The November 3, 2026 election brought new leadership to the Town of Hamden, Delaware County, New York.
The candidate who promised to introduce virtual access to Town Board meetings lost.
But the question of virtual access is no longer merely a matter of campaign promises, political preferences, or technological convenience.
And that, to me, concerns not only public meetings in the Town of Hamden, NY, but also public meetings in other towns within Delaware County and State of New York where owners request virtual public hearings while being either disabled or located too far away to attend or both.
Here is my today's email letter to the clerks of three towns within Delaware County, New York - Delhi, Hamden, Meredith - where my disabled husband and I, also a disabled individual, own properties and pay taxes, while residing in South Carolina, a 1,700 mile roundtrip from Delaware County.
When residents with disabilities who cannot leave their homes request virtual access to municipal meetings, the Town must confront its obligations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution.
The central question facing Hamden's incoming leadership is whether it will comply with those obligations or refuse requested accommodations and expose the Town to claims of federal statutory and state constitutional violations.
A Public Request for Virtual Access
On November 3, a resident responding to an announcement of the November 4 Town Board meeting asked whether homebound people could attend virtually.
The answer was that Hamden - and Delhi, and Meredith - had never provided that option.
The response reveals an existing gap in access to municipal government.
Residents capable of traveling to Town Hall may attend meetings, observe their elected officials, and participate in public-comment procedures.
Residents whose disabilities prevent them from leaving home may be unable to do any of those things.
The Town's historical failure to provide virtual access does not excuse it from considering a disability accommodation request.
The question is whether Hamden, Delhi and Meredith will continue their existing practices even when residents with disabilities specifically request an accessible alternative.
New York's Constitution Expressly Prohibits Disability Discrimination
Effective January 1, 2025, Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution expressly prohibits discrimination in civil rights on the basis of disability.
The prohibition applies to the State and its political subdivisions, including municipalities.
This constitutional protection operates alongside Article I, § 8, protecting freedom of speech, and Article I, § 9, protecting peaceful assembly and petitioning the government.
Public meetings provide an important forum for observing government, obtaining information about proposed decisions, and exercising available opportunities to address elected officials.
When physical attendance is impossible because of disability, an exclusively in-person meeting policy may prevent residents from exercising those rights on equal terms.
A municipality cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny merely by applying the same physical-attendance requirement to everyone, regardless of disability.
Whether a particular refusal violates Article I, § 11 requires examination of the circumstances and applicable constitutional standards. But the express constitutional protection against disability discrimination makes the issue one that Hamden's new leadership cannot simply disregard.
Title II of the ADA Requires Reasonable Modifications
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits disability-based exclusion from the services, programs, and activities of public entities.
Municipal Town Board meetings are activities of a public entity.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7), public entities must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
Federal law also requires effective communication with individuals with disabilities under 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
A request by a homebound resident to attend a municipal meeting remotely therefore calls for an individualized assessment of the accommodation sought.
A categorical refusal based solely on the Town's longstanding practice of holding exclusively in-person meetings would raise a substantial Title II ADA issue.
New York's Open Meetings Law does not require every municipality to provide interactive virtual access to every meeting. That general rule does not eliminate independent obligations under federal disability law.
The Election Did Not Repeal the Constitution
The losing candidate recognized the need for greater access and promised to propose recording or livestreaming Town meetings.
The voters elected someone else.
That electoral result does not determine the Town's obligations toward residents with disabilities.
The new leadership inherits the responsibility to ensure that municipal programs and activities comply with federal and state law.
Constitutional rights and federal civil rights protections are not contingent upon which candidate wins an election.
Nor can the Town treat disability access as an optional campaign initiative that disappears when its proponent loses.
Why This Matters in Hamden, Delhi and Meredith
The November 4 Town Board agenda for the Town of Hamden, for example, includes matters concerning municipal finances, sewer charges, fire protection, and the proposed highly controversial Fraser Battery Energy Storage System, the object of a lawsuit filed by me in federal court on November 2, 2026.
These issues directly affect residents' property, safety, taxes, and environment.
Homebound residents have the same interest in these governmental decisions as residents who can physically attend Town Hall.
Indeed, individuals with mobility limitations may have particularly significant concerns about emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures in connection with proposed industrial development.
Excluding them from meaningful access to municipal deliberations because of their disabilities raises questions extending beyond administrative convenience.
It implicates their ability to monitor governmental action and exercise their civil rights.
The Question for Hamden's, Delhi's and Meredith's Leadership
The old and new Town Supervisors and Town Boards should be prepared to answer a straightforward question:
When a resident whose disability prevents physical attendance requests virtual access to a public meeting - by email sent to the Town Clerk let's say - will Hamden, Delhi and Meredith provide a reasonable accommodation by live-streaming the meeting, which can be easily done from any smartphone, or will it refuse and risk violating Title II of the ADA and Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution?
The Town must evaluate such requests under applicable disability law. The precise accommodation required will depend on the circumstances, but the obligation to address disability-related barriers cannot be defeated simply by pointing to past municipal practice.
The losing candidate's promise to improve access was a political proposal.
The duty to comply with federal statutory law and the New York State Constitution is a legal obligation.
Hamden, Delhi and Meredith's leadership must govern accordingly.
Legal Authorities
New York State Constitution, Article I, §§ 8, 9, 11
42 U.S.C. § 12132 — Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II
28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) — Reasonable Modifications
28 C.F.R. § 35.160 — Effective Communication
New York Public Officers Law, Article 7 — Open Meetings Law
#HamdenNY #DelhiNY #MeredithNY #DelawareCountyNY #DisabilityRights #ADA #EqualRightsAmendment #NewYorkConstitution #OpenMeetingsLaw #CivilRights #GovernmentTransparency
No comments:
Post a Comment