Appellate Court Expands Rice Notice Requirements
February 13, 2017 | By: Jennifer Roselle, Esq.
Following the February 8, 2017 Appellate Division decision in Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morell, public bodies must review their processes for issuing Rice notices and making available meeting minutes to the public.
In its decision, the Appellate Division expanded the application of the Rice notice requirements to include all situations in which the public body intends to take action on an agenda item which will affect an employee’s “employment appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of the performance of, promotion or [discipline]” of its employees. This requirement attaches to all agenda items, regardless of whether the public body intends to hold a discussion about the matter. The Court reasoned that presenting a Rice notice for all employees on a particular agenda allows the public body to have “flexibility to discuss matters in executive session when necessary and affords the affected employees the opportunity” to request a public discussion.
In the same decision, the Court also evaluated the timeframe required for a public body to release its meeting minutes so that it meets the OMPA’s requirement of making them “promptly available”. At issue was a set of minutes from the September 15, 2014 meeting, which took 94 days to release. A second set, from the December 6, 2014 meeting took 58 days to release. Although the Court did not expressly define a timeline to comply with making minutes “promptly available,” it suggested that a reasonable timeframe for release is within 30-45 days. Even without a clear rule, the Court makes it clear that a 2 or 3 month delay is not justifiable, and mandates public bodies to “adopt a protocol that makes the availability of its meeting minutes a priority.”
The Court’s clear directive to the parties is applicable to all public bodies effective immediately. Public bodies should review their protocols to ensure that Rice notices be issued in advance of taking action on agenda items involving employment matters. Public bodies must also review its processes to ensure an efficient method of producing required meeting minutes (including those which are subject to redaction) relatively soon after receipt of a request.
For additional guidance regarding compliance with the Court’s mandate, please contact Jennifer Roselle at 973-646-3324 or firstname.lastname@example.org. Ms. Roselle is Counsel in the Firm’s Labor Law and Education Law Practice Groups.