Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney urges Marlborough to preserve routine inspection rights; cites Department of State guidance and Konigsberg case
Summary
Attorney Adam H.J. Broza submitted a written comment saying the draft local law would shift routine inspection to a written‑request model, delete explicit no‑fee inspection/search protections, and risk legal challenge unless the Board makes express findings or narrows the draft.
Adam H.J. Broza, who identified himself in the hearing record as an attorney, told the Board the draft should not be treated as a minor rewrite. He said the proposal "does not merely restate state law or make minor housekeeping changes" and that, as written, it would replace the town’s current practice of on‑site inspection with a written-request-and-search model that could impose fees and delays.
Broza cited the Department of State’s model local law and 19 NYCRR Part 1203, arguing Marlborough is not "aligning itself" with a statewide norm but instead departing from an approach used by other municipalities. He also cited Konigsberg v. Coughlin to underline that whether a request reasonably describes records depends on how the town maintains its filing system. Broza urged the board to make explicit findings about the problem the draft seeks to solve or to table the measure and return with a narrower proposal that preserves prompt inspection and no‑fee search.
