Source: http://www.rcfp.org/category/open-government-guide-table-contents/m4/m4c/m4c10
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 15:14:24
Document Index: 107183727

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 23', '§ 42', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 30', '§ 13']

M4C10 | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
M4C10 10. Fines.
The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $100 for any member of a public body who willfully takes part in a closed meeting knowing that it is being held in violation of the Act. § 10-511. Maryland
Fines may be imposed by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. ORS 192.685(1). Oregon
There is no provision for fines for violation of the open meeting requirements of either of the Acts except those which may be imposed if a member is found to be guilty of a misdemeanor. See below. California
A 1993 amendment allows a Court to impose a civil fine "against the government body" of up to $1,000 "for each meeting held in violation of this section." G.L. c.39, § 23B. Acts 1993, c.455. This amendment applies only to the municipal section of the OML. It has rarely, if ever, been invoked. Massachusetts
The court may impose a civil fine not exceeding $5,000 against a public body or any of its members who have been found to have committed a willful violation of the OML, not to exceed $1,000 total fine for any meeting. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d). Rhode Island
Unlike the Open Records Act, the Open Meetings Law does not provide for fines or penalties for its violation. Colorado
Public officials who are found to have intentionally violated the OMA may be fined up to $1,000 under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.272(1). A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating the act for a second time within the same term may be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to one year, or both. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.272(2). This is a specific intent crime and the offender must have a subjective desire to violate OMA or knowledge that the offender is committing an act violative of OMA. People v Whitney, supra.
The act provides for criminal fines. There has been but one known prosecution under the act since it was first enacted in 1974, and that prosecution resulted in not guilty verdicts for the defendants. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-110. South Carolina
See Records Outline at V.D. Connecticut
A person who "intentionally" violates the Open Meeting Law is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $300 for a single occurrence, which cannot be paid by the public body. § 13D.06, subd. 1. Minnesota