Alaska

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of what constitutes "reasonable public notice" in Hickel v. Southeast Conference, and upheld superior court factual findings and legal conclusions that the Reapportionment Board had violated the OMA by providing inadequate notice for a number of its meetings. The superior court found that the Board violated its own guidelines as to reasonable notice.

The Public Records Act defines the term “public records” in part to mean “books, papers, files, accounts, writings, including drafts and memorializations of conversations, and other items, regardless of format or physical characteristics,” which clearly encompasses records in the form of e-mails. AS 40.25.220(3). While there may be issues about whether e-mails concern public or private matters, or are privileged, or about the logistics of producing them, there is no real question whether e-mails are public records.

Since the appellate courts have yet to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege, it is not meaningful to make generalizations about how "strong" or "weak" it is. On the one hand, it is not clearly established or accepted; on the other hand, nearly every trial court judge presented with the issue has recognized and applied the privilege, and reporters have not been compelled to testify or produce notes.

Fees may not be assessed as a condition of inspecting public records if the public agency receiving the request does not incur costs to search for the requested public record. 2 AAC 96.240(c). Presumably, the search costs referred to in this regulation that might possibly be used as a condition for inspection of public records could only include those personnel costs required to complete search and copying tasks to the extent that the production of records for that requester in a calendar month has exceeded five person hours. AS 40.25.110(c).

Overview

Alaska

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.

Overview

Alaska

While there is a presumption of openness, there can also be a challenge to that openness. “Despite the fundamental nature of the right to public trial and the vital function it still serves, it is well accepted that the right is not absolute . . . It may be limited by some other overriding interest.” Renkel v. State, 807 P.2d 1087, 1989 (Alaska App. 1991). (citing Globe Newspaper Co. 457 U.S. at 606, 102 S.Ct. at 2619 and Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 581 n. 18, 100 S.Ct. at 2830 n.

The Open Meetings Act does not contain any requirement for publication of an agenda or other subject matter notice of items to be discussed at meetings. For years, the wording of the OMA did not make clear whether it requires only notice of the time and place of a meeting, or whether in addition it requires specific notice of subjects to be discussed at meetings. The Supreme Court has been presented with the question once, but avoided answering it. Malone v. Meekins, 650 P.2d 351, 358-359 (Alaska 1982).

Fees that can be charged for access to public records, including records stored in electronic formats, and “electronic products and services” are governed primarily by AS 40.25.110(b)-(h) (public records) and AS 40.25.115(b) (electronic products and services), and discussed in detail in [Open Records] §I.D above. As a general rule, if you want a copy of a public record you can be required to pay for it.  Public agencies can reduce or waive a fee when the agencies determine that is in the public interest. AS 40.25.110(d).