Recent Court Decisions

A public body’s special meeting 26 miles from its regular meeting location was found to violate the OMA requirement that such meetings must be convenient and open to the public. A meeting can be open to the public but still inconvenient if “the public, as a practical matter, would be deterred from attending it.” Here, the meeting was held outside of the district, 26 miles from its regular location, and at 9:00AM on a weekday as opposed to the usual 7:00PM. In addition, the public body did not claim that the meeting could not have been held at a suitable facility in the district. While the public body met other procedural OMA requirements and no action was taken at the meeting, the meeting was still found to violate OMA.

Brennan McLoughlin, IASB Law Clerk

A public body’s motion “to approve the recommendation for dismissal of Employee A due to performance concerns” was insufficient to inform the public of the nature of the business under consideration prior to taking final action. The Public Access Counselor found that failing to identify the employee by name in the motion violated OMA. School boards should consult their attorneys for guidance about how to manage compliance with OMA while balancing an employee’s privacy interests.

The availability of records through discovery (during the litigation process) does not affect a person’s right to access records under FOIA.

Records that are in the possession of a contractor that is performing a governmental function for a public body are public records of the public body. The public body may not charge a requester any fees for the contractor to locate and retrieve such public records when the request is a non-commercial request.