May 8, 2000


The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions.
The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your


I have received your note of March 31 in which you asked whether there is a distinction between a meeting and a workshop. From my perspective, there is no legal distinction between the two. In this regard, I offer the following comments.

By way of background, it is noted that the definition of "meeting" has been broadly
interpreted by the courts. In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a "meeting" that must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD 2d 409, aff'd 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)].

I point out that the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was precipitated by contentions made by public bodies that so-called "work sessions" and similar gatherings held for the purpose of discussion, but without an intent to take action, fell outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals, stated that:

"We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process,
including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public
official as it relates to and is within the scope of one's official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect
by the enactment of this statute" (60 AD 2d 409, 415).

The court also dealt with the characterization of meetings as "informal," stating that:

"The word 'formal' is defined merely as 'following or according with established form, custom, or rule' (Webster's Third New Int. Dictionary). We believe that it was inserted to safeguard the rights of members of a public body to engage in ordinary social transactions, but not to permit the use of this safeguard as a vehicle by which it precludes the application of the law to gatherings which have as their true purpose the discussion of the business of a public body" (id.).

Based upon the direction given by the courts, if a majority of a public body gathers to
discuss public business, any such gathering, in my opinion, would ordinarily constitute a
"meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Law. Since a workshop held by a majority of a
public body is a "meeting", it would have the same responsibilities in relation to notice and
the taking of minutes as in the case of a formal meeting, as well as the same ability to enter
into executive sessions.

With respect to minutes of "workshops", as well as other meetings, the Open Meetings Law contains what might be viewed as minimum requirements concerning the contents of minutes. Specifically, §106 of the Open Meetings Law states that:

"1. Minutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body which shall consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matter formally
voted upon and the vote thereon.

2. Minutes shall be taken at executive sessions of any action that is taken by formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon; provided, however, that such summary need not include any matter which is not required to be made public by the freedom of information law as added by article six of this chapter.

3. Minutes of meetings of all public bodies shall be available to the public in accordance with the provisions of the freedom of information law within two weeks from the date of such meetings except that minutes taken pursuant to subdivision two hereof shall be available to the public within one week from the date of the executive session."

Based upon the foregoing, it is clear in my view that minutes need not consist of a verbatim account of what was said at a meeting; similarly, there is no requirement that minutes refer to every topic discussed or identify those who may have spoken. Although a public body may choose to prepare expansive minutes, at a minimum, minutes of open meetings must include reference to all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matters upon which votes are taken. If those kinds of actions, such as motions or votes, do not occur during workshops, technically I do not believe that minutes must be prepared.

Lastly, since the Open Meetings Law does not require the preparation of detailed or
expansive minutes, I point out that it has been held that a member of the public may use a
tape recorder at open meetings.

I hope that I have been of assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director


cc: Hampton Town Board
Hon. Rebecca S. Jones