot (the school board has no control over this; it has to put the ballot up as proposed by the library board), the act of using the district to float the vote to the public does not create a relationship that could serve as the basis of a conflict.

Let's take the middle petal: "legal requirements?"  Is there any "legal requirement" that a trustee not bring an unrelated legal action against a school district who facilitates a library budget vote?  No.[6]

And finally, that first, most fraught petal: "the corporation's best interest?" --We're going to leave that for last.

What other “blooms” could join, and affect, this "conflict of interest" bouquet?

• The library' bylaws
• The library's customized "Conflict of Interest" policy[7]
• An association library's trustee oath of office[8]
• A grant or other contractual obligation that creates a temporary definition of a conflict
• The library's strategic plan, or other planning document that would create a conflict as defined by law, bylaw, or policy.[9]

Fortunately, no matter how many blossoms in the "conflict of interest" bouquet, the law requires that when the possibility of a conflict arises, it is the board--not the individual trustee--who must assess it.

The NFPCL does that by requiring a board to pass a conflict of interest policy that:

 ...include[s], at a minimum, the following provisions:

  (1) a definition of the circumstances that constitute a conflict of interest;

  (2) procedures for disclosing a conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest to the board or to a committee of the board, and procedures for the board or committee to determine whether a conflict exists;

  (3) a requirement that the person with the conflict of interest not be present at or participate in board or committee deliberation or vote on the matter giving rise to such conflict, provided that nothing in this section shall prohibit the board or a committee from requesting that the person with the conflict of interest present information as background or answer questions at a committee or board meeting prior to the commencement of deliberations or voting relating thereto;

  (4) a prohibition against any attempt by the person with the conflict to influence improperly the deliberation or voting on the matter giving rise to such conflict;

  (5) a requirement that the existence and resolution of the conflict be documented in the corporation's records, including in the minutes of any meeting at which the conflict was discussed or voted upon....
  

So, at the end of the day, no matter how large the "conflict of Interest" bouquet, it is the board, as a whole, who has to sniff out a problem.[10]

In this case, the rub is in that first petal: the requirement that a trustee always act "in the corporation's best interest."

At the surface, there is no conflict whatsoever in this scenario: the school district is not a partner or contractor with the library, and the school board has no discretion about whether or not to put the library's budget on the ballot (they must put it exactly as the library board requests it).[11] Therefore, even if the contemplated lawsuit by the trustee is not taken kindly by the school district's board, there can be no direct negative impact.

Now, however, for a pragmatic answer: in a world where everything is political, and library budgets all the more so, could an adversarial relationship between an individual library trustee and a school district board be in something other than "in the best interest" of the library?

That consideration--and its answer--is not a legal issue.  In this scenario, there is nothing that violates the law, and I have never seen an oath of office, nor a bylaws provision, that would bar trustee service under such circumstances.  Further, as discussed above, even if the school board takes umbrage, they would be powerless to block the requested ballot item.

However, there is a "soft" consideration here that goes beyond the law.  I categorize these types of concerns not as "legal" issues, but that dreaded concept: "diplomacy."

When it comes to "diplomacy"...could members of a community, including an individual school board member in their individual capacity, decide to take a dim view of a library trustee who is suing their district, and try to punish the library?  They shouldn't, but as individuals, speaking just for themselves, they could...they absolutely could.  And even though their negative actions couldn't block the budget vote, it could influence a vote in non-official ways.

That said, the possibility of such personal vengeance in no way creates a legal conflict of interest.  So, for the reasons set forth above, a board doing an assessment of this situation--unless their policy specifically includes a unique definition or example that bars trustees sowing bad PR, even incidentally--would likely not determine that it constitutes a forbidden conflict.

Of course, a trustee may decide that they have enough on their plate, just being a plaintiff in a stressful lawsuit, and resign to avoid the (real or possible) stress of the situation.  Or the board and trustee may engage in some practical "risk management" and mutually agree that, given a high likelihood it could impact the board-to-board relationship, it is best if the trustee steps down for a time.  But such an option would not be required by law and would be based on pragmatism...and it could only be effected with the consent of the trustee.

And THAT is my answer to this very important question. 

I wish the trustee who posed it both 1) a thoughtful and supportive library board, and 2) a school board with the ability to maturely and completely compartmentalize legal issues from diplomatic ones.

Thank you.

[1] For purposes of this question, we'll assume that the only "support" the district provides to the library is the budget ballot (there is no MOU or even informal agreement for other assistance, like overflow parking, or hosting the annual fund-raiser).

[2] Public or association, in this case.

[3] There is no case law that picks apart how the commas in the sentence impact the interpretation and inter-relation of its required elements; that would be a dream case of mine (not that I wish the need to make that argument on any client of mine).

[4] "Related party" means (i) any director, officer or key person of the corporation or any affiliate of the corporation; (ii) any relative of any individual described in clause (i) of this subparagraph; or (iii) any entity in which any individual described in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph has a thirty-five percent or greater ownership or beneficial interest or, in the case of a partnership or professional corporation, a direct or indirect ownership interest in excess of five percent. "Relative" of an individual means (i) his or her spouse or domestic partner as defined in section twenty-nine hundred ninety-four-a of the public health law; (ii) his or her ancestors, brothers and sisters (whether whole or half blood), children (whether natural or adopted), grandchildren, great-grandchildren; or (iii) the spouse or domestic partner of his or her brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

[5] In this case, the "corporation" is the library.

[6] I have not read every law passed in New York State, but I am willing to go out on a limb for this one.

[7] As you can see in the NFPCL, not-for-profit corporations have the right to define their own notion of "conflict," so long as the policy meets the requirements of the law.

[8] Only an association library might need to consider this, since the oath required of public libraries does not add to the obligation to be free of conflicts of interest (although it does undergird it).

[9] For instance, if the strategic plan called for the library to enter into a contract with the district in the future.

