Public access laws in your state

Here's what state public records and open meetings laws say about access to nongovernmental bodies. These short descriptions are taken from the 2006 edition of the Open Goverment Guide, the Reporters Committee's guide to navigating public access laws. Each entry is prepared by open government experts in that state; to see their names, click the "See full OGG entry" link at the end of each state's entry.

Alabama
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The Public Records Law is silent on this point, and we know of no decisions addressing the question.

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: The Public Records Law is silent on this point, and we know of no decisions addressing the question. See full OGG entry for Alabama

Alaska
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: Records that are "developed or received . . . by a public contractor for a public agency" are "public records" available for inspection and copying. AS 40.25.220(6). Even before 1990 amendments to the public records act, some local governments had specifically provided for access by ordinance to records of private parties dealing with public business. See, e.g., Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 3.90.020 (right of access extends to public records defined to include "any document, whether in draft or final form, containing information relating to the conduct of the people's business which is prepared, owned, used or retained by a municipal agency or an agency under contract with the municipality, regardless of the physical form or characteristic of the document." AMC 3.90.020(C). "Municipal agency" is defined to include any private contractor that has custody of public records. AMC 3.90.020(B)). Now, all local governments and their contractors are subject to the same requirements, since the public records law applies to local as well as state government. The public records act does not address whether records of nongovernmental bodies that are not public contractors, but that receive public funds or benefits, are subject to the act. Most likely they are not, as a general rule, and certainly not with respect to matters not involving use of public funds.

Bodies whose members include governmental officials:The records in the possession or control of the government members of the groups, participating as such, should be subject to the Act. The Alaska courts have not decided the question. However, the court has pointed out that the legislature chose to cover "every public writing or record in the state" instead of covering only records "of the state." See City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, 642 P.2d at 1322. See full OGG entry for Alaska

Arizona
Whose records are and are not subject to the act? The Arizona Public Records Law contains two operative definitions -- "officer" and "public body" -- for the purpose of subjecting certain documents to disclosure under the law.

"Officer" is defined as "any person elected or appointed to hold any elective or appointive office of any public body and any chief administrative officer, head, director, superintendent or chairman of any public body" and is obliged to preserve, maintain, care for and disclose public records pursuant to Arizona law. A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1).

"Public bodies" are defined by statute as "the state, any county, city, town, school district, political subdivision or tax-supported district in the state, any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council or committee of the foregoing, and any public organization or agency, supported in whole or in part by monies from the state or any political subdivision of the state or expending monies provided by the state or any political subdivision of the state." A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(2).

The operative definition of a "public body" in Arizona is very broad. Indeed, any "public organization or agency" supported by or expending public funds falls within the ambit of the Act. See full OGG entry for Arizona

Arkansas
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: Records of "any . . . agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds" are subject to the FOIA. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(5)(A). Thus, the act applies to nongovernmental entities that receive public funds. E.g., Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981), app. dism'd, 455 U.S. 931 (1982) (athletic conference); Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta-Hills Health Sys. Agency Inc., 285 Ark. 397, 687 S.W.2d 840 (1985) (nonprofit corporation that received federal funds); City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990) (law firms hired by city); Kristen Investment Properties v. Faulkner County Waterworks & Sewer Public Facilities Board, 72 Ark. App. 37, 32 S.W.3d 60 (2000) (volunteer fire department); Ark. Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2000-260 (county economic development corporation), 95-273 (area agency on aging, a nonprofit corporation funded by the state and the federal government), 94-001 (nonprofit rural water association that had received government grant), 92-205 (same), 87-448 (industrial development corporation funded by local governments).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: Shortly after the FOIA's passage, the Attorney General suggested that the act applies to a private entity whose board of directors includes government officials. Ark. Op. Att'y Gen. (April 16, 1971). That position is no longer tenable in light of the Supreme Court's holding that only the direct receipt of public funds by a private organization triggers the act. Sebastian County Chapter of American Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656, 846 S.W.2d 641 (1993). See full OGG entry for Arkansas

