Recent Court Decisions

The plaintiff, Roxana school district (district) was concerned about its tax revenue decreasing based upon certain certifications that the Pollution Control Board (PCB) was granting to the co-defendant WRB. The district alleged that another public body like itself, the PCB, and the other co-defendants violated the OMA when granting these certifications. But instead of writing to the public access counselor, the school district requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction (a court order to stop the PCB from holding closed meetings) under the OMA.

The court issued a preliminary injunction against the PCB, ordering it to (1) stop violating the OMA and (2) hold its future meetings “with WRB” in public. WRB appealed the order with two arguments. First, it argued that the preliminary injunction should not apply because the court did not follow the general rule of law that applies when a court issues a preliminary injunction. Specifically, WRB wanted the chance to dispute the school district’s allegations before the court ordered the preliminary injunction. Second, WRB argued that the order was too narrow because it only applied to meetings “with WRB” and the PCB, not “all” entities that appear before the PCB.

The court held that the language in the OMA creates an exception to the general rule of preliminary injunctions. That means the court had full authority to issue the preliminary injunction under the OMA without allowing WRB to dispute the school district’s allegations as it could under the general rule. However, the court did modify the order specific to WRB to “more closely comport with the equity and the intent of the OMA” by applying it to “all” entities’ business before the PCB.

This decision is a reminder to school officials that courts have authority to order them to hold their meetings in public and always follow the intent of the OMA. Violating a court order can sometimes lead to various contempt of court allegations. It is also an example that public bodies can allege violations against each other. For questions about your district’s specific OMA practices contact the board attorney.

A public body referred a FOIA requester to a responsive document without making the requested copy, stating that the document was available for inspection and review. This was not a sufficient response to the FOIA request, which requested a copy. FOIA requires public bodies to provide a copy on request.

Names of State University students and graduation information were categorized by the University as “directory information.” Directory information is not exempt from disclosure under Sections 7(1)(a),7(1)(b), or 7(1)(c) of FOIA.

A public body may not meet in a private residence, even when it gives a proper notice and posting of the meeting to the public. Here, a public body called a special meeting due to impending statutory time constraints. The public body knew that its routine meeting location would be closed for a holiday on the special meeting’s date, so it chose a public official’s private residence as the meeting location. The meeting location was not “convenient and open to the public” because a private residence could “reasonably be expected to deter citizens from attending the gathering. Citizens may have felt uncomfortable going to a public official’s home to attend a meeting. In this sense, the private residence was ‘ill-suited’ for a public meeting.”

Rules that require advance notice to the public body before recording a meeting violate the OMA. Here, a public body prohibited a citizen from recording its meeting because the citizen failed to provide advance notice that he would record the meeting. The public body’s rules required advance notice of the recording. The public body’s reason for its rule was so the public body’s clerk could ensure a citizen could get his or her equipment through the security checkpoint and to notify the public body of the recording. A public body may limit the right of the public to record open meetings only pursuant to prescribed rules, and then only to the extent that those rules are designed to prevent disruptions or avoid safety hazards and do not unduly interfere with the right to record. This public body’s rule was not reasonable or necessary to prevent interference with public meetings or protect the safety of those in attendance.