[10] That's right. The next time your board has to assess if the board chair's cousin getting the winning bid to the parking lot resurfacing job is a conflict, just envision being handed a fragrant mass of lilies and roses!

[11] Education law Section 259, found at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/259.

This reply will answer the questions up-front, and then tackle the concern about the full board not seeing a matter since it was voted on in committee in the "background and commentary" section.

The questions:

1.  Can the non-trustee members of a committee vote if one is called for in the committee?

Yes, if a library board has a committee with non-trustee members, those non-trustee members can vote.

2.  Should we amend the by-laws to specify them as voting/non-voting members of committees?

No, there is no need to amend the bylaws.  If the non-trustees are properly appointed committee members, they may vote.  If the non-trustees are not actual committee members but are instead there in an advisory capacity, they should not be referred to as "members" in the first place, and the appointment letter should make that clear.

And now, for some background and commentary.[1]

Back in 2014, the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation law was amended to create two types of board committee:

• Committees of the Board
• Committees of the Corporation

As the member points out, "Committees of the Corporation" are committees that--while they might work hard on matters of great importance to the library--cannot "bind" the board...meaning, they can't make "official" decisions final (authorizing a budget, signing a contract, or voting to hire a director).

"Committees of the Board," on the other hand, are authorized to "bind" the board in certain matters, including investments, endowments, employment, and some matters relating to real property.[2]

While this "Committees of the ______" change was quietly revolutionary in many not-for-profit circles,[3] it was already somewhat familiar territory for libraries, because the Education Law already authorized them to have an "Executive Committee" to "transact business of the corporation" between meetings.[4]  In other words, libraries were already used to designating committees with express and binding authority.  This just gave them more options to bring on more participants who were not trustees.

Now, while "Committees of the Corporation" may not be not tasked with the Really Big Decisions, as the member points out, they can still do very important work.

For example: let's say a library has created a "Public Relations Committee" ("of the Corporation") responsible for monitoring and identifying tactics for the library's presence in traditional and social media.  The committee doesn't sign contracts or even write press releases; it simply monitors and issues advice, meeting virtually once a month to review the library's media footprint and track its various metrics.

Based on some observations, the committee decides the library should adopt a "Social Media Policy."[5]  Since the committee can't "bind the board," they can't vote to adopt the policy, but if they vote to do so, they can:

• Vote to designate a committee member or sub-committee to draft the policy;
• Draft the policy;
• Write a memo urging the board to adopt the draft policy;
• When both are ready, vote to authorize the submission of the draft policy and endorsing memo to the full board.

Now, here's where the member's concern comes in: How does the full board know this work is being done? 

The critical work of committees "of the corporation"--even if they are not "binding" the board--should be connected to that of the full board by a routine report (or meeting minutes) that are "received and filed" by the full board subsequent to every committee meeting.[6] That way, whether or not the committee votes, the board is aware of its work, and what is in the pipeline.  Committee work should never take place in a vacuum; it should always be linked to the operations of the board by reports and minutes.

A high-functioning library board operates like an orchestra--different sections may rehearse separately, and sometimes, there may even be a prima donna moment or two--but the end goal should be harmony. 

A board's various committee types may have different functions, compositions, and authority, but they are all part of that system.  Thank you for a great question that showcases their differences and value.

[1] A valid concern.

[2] They can't do everything, though, so proceed with care!

[3] A wild bunch who brandish the word "fiduciary" the way some people wield the term "linebacker."

[4] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/226

[5] The special focus of a PR committee, by the way, is why a library may want to bring on some non-trustee "ringers" to help with specific issues (a building committee is another great committee where you might want someone for a non-specific set of skills).

[6] Or at least, whenever the committee meets.  Some committees only meet and act once a year; obviously, that committee only needs to submit one report!

"Is this legal?"  Not likely.

But before I say more, I just want to offer a quick primer on how things work at "Ask the Lawyer."

Since the situation depicted in the question could result in legal claims by the Director, the board, and/or even the Town--or be relevant to an audit by the State Comptroller--this is the type of "Ask the Lawyer" question that can only be answered--really answered--under attorney-client privilege.

Why is that?  Because of how "Ask the Lawyer” works.  When questions like this are submitted (questions that ask for advice and guidance for the requesting member and their council, as joint clients[1]), our typical approach is to a) contact the member, b) get any additional information needed to assess the question, and then c) send an attorney-client privileged answer. [2]

After that, if the member consents to it, we create a "generic" answer, channeling the research gathered into general advice that may be useful for a broad audience (of libraries, museums, historical societies, and other regional council members).

This question, of course, presents an issue mostly relevant to public libraries.  And here is the "generic" answer to the scenario presented:

There are a number of factors an attorney needs to dig into in order to answer this question.

First: is the director an hourly employee, or salaried?  If salaried, this question doesn't make much sense,[3] so we'll go with hourly.

Second: Is the director required as part of their job to attend the meeting?  Since they are mostly there in their professional capacity, let's say "yes."

Third:  Did the director, in the past, report the hours into the payroll system, and receive compensation for them?  Let's again say "yes."

Fourth: Has the board consistently performed the aspects of board authority over the position (making the decision to hire, signing the hiring letter, performing annual reviews, working with Civil Service to amend the job description when needed, effecting disciplinary action and plans of improvement if needed, approving payroll,[4] approving scheduled vacation times, overseeing time off for disability, effecting termination)?  Again, from the scenario, we'll say "yes," which means the board has not laid a foundation for the lines of employment to be blurred (they are undisputedly in charge).

Fifth: Has the previous payroll, which included compensation for attending the meetings, been approved per the requirements of the Civil Service law?[5]  While that may be something happening subtly behind the scenes, based on the scenario, again it is probably "yes."

If we added those details to the scenario, I would see no basis for a town official to be able to unilaterally decide what tasks may or may not be compensated.