California
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The fact that an entity receives public funds does not itself subject it to the provisions of the CPRA. Rather, the CPRA applies to the local and state agencies listed in Sections 6252(a) and (f) of the Government Code and to private corporations and entities and lessees of any hospital pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d), respectively, of Section 54952 of the Government Code (known as the Ralph M. Brown Act). Cal. Gov't Code § 6252(a). Specifically, private corporations or entities are subject to the CPRA if they are either created by an elected legislative body to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body or receive funds from a local agency and have as a board member at least one member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to the governing body of the private entity, by the legislative body of the local agency, as a full voting member. Cal. Gov't Code § 54952(c)(1). See Cal. State Univ. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810, 826-30,108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870 (2001)(nonprofit auxiliary corporation affiliated with state university, and which operated multi-purpose arena being built on university campus, was not a state agency under CPRA); 85 Ops. Cal. Att'y. Gen. 55 (2002)(private, nonprofit corporation that received funds from school district and had on its corporate board one of district's trustees with full voting rights, and was created by the City, which lawfully delegated authority to it to operate an educational access channel, was subject to CPRA and opening meetings laws); see also Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862, 869-73, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 857 (2001).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials:The fact that a group's membership includes governmental officials does not itself subject the group to the provisions of the CPRA. Rather the CPRA applies to the local and state agencies listed in Sections 6252(a) and (f) of the Government Code and to private corporations or entities and licensees of any hospital pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952 of the Government Code (the Ralph M. Brown Act). Cal. Gov't Code § 6252(a). Specifically, private corporations or entities are subject to the CPRA if they are either created by an elected legislative body to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body or receive funds from a local agency and have as a board member at least one member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to the governing body of the private entity, by the legislative body of the local agency, as a full voting member. Cal. Gov't Code § 54952(c)(1). See Cal. State Univ. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810, 826-30, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870 (2001)(nonprofit auxiliary corporation affiliated with state university, and which operated multi-purpose arena being built on university campus, was not a state agency under CPRA); 85 Ops. Cal. Att'y. Gen. 55 (2002)(private, nonprofit corporation that received funds from school district and had on its corporate board one of district's trustees with full voting rights, and was created by the City, which lawfully delegated authority to it to operate an educational access channel, was subject to CPRA and opening meetings laws); see also Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862, 869-73, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 857 (2001). See full OGG entry for California

Colorado
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: See Denver Post v. Stapleton Dev. Corp., 19 P.3d 36 (Colo. App. 2000).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: See Gillies v. Schmidt, 38 Colo. App. 233, 556 P.2d 82 (1976). See full OGG entry for Colorado

Connecticut
Nongovernmental bodies: In Bd. of Trustees v. FOIC, 181 Conn. 544, 436 A.2d 266 (1980), the Supreme Court established the following four-part functional equivalent test to determine whether hybrid public/private entities are subject to FOIA: (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of governmental funding; (3) the extent of governmental involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by the government. The Supreme Court held in Bd. of Trustees that the plaintiff was a public agency since it met each part of this test.

See also Conn. Humane Soc'y v. FOIC, 218 Conn. 757, 591 A.2d 395 (1991) (plaintiff is not a public agency; case also held all four factors need not be present to constitute entity a "public agency," contrary to theory of Hallas); Domestic Violence Servs. v. FOIC, 47 Conn. App. 466, 704 A.2d 827 (1998) (plaintiff is not a public agency); Hallas v. FOIC, 18 Conn. App. 291, 557 A.2d 568 (1989) (private law firm acting as town's bond counsel is not a public agency); Londregan v. FOIC, Nos. 526105, 529345, 1994 WL 385951 (Conn. Super. July 13, 1994) (distinguishing Hallas and holding that plaintiff, who maintained a private law practice but also served as city's Director of Law, a position created under the city charter and designated as a department head, was a "public agency" and therefore court required to maintain all city files at the town clerk's office or some other public place rather than in his law firm); Baron v. FOIC, No. CV 97-0342975S, 1999 WL 1001119 (Conn. Super. Oct. 26, 1999) (Superior Court reversed the FOIC, holding that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(a) does not require the director of finance for the city of Bridgeport to keep and maintain records concerning law firm payments and payments for medical and legal services when these records are kept by a third-party private contractor); David v. FOIC, No. CV 97-0395384, 1998 WL 83685 (Conn. Super. Feb. 19, 1998) (New Haven Community Television Inc. is not a public agency); Marci v. New Haven Private Industry Council, Do. #FIC 84-183 (Mar. 13, 1985) (respondent is a public agency); Razzler v. Governor's Blue Ribbon Comm'n on Higher Educ., Do. #FIC 82-4 (July 7, 1983) (respondent is a public agency); Polman v. UConn School of Law, Do. #FIC 83-68 (Oct. 26, 1983) (respondent is a public agency); Yantic Volunteer Fire Dep't v. FOIC, 42 Conn. App. 519, 679 A.2d 989 (1996) (plaintiffs are the functional equivalent of a public agency); Meri Weather Inc. v. FOIC, No. CV 99-0494415S, 2000 WL 351351 (Conn. Super. Mar. 27, 2000) (plaintiff organization was virtually an alter ego of the Meriden community action agency, a public agency, and therefore was itself a public agency; key is "whether the government is really involved in the core of the program"); Fromer v. FOIC, 90 Conn. App. 101, 875 A.2d 590 (2005) (instructors at a public university are not public agencies because they have no power to govern, regulate, or make decisions affecting government; rather, they provide instruction per their contractual obligations). See full OGG entry for Connecticut

