Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/i-statute-basic-application/
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 22:35:19
Document Index: 625862741

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 24', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 3', '§ 92', '§ 92', '§ 74', '§ 74', '§ 610', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44']

I. Statute – basic application – The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Alaska's Open Meetings Act (OMA) was enacted in 1959 as part of the Administrative Procedures Act adopted by the first legislature after statehood. A.S. 44.62.310. Its broad language was a comprehensive mandate that meetings of public agencies be open to the public. In 1972, the legislature bolstered the OMA by adding to it a strong statement of purpose, AS 44.62.312, as follows:
AS 44.62.312. State policy regarding meetings.
The Alaska Supreme Court has liberally construed the OMA, in order to give full effect to the letter and spirit of the law. The legislature amended the OMA in 1994 in several significant respects. Chief among these were a definition of the previously undefined term "meeting." A few of the amendments weakened the force of the Act, e.g., by making it less likely that violations will be remedied, or reducing the law's application to advisory groups. Most clarified or codified existing interpretations of the OMA. The legislature also generally reaffirmed the commitment to a strong right of public access to the affairs of government by revising and strengthening the final subsection of the statute to read: "AS 44.62.310(c) [the provision governing executive sessions] and (d) [the subsection defining what gatherings are exempt from coverage of the OMA altogether] shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy [statement of the Open Meetings Act] and to avoid exemptions from open meetings requirements and unnecessary executive sessions."
The declared policy behind the Sunshine Law is that "the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-401. The Colorado Act was modeled after the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law. The same policy has been held to underlie the local agency open meetings law. Bagby v. School District No. 1, 106 Colo. 428, 528 P.2d 1299 (1974).
The Hawaii Sunshine Law intends "to protect the people's right to know." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-1 (1996). It protects the public's right to know when government bodies meet, to be informed in advance of what business they intend to conduct, to attend these meetings, and to obtain their minutes within a reasonable period. Like the UIPA with its presumption of public access to government records, id. § 92F-11(a) (1996), the Sunshine Law presumes that the public may attend and participate in any meeting of government. Id. § 92-3 (1996).
Like the more recently adopted UIPA, see id. § 92F-1 (1996), the Sunshine Law recognizes that "[o]pening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest," id. § 92-1. The Sunshine Law's declaration of policy and intent adds, "[I]t is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy — the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies — shall be conducted as openly as possible." Id. § 92-1.
While the Sunshine Law previously contained statutory provisions affording public access to government records, id. §§ 92-50 to 92-52 (repealed), the UIPA repealed and replaced these sections, Act 262, § 3, 14th Leg., Reg. Sess. (1988), reprinted in 1988 Haw. Sess. Laws 473, 482. Significant areas of overlap remain, however, between the Sunshine Law and the UIPA as well as some areas where the uncertain interaction of the UIPA and Sunshine Law tends to leave the law less than clearly defined. For example, the Sunshine Law more narrowly defines the entities to which its provisions apply than does the UIPA; under the Sunshine Law's definition of "board," it is possible to have an entity whose meetings need not be open to the public, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-9 (1996), but whose records, under the UIPA's broader definition of "agency," must be made available to the public. Id. § 92F-11.
Just as the UIPA defines certain circumstances that may exempt an entity from complying with the UIPA's overriding presumption of public access to records, the Sunshine Law allows government bodies to hold executive sessions and emergency meetings that may be closed to the public.
Idaho’s Open Meeting Law is set forth in Idaho Code §§ 74-201 through 74-208. The Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in 1974 and has been amended on several occasions since that time. The legislature’s statement of purpose included with the 1974 enactment of the Law contains broad language saying that it is the “policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.” Idaho Code § 74-201.
Missouri law on open meetings is governed by the Open Meetings Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.010-.030 (“Sunshine Law”), the same statute governing access to public records.
North Dakota law provides that all public meetings are open meetings unless there is a specific statutory exemption of a particular type of meeting. The North Dakota Constitution provides:
North Dakota Constitution, Article XI, Section 5.
The North Dakota open meetings law provides, “Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings of a public entity must be open to the public.” N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19. Additionally, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, all votes of whatever kind taken at any public meeting must be open, public votes, and all nonprocedural votes must be recorded roll call votes, with the votes of each member being made public at the open meeting. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21. Minutes must be kept of all open meetings and are open records. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.
The law is simple: Unless there is a specific exemption, meetings are open to the public.
Generally speaking, the coverage provisions of the Act are written in broad terms consistent with the Legislature's intent to give all members of the public as much access as possible to meetings held by their governmental representatives. To provide this expansive coverage, the Legislature has chosen general language as opposed to specific language naming each public agency subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act.
The general term "public agency," for example, is used to cover practically any governmental agency or council. Therefore, in the following discussion concerning the Act's application, the conclusions reached usually are based upon the fact the particular agency, person, or level of government falls within the broad language of the statute. Where a specific provision in the Open Meetings Act addresses a particular situation, it will be noted.