In fact, the only way I could see a town official being able to (legitimately) do such a thing is if the library board had expressly delegated all authority for supervision and payroll oversight to the town...something that would be a dangerous practice, since it would seriously undercut the library board's autonomy and authority.

The courts in New York, the State Comptroller,[6] the State Attorney General, and local Civil Service agencies all grasp the nuances of public library boards' authority, but it can be a struggle for newer public officers.  The autonomy and authority of a library board can often feel like a square peg to a public official used to only round holes.  That is why it is important to nurture the relationship routinely, deliberately, and carefully.[7]

What can be done in this case?  To avoid a claim of unpaid wages, a library board would need to develop a plan to put things right.  There are a number of ways to approach this, but I'd start out by enlisting the help of the local Civil Service, who can confirm that the library is a separate employer, with an obligation to confirm their employees' hours.[8] In the alternative, a good resource who may take a similar technical approach could be the municipality's attorney.

Since all that could take some time, if the board wants to vote to adjust the payroll (ensuring the payment is properly subject to taxes and withholding, etc.), the board may also want to enlist the help of the State Comptroller (the authority that audits public library payroll from time-to-time).  How would a library do that?  Prior to any adjustment, it would be a good idea to confirm the basis for the correcting payment in writing with the Comptroller, after which the board could resolve to make the adjusting payment (since the minutes of the meeting, and the meeting itself, are a public record, this is a good exercise in transparency).

Because of the risks involved in compensation-related matters, if at all possible, this type of challenge is a good one to work through with an attorney.[9]

[1] More on this approach, piloted in consultation with Sheryl Knab at WNYLRC (who was very patient as I unpacked all the nuances about attorney ethics and retainer agreements), is described in Hope Dunbar’s excellent article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15332748.2018.1443572

[2] Sometimes, if the issue is sensitive enough (and there is no reason to involve them) the answer doesn't even go to the council.

[3] It could be relevant in the sense that the salaried employee was using the meeting time to hit a minimum amount of service for the work-week (say, 37.5 hours).  But that nuance doesn't quite fit the scenario.

[4] Note this says "approving," not "effecting."  A municipality can process the payroll and provide the employment benefits, and the library board of trustees remains the actual employer.

[5] Two great primers on how Civil Service Law impacts hiring library directors in New York are found at: http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/trustees/handbook/cs101.htm, and https://www.nyla.org/a-librarians-guide-to-civil-service-in-nys-2018/.

[6] The New York State Comptroller has understood the nuances of the library board-municipality relationship for decades.  See 1972 Op St Compt File #402.

[7] See the "Ask the Lawyer" on developing an MOU with your sponsoring municipality: https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/166

[8] I realize that might not be the case in some localities.  If that is the case for your library, you may want to skip this step, and head to the Comptroller.

[9] The case at this link, Beers v. Incorporation City of Floral Park, from 1999, shows why! https://casetext.com/case/beers-v-incorporated-village-of-floral-park

Earlier this week I was having a conversation with Brian, one of my paralegals, about the challenges we—our office and our clients—are facing due to the pandemic.  The conversation ranged from the personal (Brian is a musician whose band hasn't been able to play; my father-in-law is in the hospital and we can't go see him), to the professional (how to handle a contract breached because people can’t gather to do the work).  We concluded, in a very non-scientific way, that everything—whether it used to be easy, or was only a little bit difficult—is now "at least 30% harder" than before.[1]

On the flip side, later that day, I spoke via Zoom with a friend about how the increased reliance on Zoom, FB Live, and other virtual fora has done wonders for democracy.  "People are going to meetings they could never get to before," said my friend. "People who would never have had time to get to City Hall, or would have faced actual physical barriers to getting in a building,[2] are now able to attend."  And I optimistically thought: Cool...one thing that isn't 30% harder.

But these current times are not kind to optimists, and this question shows that, for some, even the Zoom-ification of democracy might make life at least 30% harder. 

And with that harsh reality established, let's take a look at the legal considerations of this question.

I.  Meetings during COVID

As "Ask the Lawyer" has addressed a few times[3] since the onset of NY's response to the pandemic,[4] chartered libraries are obligated to conduct their board meetings in compliance with the "Open Meetings Law (the “OML”). When New York went into social-distancing mode, the requirements of that law were modified by Executive Order to allow people to attend remotely, or through a blend of in-person and remote solutions.[5]

The New York Committee on Open Government (the "COOG") addressed some of the practical considerations of these modifications in guidance issued on August 20, 2020 [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.].  In that opinion, the COOG stated that if a body subject to the OML resumed meeting in person while the executive orders allowing the modifications were effective, a remote attendance alternative must be provided.[6]  As of this writing, modification is good through February 26, 2021.

II.  Attendance as a Trustee During COVID

The Executive Orders and COOG guidance clearly require enabling attendance through remote measures.  What the executive orders and COOG[7] guidance are silent on is the scenario posed by the member: if a library board and community have transitioned to meeting 100% virtually, and one trustee, due to the technology, isn't able to attend, is the board able to address that under the law?[8]

I have found no guidance precisely on point, but below is my legal analysis, and what I hope will be helpful guidance.

III.  Analysis

Library trustee service is governed by the laws of New York and a library's enabling legislation, charter, bylaws, and policies (in that order).  Aside from customized provisions in a charter, bylaws or policy, the law has two means of addressing serial trustee absence:

Means #1: "Unexcused Absence"

Per Section 226(4) of the Education Law,[9] trustees who are absent for three consecutive meetings without a "satisfactory excuse" for missing the meeting are "deemed to have resigned."  That is why, when a trustee lets a board know that they are unable to attend a meeting (virtual or otherwise), and they don’t show up, they are noted on the minutes as "excused," since to do otherwise could put the trustee on a path of resignation-by-law.[10]

Many NY library bylaws have this language in them, but it is not required...since it's in the law.  But what isn't in the law is what a board can regard as a "satisfactory" excuse. Is the excuse of a trustee who can't attend remotely, due entirely to technology, "acceptable"?  Only a board can say.  In a very rural community, it might be.  In a highly wired urban area with free wi-fi, where a trustee could perhaps even borrow some library technology to attend the meeting, it might not. So long as the reason is not discriminatory,[11] and not contrary to the bylaws or being unfairly applied, a board has some discretion in what type of reason they are "satisfied" by.