District of Columbia
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: There appears to be no case law or statutory provision directly addressing this issue; a court may examine whether the documents at issue are "controlled" by a governmental body, and whether the body could reasonably expect to come within the D.C. FOIA's ambit. See Belth v. Dep't of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 115 Daily Washington Legal Rptr. 2281 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1987).

Delaware
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The Act covers bodies "established . . . appointed . . . or otherwise empowered by any state governmental entity" which: (i) are supported in whole or in part by any public funds; (ii) expend or disburse any public funds, including grants, gifts or other similar disbursals and distributions; or (iii) are impliedly or specifically charged by any other public official, body or agency to advise or to make reports, investigations or recommendations. 29 Del. C. § 10002(c). The University of Delaware and Delaware State University are not included, except that their respective Boards of Trustees are considered to be "public bodies." 29 Del. C. § 10002(d). University documents relating to the expenditures of public funds are "public records," and each meeting of the full Board of Trustees of the University of Delaware and Delaware State University are a "meeting." Id.

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: Nongovernmental groups whose members include governmental officials are not covered by the Act simply because governmental officials are members. Nongovernmental groups may qualify if they fall within the definition of public body. See full OGG entry for Delaware

Florida
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The public records law may apply to nongovernmental bodies, such as charitable organizations or firms contracting with the government, which receive public funds or benefits. The relevant inquiry is whether such nongovernmental body is "acting on behalf of any public agency." Fla. Stat. sec. 119.011(2) (1995). However, application of Chapter 119 to agencies receiving public funds is limited and this factor alone is not dispositive. Sarasota Herald-Tribune Company v. Community Health Corporation, 582 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Courts look to the "totality of factors" which indicate a significant level of involvement by the public agency. For example, application to firms only partially funded by such funds may be limited to materials made or received by the private agency in the course of its contract with the agency. New York Times Company v. PHH Mental Health Services Inc., 616 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1993) (totality of factors analysis involves consideration of (1) Creation (did the public agency plan any part in the creation of the private entity; (2) Funding (has the public agency provided substantial funds, capital or credit to the private entity; (3) Regulation (does the public agency regulate or otherwise control the private entity's professional activity or judgment; (4) Decision-making Process (does the private entity play an integral part in the public agency's decision-making process; (5) Government Function (is the private entity exercising a governmental function, and (6) Goals (is the goal of the private entity to help the public agency and the citizens served by the agency)); Memorial Hospital-West Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 729 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1999), reh'g denied, (records of private organization operating public hospital under lease agreement with hospital taxing authority is subject to disclosure statutes); Wallace v. Guzman, 687 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (agency may not transfer records to attorney to avoid disclosure requirements); Putnam County Humane Society Inc. v. Woodward, 740 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (humane society is an agency of the state authorized under enabling statutes to conduct animal abuse investigations and is subject to public records laws); Stanfield v. Salvation Army, 740 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (records of private company made public when company provided services in place of county); Prison Health Services Inc. v. Lakeland Ledger Pub. Co., 718 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), reh'g denied, 727 So. 2d 912 (provider of prisoner health care under contract with county sheriff is required to comply with records request); Harold v. Orange County, 668 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(records of construction manager which it was "required to compile, maintain, and disclose to the County pursuant to its contract with the County" were public records); News and Sun Sentinel Company v. Schwab, et al., 596 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 1992) (architecture firm not acting on behalf of agency by merely providing professional services); Cape Coral Medical Center Inc. v. News-Press Publishing Co. Inc., 390 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (non-profit private lessee of governmental lessor is subject to Chapter 119); Fritz v. Norflor Construction Co., 386 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (an engineering corporation is an "agency" within the meaning of sec. 119.011, requiring the disclosure of public records, insofar as the corporation performs services for the city). Compare Parsons & Whittemore Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 429 So.2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (merely by acting as a "Turn Key" with a governmental agency a corporation does not act "on behalf of" the agency within the meaning of sec. 119 during construction of the facility); News-Press Publishing Co. Inc. v. Kaune, 511 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (physician performing physical examination under contract with fire department is not an "agency," and reports relating to department personnel are not subject to disclosure); Campus Communications Inc. v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics Inc., 512 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (teaching hospital not a public agency or authority). Application of the "totality of factors" tests, requires a review of the statutory authority under which the entity purports to act (i.e., what function is the entity performing).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: If public funds are expended by an agency in payment of dues or membership contributions to any person, corporation, foundation, trust, association, group or organization, then the records pertaining to such agency are subject to Section 119.07. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 74-35 (1974). Even where public funds are not spent on membership dues in non-governmental groups, if an official's membership in such group is "in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency," then the records of the group will be subject to inspection. Fla. Stat. sec. 119(1)(2) (1995). News and Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Modesitt, 466 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review denied, 476 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1985) (records relating to the use of funds of a group of private citizens in organizing and conducting foreign mission tours were not public records where the Commissioner of Agriculture merely acted as custodian of the funds and did not use the funds for any of the Commissioner's official, quasi-official, or political activities). See full OGG entry for Florida

