New York Senate Bill S09705

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/26
• Refer: 4/2/26

Caption

Provides that, for a quorum, an advisory board may require that at a minimum, one quarter of the members and the presiding officer of a community board physically be present at a location where the public can attend for such board to conduct videoconferencing.

Summary

This bill amends the Public Officers Law to create a special videoconferencing quorum rule for “advisory bodies,” including community boards in cities with populations of one million or more. Under current law, a public body using videoconferencing must have enough members physically present in one or more locations where the public can attend to satisfy the body’s quorum requirement. The bill would allow an advisory body to instead require only one quarter of its members, plus the presiding officer, to be physically present at the public location while the rest may participate remotely. The bill also adds a statutory definition of “advisory body” as an entity that serves only in an advisory capacity, including bodies involved in policy development, program planning, and program evaluation, whether or not they vote on final outcomes. The measure takes effect immediately and is tied to the existing videoconferencing provisions of section 103-a of the Public Officers Law.

Impact

The bill would modify New York’s Open Meetings/videoconferencing rules by lowering the physical attendance threshold for certain advisory bodies, most notably community boards in New York City, when they meet by videoconference. It would not broadly change quorum rules for all public bodies; rather, it creates a narrower exception for advisory entities and clarifies which bodies qualify. The practical effect would be to make it easier for these boards to hold meetings with remote participation while still requiring some in-person presence for public access and oversight.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears aimed at improving meeting flexibility for advisory boards rather than making a controversial policy change. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests the bill was introduced as a technical or administrative adjustment to videoconferencing procedures.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between convenience and public access: supporters would likely favor the reduced in-person quorum requirement as a way to help advisory boards meet more easily, while critics could argue that fewer members physically present may weaken transparency, deliberation, or community engagement. Another possible issue is the scope of the new definition of “advisory body,” especially whether it could be interpreted broadly enough to include bodies that influence policy but do not make final decisions. The bill specifically references community boards in cities of one million or more, which may also raise questions about whether the change should be limited to New York City or applied more generally.