But I can say this: if the absences aren't noted as "unexcused" on the board minutes, a board should not contemplate this as a basis for implied resignation, since the law is clear that this must be based on absence that is unexcused.

Means #2: "Neglect of Duty"

The other statutory basis for removal of a trustee is found in Section 226 (8) of the Education Law: "Removals and Suspensions,” which states that a board may:

“Remove or suspend from office by a vote of a majority of the entire board any trustee, officer or employee engaged under special contract, on examination and due proof of the truth of a written complaint by any trustee, of misconduct, incapacity or neglect of duty; provided, that at least one week’s previous notice of the proposed action shall have been given to the accused and to each trustee."

As you can see, this section (a provision often replicated in library bylaws) creates a more intricate process than Section 226(4): it requires a written complaint, advance notice, and a majority vote of trustees to confirm a removal. 

To use this provision to address nothing more than repeated absence due to technical issues is probably overkill, unless the board finds that the mounting excuses—while perhaps initially acceptable—are causing real harm to the library or the operations of the board.  Before resorting to this step, it is always good for a board president or other leader to have a conversation with a board member and ask if they would like to offer their resignation (for some, this request may come as a relief).[12]

That said, a "neglect of duty" removal doesn't have to be hostile.  It can simply state that a trustee has failed to attend X number of meetings, has been unable to fulfill their duty as a trustee, and that to ensure the board has the benefit of a fully participating body, the board must consider removal. Give proper notice of the “complaint,” make sure the trustee has a chance to be heard, and vote.

IV.  Guidance

So: Is removal an option?

Yes, removal is an option, but as can be seen, when considering such removal, a board should pay close attention to the documentation that it is basing its decision upon.

I am very glad the member who submitted this question is being so thoughtful about this.  It is clear from the law, the pandemic-related Executive Orders, and the COOG guidance, that it is the public policy of the State of New York to encourage attendance and access to library trustee meetings, even during difficult times. 

While trustees have a different set of rights and obligations than the general public, an effort to orchestrate meetings to be free of pandemic-created impediments to trustee participation is clearly within the spirit, if not the letter of the law. To that end, if a library is open and if it has a Safety Plan that could allow a capacity-limited physical component of a virtual board meeting (perhaps set up in the room where the trustees used to meet, if possible under the Safety Plan), it is worth considering allowing trustees to attend in that manner—even if the rest of the trustees appear virtually. 

But to be clear: that is not what the law requires.  And if everything feels at least 30% harder these days, every library needs every trustee to be giving 100%.  So, if steps need to be taken to ensure a board has its full capacity of engaged trustees, just double-check your bylaws and documentation, and do what's best for the library.

Thanks for a difficult but very important question.

[1] I have heard people used "B.P." as in, "Before Pandemic."  "Pre-COVID" and "pre-pandemic" are also used.  I have floated "ante-Corona," because it sounds so grandiose, but I can't get it to stick.

[2] My friend is an architect, so they tend to see the world in design terms.

[3] In the answers from March 18, 2020, November 16, 2020, and December 14, 2020.

[4] "P-Day?" 

[5] The latest extension of this modification is valid until February 26, 2021 per Executive Order 202.92.

[6] What the Executive Director wrote was: "In my opinion, if a public body can possibly anticipate that any persons who may wish to attend a meeting governed by the provisions of the Open Meetings Law cannot be safely physically accommodated in the proposed meeting location ... that public body is required to simulcast to the public, by either video or audio means, the proceedings of the meeting as they are occurring so that all members of the public who wish to “attend” may do so."

[7] Full disclosure: this acronym is a constant test of my maturity level.

[8] For purposes of this scenario, I am accepting the premise that not even attendance via LAN line is possible; something that is certainly feasible in our cord-cutting, cell-reliant society.  Further, I have never seen bylaws that require a trustee to own a computer, or even a phone (you usually just have to be 18 and live in the area of service!).

[9] "If any trustee shall fail to attend three consecutive meetings without excuse accepted as satisfactory by the trustees, he shall be deemed to have resigned, and the vacancy shall be filled."  Please pardon the implication by pronoun "he" that only a male trustee can be subject to this law; I don't write the law, I just research, construe, and quote it. 

[10] Short note for all you minute-takers out there: this is why noting those “excused” and “unexcused” absences is so important.

[11] For instance, if board meetings are always held on Friday night, and the board doesn't excuse the absence of someone who keeps the Jewish sabbath.

[12] I appreciate that if the trustee is truly inaccessible by computer/phone, this might be cumbersome.

I recently had a chance to check in with the New York State Comptroller's legal department[1] on this very topic.

The reason I had to check in is because the most recent on-point authority I could find on this subject was from 1981. 

The input I got from the legal department was re-assuring: no change in guidance in the almost four decades that followed.[2]

Now, that said, the attorney at the Comptroller's gave me the usual disclaimer that I often give in "Ask the Lawyer": It's just an opinion.  The law can change.  Check with your lawyer, since your charter, bylaws, and policies, or even a contract, could change how this applies to you."

