Alaska

The Public Records Act provides no sanctions for noncompliance, but it does provide, in AS 40.25.125, for injunctive relief against anyone keeping you from getting public records:  “A person having custody or control of a public record who denies, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or a person not having custody or control who aids or abets another person in denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of a public record subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120 may be enjoined by the superior court from denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the in

Overview

Alaska

This is not addressed.

The Open Meetings Act does not address a right to comment. Rights afforded by local government bodies are governed by the rules of those bodies.

The Alaska Supreme Court has said that coverage of the Open Meetings Act extends to "every step of the deliberative and decision-making process when a governmental unit meets to transact public business." Brookwood Area Homeowners Ass'n, 702 P.2d at 1323. "Modern public meetings statutes reject the argument that only the moment of ultimate decision must be subject to public scrutiny, and require that preliminary deliberations be open as well." University of Alaska v. Geistauts, 666 P.2d at 428 n. 6.

In 1990, substantial revisions were made to the Public Records Act, primarily to deal with access to electronic services and products, to address issues concerning fees, and to establish oversight of state agencies with respect to public access to information by the Telecommunications Information Council. Among other things, the amendments to the law at that time required the Telecommunications Information Council to adopt regulations for the operation and implementation of the Public Records Act by public agencies in the executive branch (except the Alaska Railroad Corporation).

Alaska's appellate court rules establish procedures for expedited appeals, but set forth no special considerations that affect news media subpoenas. Alaska appellate courts have not had occasion to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege. Various trial courts have recognized and applied the qualified constitutional privilege in a number of cases, and in none of these has testimony or production of documents been compelled, so the issue of expedited review for the press has not arisen.

The public records law does not specifically identify or address "e-mail" as such, but there is no apparent argument that would exempt e-mail from disclosure under the public records law.

Overview

Alaska

This is not addressed.

Actual notice cures any defect in formal notice under the OMA. Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126, 135 (Alaska 1997). Action taken at or as the result of meetings held or conducted in violation of the OMA is voidable. AS 44.62.310(f). In 1994 amendments, the legislature codified and expanded upon judicial decisions discussing the circumstances that would lead to voiding of action taken as the result of OMA violations.