The Chautauqua County Board of Elections failed to respond for requests of meeting minutes, according to a study by an open government watchdog.

The New York Coalition for Open Government asked 19 boards of elections around the state whether their election commissioners held public meetings, posted agendas and other documents online, or kept minutes. Although the group first made informal phone and email inquiries to 17 of the counties, it posed its initial questions to Chautauqua and Duchess counties through formal Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests.

According to the study, the Chautauqua County board did not respond to two FOILs. One was sent July 14, the other Aug. 18.

Out of the 17 election boards contacted before FOILs, 11 did not respond back. All 19 boards were then FOILed for meeting minutes from 2018 to 2021. Of the 19 boards, only five responded to the FOIL requests within five business days, as required by law. Four responded late and 10, including Chautauqua County’s board, never did.

“We got a pretty poor response,” said Paul Wolf, the coalition’s president, in a Tuesday press conference.

He said the group wound up receiving minutes from 10 of 19 boards — though Monroe County’s just came in Friday, months after the FOIL requests.

“We focused on the larger counties population-wise,” he said. “We didn’t just do the top 19, we made a few adjustments to make sure every region was covered.”

The coalition made a few recommendations in its study. Topping the list: Create an entity that can punish Freedom of Information Law and Open Meetings law violations. There is no such entity in New York now — the only legal recourse is to file a lawsuit.

Wolf said of his group’s report, “There will be no consequences, there will be no penalty, there will be no punishment. All we can do is embarrass people into complying with the law.”

The coalition also recommends:

¯ More extensive training for Board of Elections employees.

¯ Amending the law to make clear that election commissioners must conduct business in public. “Instead of meeting, they will typically sign off (on business) in writing … That needs to change,” Wolf said.

¯ Another law alteration requiring election commissioners to deliberate in public when deciding on election matters.

¯ Letting the public comment at all election board meetings. “Election administration is obviously important … and there should be an opportunity for the public to speak,” Wolf said.

¯ Live-streaming election board meetings and posting the recordings online afterwards.

Until these changes are made, Wolf said, “We’re going to have to start filing more lawsuits to force people to comply with the law.”