But that said, below are the reassuring words of Comptroller Opinion #445, circa 1981.  Since they are a little heavy on the legalese and citation, I've put the important part in bold:

"As a general rule, the town library board of trustees, and not the town board, has the authority to appoint and dismiss library personnel (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260; 30 Opns St Comp, 1974, p 98). The library board exercises direct control and supervision over library personnel and, for most purposes, including labor negotiations [**486] under the Taylor Law (Civil Service [*2] Law, §§ 200, et seq.), the library board is considered to be the employer of library personnel (County of Erie v. Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515; Binghamton Public Library Unit v. City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515; Opns St Comp, 1972, No. 72-402, unreported; cf. Retirement and Social Security Law, § 30(c); Opns St Comp, 1980, No. 80-199, as yet unreported; Finkelstein v. Central School District, 34 AD2d 781, 311 NYS2d 243 affd 28 NY2d 705, 320 NYS2d 751). Compensation for library personnel is fixed by the library board and paid from the library fund (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 259(1)). It would then follow that, as between the town board and the library board, it is the library board which determines the vacation and sick leave benefits for library employees. It is our opinion that a library board of trustees has implied authority to provide for sick leaves and vacations for library employees (see Opn No. 80- 199, supra; 1961 Atty Gen [Inf Opns] 105; Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260). We note that expenditures for employer contributions to the New York State Employees' Retirement System for library employees are expenses [*3] incurred for the operation of the library and should be paid from library funds (Opns St Comp, 1975, No. 75-903, unreported; 16 Ed Dep't Rep, 1977, p 416). The same would hold true for employer contributions for social security and unemployment insurance for library employees." [emphasis added].

So, with regard to the member's specific situation, I of course have to say: " It's just an opinion.  The law can change.  Check with your lawyer, since your charter, bylaws, and policies, or even a contract, could change how this applies to you."  But if all of those things have been checked, and there is no provision changing the default, the Comptroller's words from 1981 still apply.

I hope this will help as your library works to retain that one week of paid leave!

Thanks for a great question.

Supplementary Answer

NOTE: For libraries that are running into this type of issue with their sponsoring municipalities, below, please find "some additional input" that I hope can be of help:

As many of you know, my law office has the privilege of working with libraries across New York.  It is work my team and I value highly, because it connects us with a vast "information army" of committed, creative librarians who are dedicated to public service.

This work also gives us an array of windows into what is happening "out there," especially when it comes to public libraries working with their districts and municipalities on issues like the one shown in this question.  And while each specific view from any particular window is confidential, it positions my team to distill a lot of anecdotal information,[3] and to share what we see in the aggregate.

Based on what we are seeing "in the aggregate" the type of issue brought forward by the member has always been an "issue," but with the budget pressures and political theater ushered in by the events of 2020, it appears positioned to become an "Issue" into 2021 and beyond. 

The emergence of this Issue isn't just a by-product of budget woes heightened by pandemic.  It is also the result of a rapidly evolving regime of employment law in New York, making the distinction between government and "private" employers more critical, with every passing day.  This distinction impacts things such as: comp time, overtime, minimum wage, insurance, liability, civil rights claims, labor law claims, and things that may seem mundane, but are actually quite important (such as: "Whose HR manual do we follow?").

If you take a quick scan of the "Ask the Lawyer" searchable index,[4] you'll see that numerous member questions arise from this "Public Library as Employer" divide. And while they relate to different aspects of the library-as-employer, they all touch on one very specific priority: public library board authority.  And it's apparent that this is something some sponsoring municipalities and districts have a challenge grasping.

So, in an effort to provide a short, succinct resource for libraries to direct their government entities to when they try to interfere with hiring, try to control employee benefits, or otherwise try to interrupt the autonomy of duly elected/appointed trustees in the governance of a chartered public library, I am posting this memo on my firm's website at https://www.stephaniecoleadams.com/adamsblog/2021/1/7/comments-on-public-library-board-autonomy, without the usual snarky asides and footnote commentary. 

Hopefully it can help avoid some of the needless argument and hostility that these misunderstandings can create.  If you find it helpful, please let us[5] know.

--Cole

Comments on Library Board Autonomy

Law and current legal authority firmly establish that public library boards are the sole authority regarding employee terms of employment, including hiring, compensation, benefits, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and termination. 

This autonomy is constrained only by a public library board's need to observe the New York Civil Service Law, the New York Education Law, numerous state and federal labor laws, various applicable regulations, and a library's own charter and bylaws. 

The law does allow a public library to use, in whole or in part, the payroll system, policies, and benefits systems of their sponsoring government entity, if such resources are offered to the library by that entity.  Further, the government entity, in making such an offer, may condition such use on the library's cooperation with certain reporting procedures or methods of documentation.  The choice to use such offered resources, however, is ultimately at the discretion of the library's board, who may instead decide to have the library implement its own system. 

And finally, the choice as to how to expend library funds with respect to employees (salary, benefits, paid time off) always rests solely with a public library's board.

The legal authority establishing these considerations is extensive, but a thorough summary is set forth in the links and content below.

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-93-15, which states:

"The ultimate control of the use, disposition and expenditure of the library fund moneys is vested in the library board even when the municipal treasurer has custody (1991 Opns St Comp No. 91-57, p 158). Further, even if the treasurer of the sponsoring municipality is custodian of the library fund, the library board would have custody of private source moneys of the library (1988 Opns St Comp No. 88-76, p 145; 1980 Opns St Comp No. 80-340, p 101).

Public libraries are, for most purposes, fiscally autonomous from the sponsoring municipality (see Opn No. 91-57, supra; 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-32, p 37; Buffalo Library v Erie County, 171 AD2d 369, 577 NYS2d 993 affd 80 NY2d 938, 591 NYS2d 131). In addition, public library officers and employees are often not considered to be officers and employees of the sponsoring municipality or school district (see, e.g., General Municipal Law, §800[5], conflicts of interest; Public Officers Law, §10, official oaths; Binghamton Public Library v City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515 and County of Erie v Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515, collective bargaining negotiations). In view of the library's fiscal autonomy, it is our opinion that library trustees and the separate library treasurer are not town officers or employees for purposes of Town Law, §123 and, therefore, are not subject to the accounting and auditing provisions of that section.

We note, however, that General Municipal Law, §30(3) requires that an annual report of financial transactions, including those involving private source moneys (Opn No. 88-76, supra), be made by the treasurer of each public library. The report must be certified by the officer making the same and, unless an extension of time is granted, must be filed with the Office of the State Comptroller within 60 days after the close of the library's fiscal year (General Municipal Law, §30[5]). In addition, the Education Law contains certain requirements for public libraries to report to the State Education Department (see Education Law, §§215, 263). Finally, as noted in Opn No. 88-76, supra, the town board, in determining the amount to be raised by taxes for library purposes, may take into account a library's private source funds and, therefore, may request from the library information concerning such funds."

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-91-57, which states:

"With respect to library moneys, however, we note that public libraries are, for most purposes, fiscally autonomous from the sponsoring municipality (see, e.g., 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-32, p 38). Thus, the ultimate control of the use, disposition, and expenditure of those moneys is vested in the library board of trustees even if the municipal treasurer is the custodian of library moneys. (Education Law, §§226[6], 259[1]; 1987 Opns St Comp No. 87-84, p 125; see also Opn No. 87-49, supra; Opn No. 86-54, supra). In addition, it is the library board of trustees which may authorize the investment of library moneys even when the moneys are held in the custody of the municipal treasurer (Opn No. 86-54, supra). Therefore, since the library board controls the use and disposition of library fund moneys, it is our opinion that the library board must consent to any arrangement under which library fund moneys are to be comingled with moneys of the municipality."

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-2001-12, regarding indemnification of library trustees, which states:

"PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW §18: There are two alternatives for conferring the benefits of section 18 of the Public Officers Law on employees of a public library: either (1) the board of trustees of the library may elect to confer the benefits of section 18 on library employees as a public library expense; or (2) the governing board of the sponsoring municipality or school district may confer section 18 benefits on library employees as a direct expense of the sponsor."

Comptroller Opinion #445, which states:

"As a general rule, the town library board of trustees, and not the town board, has the authority to appoint and dismiss library personnel (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260; 30 Opns St Comp, 1974, p 98). The library board exercises direct control and supervision over library personnel and, for most purposes, including labor negotiations [**486] under the Taylor Law (Civil Service [*2] Law, §§ 200, et seq.), the library board is considered to be the employer of library personnel (County of Erie v. Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515; Binghamton Public Library Unit v. City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515; Opns St Comp, 1972, No. 72-402, unreported; cf. Retirement and Social Security Law, § 30(c); Opns St Comp, 1980, No. 80-199, as yet unreported; Finkelstein v. Central School District, 34 AD2d 781, 311 NYS2d 243 affd 28 NY2d 705, 320 NYS2d 751). Compensation for library personnel is fixed by the library board and paid from the library fund (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 259(1)). It would then follow that, as between the town board and the library board, it is the library board which determines the vacation and sick leave benefits for library employees. It is our opinion that a library board of trustees has implied authority to provide for sick leaves and vacations for library employees (see Opn No. 80- 199, supra; 1961 Atty Gen [Inf Opns] 105; Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260). We note that expenditures for employer contributions to the New York State Employees' Retirement System for library employees are expenses [*3] incurred for the operation of the library and should be paid from library funds (Opns St Comp, 1975, No. 75-903, unreported; 16 Ed Dep't Rep, 1977, p 416). The same would hold true for employer contributions for social security and unemployment insurance for library employees."

I hope this information is of assistance.

[1] This is like a guitar player saying they recently got to jam with John Mayer.

[2] In fact, to bolster the 1981 opinion I found, they sent me an even older opinion.

[3] I appreciate that anecdotal information is not precise data analysis.  For that, I rely on the system, councils, LibDev, and NYLA.  I fall into those data rabbit holes regularly.

[4] I am very gratified to have been doing this long enough to warrant a searchable index.

[5] Write to adams@losapllc.com and jill@losapllc.com.

Since the onset of the pandemic, we have had two questions about the impact of Executive Orders on the Open Meetings Law.

The first question, back in March 2020 (remember March 2020?  Ugh.), led to this advice:

... the method you select for sharing the meeting in real time (livestreaming, a broadcast) should be accessible to the general public.

Of course, by Fall 2020, we all became experts at these modified proceedings, and were asking refined questions like:

How long does a library (public or association) or a cooperative public library system have to keep the recording of board or committee meetings?

(Answer: until transcribed.)

This brings us to December, 2020.

On December 2, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 202.79,[1] continuing the suspension and temporary modification of the Open Meetings Law through January 1, 2021.[2]  So here we are, still meeting under modified circumstances.[3]

Which brings us to the member's question:

[Does] allowing the meeting to be simultaneously on Zoom ... satisfy the requirements of open meetings law even though only one member of the public would be able to be physically present in order to stay under the 10-member cap for small gatherings[?]

Answer: Yes.

Here is why I can answer this question with one-word confidence.

Back in August, 2020 (remember August, 2020?  Slightly less "ugh.") the Executive Director of the State Committee on Open Government, realizing that different areas have different COVID numbers and are facing different Open Meetings Law compliance challenges, wrote in an Advisory Opinion:[4]

...if a public body is convening an essential meeting, the body must ensure that it adheres to social distancing, masking, and any other administration requirements, and if there is any question about whether it is able to maintain a safe space in which to hold an essential open meeting, it must provide a contemporaneous video or audio broadcast such that members of the public who cannot safely attend in person “ha[ve] the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed.”

Further, the Advisory Opinion went on to emphasize that room capacity and safety concerns should not impede public access to an OML-accessible meeting. "[A] public body may not artificially limit attendance at its meetings – to do so would not be consistent with the requirements of the Open Meetings Law."

The solution posed in the question submitted by the member adequately addresses this concern.   By enabling observation and attendance via Zoom, the proceeding will be virtually accessible even though it has been physically convened.  The key is ensuring access at a time of modified operations.

And what do we do when Executive Order 202.72 expires?

We'll see in the New Year!

Thanks for a thoughtful question, I wish you a productive and safe meeting.

[1] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-20279-continuing-temporary-suspension-and-modification-laws-relating-disaster-emergency.

[2] If you'd like to follow the daisy-chain of executive orders on this, here goes: Executive Order 202.1 first suspended/modified the Open Meetings Law Requirements, and then Executive Orders 202.14, 202.28. 202.38, 202,48, 202.55, 202.60, 202.67, and now, 202.72, kept that suspension/modification going.

[3] There are several legal challenges under way, based on the ability of the Governor to continue the state of emergency and resulting Executive Orders.  I am not commenting on that.

[4] Found at https://www.dos.ny.gov/press/2020/Essential%20Meeting%20OML%20AO.pdf

Before attempting to answer this one, my team and I looked to see if anyone else "out there" has tackled this question.

We scoured the usual places (NYS Empire Development's COVID site, Committee on Open Government, NY Archives, NYLA, etc.), but my staff and I didn't find anything right on point. That said, the COVID landscape changes fast, so please let us know if you find anything, and we'll post an update to this answer.

And with that shameless disclaim/plea on the record, here is my answer:

As I read it, the currently-governing Executive Order[1] requires an entity subject to the Open Meetings Law to keep the recordings until they have been transcribed—not just until the minutes have been created.

Here is my reasoning: Executive Order 202.1[2] changed the Open Meetings Law as follows:

...to the extent necessary to permit any public body to meet and take such actions authorized by the law without permitting in public in-person access to meetings and authorizing such meetings to be held remotely by conference call or similar service, provided that the public has the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed. [emphasis added]

Although the normal application of the LGS-1 would allow for the recording to be erased upon creation of the minutes—just as the member points out—the Executive Order is an overlay that super-cedes (or at least, exceeds) normal record-keeping requirements.

I realize this means a library that can't afford to transcribe the recording any time soon will have to keep the audio around.  It's possible that the state, after considering the fiscal reality of the conditions the "later transcribed" condition imposes, may eventually tinker with the requirement, perhaps simply insisting the audio be retained for a certain time after the minutes are generated.[3]

I am leaning on the side of retention, and not taking the easy way out by swapping it out for creating minutes, because access to the process, in all its glory, is the default purpose of the law.  Further, Committee on Open Government Advisory Opinion has stated that while masks and social distancing remain requirements, entities subject to the Open Meetings Law must be making the proceedings contemporaneously available via audio or video[4].  So with all that, I have to err on the side of retention, access, and transparency.

Fortunately, digital sound file storage is not too costly these days.[5]

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] Found at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-2021-continuing-temporary-suspension-and-modification-laws-relating-disaster-emergency [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022 as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]

[2] Which as of this writing, is extended through December 3, 2020, by Executive Order #72, found on 11/17/20 at https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-20272-continuing-temporary-suspension-and-modification-laws-relating-disaster-emergency [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]

[3] This sounds like a nice ask to go out from a library advocacy organization.   "Please, Mr. Governor, can you waive the estimated $[AMOUNT] in estimated transcription fees incurred the same year when many localities are taking COVID-induced hits to their budgets?"  I'd sign that letter in a heartbeat.

[4] Found at https://www.dos.ny.gov/press/2020/Essential%20Meeting%20OML%20AO.pdf [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]

[5] Finding the budget to properly compensate qualified people to manage that storage is another question!

When I started writing “Ask the Lawyer” in 2016, my daughter was two years old.

I would like to be able to answer this question like a two-year-old Molly and say simply (and loudly): “NO!” (you don't need a petition).

But time grinds on, so sadly, I have to answer this question like 9-year-old Molly, saying instead with an eye roll:  “You shouldn't have to do that.  It's not specifically required, and no one has had to do that for ages. But I guess there is some sort of precedent, so maybe do it so you don't get trolled?”[1]

The reasons for this convoluted stance is as complex as the reason why my daughter's “craft corner” is still a mess.[2]

Here they are:

As many of you know, the board of a public library (of any kind) can require a school board to put a vote to “establish or increase” a levy in support of that library per Education Law Section 259(1)(a).

In 2007, the NY Legislature amended [3] 259(1)(a) to specify that such a levy: “shall be submitted to the voters of the district as proposed by the library board of trustees...”

Lest anyone get confused as to why the Legislature would make such a change, the memo in support of the bill explained:

This legislation would amend Section 259 of the education law to clarify the ability of a library board of trustees to place budget proposals before voters for approval. Paragraph a of Subdivision 1 of Section 259 is amended to authorize only budget proposals approved by the library board of trustees to be placed on a ballot. [emphasis added]

This purpose of the amendment is explained in the section of the legislative memo ‘justifying’ the amendment:

JUSTIFICATION:

This bill clarifies and conforms provisions relating to library budget votes. The amendment to paragraph a (budget votes in school district public library) conforms the mechanism for placing a vote on the ballot to that already in Paragraph b (budget votes on municipal funding of other types of libraries). Ensuring endorsement of the proposition by the library board of trustees will eliminate the potential for multiple and conflicting library budget proposals on the same ballot. School budget propositions are currently subject to approval of the school board.

...

 While interpreting statutes is a complex exercise, ‘plain language’ is an important factor.  In this case, the plain language of both the 2007 amendment and its supporting memo indicate that to avoid “multiple and conflicting library budget proposals,” the path to a school district ballot is via the library board, for terms “as proposed by the library board of trustees.” And since this is per Education law 259(1)(a), which clearly states the resolution is “as proposed by the board” no petition is required.

Okay, great.  So the library board can adopt a resolution to propose to the voters of the district, and the voters of the district have the power to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

I would love to stop this RAQ there, but there is another wrinkle to consider here: is there a way for the voters to put such a resolution on the school district ballot?

This question is raised by two sections of the Education Law.

First: Section 259(1)(b), pertaining to most[4] municipal ballots, which provides:

1. Except as provided in subparagraph two of this paragraph, whenever qualified voters of a municipality, in a number equal to at least ten per centum of the total number of votes cast in such municipality for governor at the last gubernatorial election, shall so petition and the library board of trustees shall endorse, the question of establishing or increasing the amount of funding of the annual contribution for the operating budget of a registered public or free association library by such municipality to a sum specified in said petition, shall be voted on at the next general election of such municipality, provided that due public notice of the proposed action shall have been given.

Second: Education Law Section 2008, which empowers school district voters to initiate a vote on taxes.

This combo is nicely summarized in an opinion from the New York State Comptroller in 1981, when the authority of a library board to put the appropriation on the ballot was still a bit shaky[5]:

Therefore, it is the opinion of this Department that where a library board requests an appropriation proposition to be placed on the ballot at the annual meeting of a central school district, the board of education must comply. Such a proposition may also be submitted to the voters by petition under section 2008(2) of the Education Law or the board could include such a proposition with a revote called under section 2007.  The notice of any meeting where such a proposition will be voted on should so state. [emphasis added]

But that was back in 1981.  Since the 2007 amendment to Education Law 259 made it very clear that only a budget “endorsed by the library board” can be put to a school district vote, it would follow that the voters no longer have the power to submit a petition under Education 2008 (without the endorsement of the board).

So: is a petition signed by a certain number of voters required to put a budget before the voters of a school district?  No.  Just like a school board, the library board doesn't have to obtain a petition to exercise its authority under 259 and submit a budget for a vote.  And can a group of voters use their powers under Education Law 2008 to force a vote?  Again, the language and history of the law suggests the answer is ‘no.’

The tricky thing with all of this is that while the language is clear, the changes to Education Law 259(1)(a) have not been put to a legal test, and there is enough ambiguity for a school district to want to stick with a tried-and-true (pre-2007) practice and insist that a school district ballot 1) must be initiated by a petition signed by the right number of voters; OR 2) can be initiated by district voters per 2008 without the need for board approval.  What can I say?  Lawyers love precedent.[6]

And now, of course, I have to give a disclaimer.

Sitting here in my lawyer cave, I can argue what the language of the law ‘suggests.’  BUT until we get a test case to settle the issue—like how the 2022 Eisenhauer v. Watertown[7] case settled whether school district taxes can support a municipal library without violating the NY Constitution[8]—we won't have absolute certainty.  So, libraries should work carefully with their counsel, who should work carefully with the counsel for the school district, to confirm the process and language of school district ballots. Clear, open channels of communication between the library, the district, and the town can avoid problems down the road—and of course, libraries should always get a written opinion when budgets and funding are on the line.

Thank you for an important question!

[1] Yes, my daughter talks like both a lawyer and a Youtuber.  Since most people reading this are librarians, there's a strong chance the children in your life talk this way, too.  Yay, reading and multi-media literacy!

[2] “I was going to clean up but I couldn't find anywhere to put the dried mint and the glue gun, so I stuffed all the pipe cleaners in an old shoe box and called it a day.”—Not an exact quote, but a good paraphrase.

[3] Bill #A5107, sponsored by Assemblymember Eddington, and likely worked on by many people you know in “LibraryWorld” (at the time, I was in HigherEdWorld).

[4] The law makes excludes from the term “municipality” a city with a population of one million or more, and includes a county when the public libraries located in such county are members of a federated public library system whose central library is located in a city of more than three hundred thousand inhabitants.

[5] Reporter 1981 N.Y. Comp. LEXIS 726 * | 1981 N.Y. St. Comp. 176 ** Opinion No. 81-167

[6] It's a lawyer's security blanket.

[7] (Matter of Eisenhauer v Watertown City Sch. Dist., 208 AD3d 952 [4th Dept 2022]), appeal dismissed by (Eisenhauer v Watertown City Sch. Dist., 39 NY3d 944 [2022]).  By the way, the case has more going on than just constitutional issues, so give it a read.  It has nice language on the autonomy and independence of municipal libraries.

[8] Personally, I didn't think that question was up for debate, but the decision at all three levels of review (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals) now leaves no room for doubt.

This question is being answered by guest writer and LOSA[1] associate attorney Ben Sachs. 

Thanks Ben!

Many not-for-profit boards impose term limits on trustees. According to a leading source of information on not-for-profit boards,[2] 87.5% of boards have terms, and 54% of those with terms have term limits. Some advantages of term limits include ensuring a source of new ideas and perspectives, avoiding fatigue, breaking up entrenched interests, granting an opportunity for larger community engagement, and more flexibility to adjust to changing needs.

With respect to trustees of public libraries, some aspects are controlled be New York State law. For instance, Education Law § 260 provides that public libraries must have between five and fifteen trustees,[3] the terms of office must be either three or five years, and the terms must be arranged “as nearly as possible” to have “one-third or one-fifth of the members [] expire annually.”[4]

In addition, certain kinds of libraries have restrictions on the terms of trustees. Specifically, cooperative library systems prohibit five-year trustees from serving more than two consecutive terms, and three-year trustees from serving more than three consecutive terms.[5] Reference and research library system trustees only are permitted five-year trustees, and as such they are only allowed to have two consecutive terms.[6]

Outside of the above-mentioned provisions, New York law is open-ended with respect to trustees. Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 703 permits entities to specify terms of trustees in any manner established in the bylaws or articles of corporation. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to impose mandatory breaks after a certain number of terms.

If you would like advice about what structure may be the best for your library, or if you have specific questions about trustee appointment, election, terms, or other issues that pertain to your exact type of library, be sure to reach out to an attorney who may offer more directed counsel.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer your question!

[1]The Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC

[2] https://boardsource.org/resources/term-limits/

[3] Or five to twenty-five trustees for joint public libraries.

[4] This only applies to libraries established after April 30, 1921.

[5] New York Education Law § 255.

[6] Id.