Georgia
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: Any entity, business or organization that serves a public function, including any non-profit entity, is subject to the Act's requirements. See, e.g., Northwest Ga. Health Sys. v. Times-Journal, 218 Ga. App. 336, 340, 461 S.E.2d 297 (1995) (nonprofit entities operating "as vehicles for public agencies" are subject to the Act regardless of the amount of funding they receive from the public); see also Hackworth v. Board of Ed., 214 Ga. App. 17, 447 S.E.2d 78 (1994) (requiring private company that transported students under a contract with the city school system to reveal personnel records of school bus drivers); Red & Black Publishing Co. v. Board of Regents, 262 Ga. 848, 427 S.E.2d 257 (1993) (holding records of the University of Georgia Student Organization Court subject to the Act); Clayton County Hosp. Auth. v. Webb, 208 Ga. App. 91, 430 S.E.2d 89 (1993) (designating records of private corporations associated with hospital authority as public records); Cremins v. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 261 Ga. 496, 405 S.E.2d 675 (1991) (records reflecting the athletically related "outside" income of public university athletic coaches are public records even if the records are not on file with and have never been reviewed by university officials); Dooley v. Davidson, 260 Ga. 577, 397 S.E.2d 922 (1990) (same); Macon Tele. Publishing Co. v. Board of Regents, 256 Ga. 443 (1986) (records showing the assets, liabilities, income and expenses of the private University of Georgia Athletic Association are public records). But cf. Corp. of Mercer Univ. v. Barrett & Farahany, LLP, 271 Ga. App. 501, 610 S.E.2d 138 (2005), cert. denied 2005 LEXIS 392 (Ga. 2005) (documents received and maintained by campus police force of a private university not subject to the Act, despite the fact that the university's police powers were delegated by the General Assembly).

Moreover, the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1, specifies that nonprofit organizations receiving at least a third of their funds from tax revenues are automatically subject to the Act. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(a)(1)(E). In 1999, the Assembly also amended the Act to reach records received or maintained by a private entity "in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of" a government agency. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(a).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: Any entity, business or organization that serves a public function is subject to the Act's requirements. See e.g., Hackworth v. Board of Ed., 214 Ga. App. 17, 447 S.E.2d 78 (1994) (requiring private company that transported students under a contract with the city school system to reveal personnel records of school bus drivers); Red & Black Publishing Co. v. Board of Regents, 262 Ga. 848, 427 S.E.2d 257 (1993) (records of the University of Georgia Student Organization Court are subject to the Act); Clayton County Hosp. Auth. v. Webb, 208 Ga. App. 91, 430 S.E.2d 89 (1993) (designating records of private corporations associated with hospital authority as public records); Cremins v. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 261 Ga. 496, 405 S.E.2d 675 (1991) (records reflecting the athletically related "outside" income of public university athletic coaches are public records even if the records are not on file with and have never been reviewed by university officials); Dooley v. Davidson, 260 Ga. 577, 397 S.E.2d 922 (1990) (same); Macon Tele. Publishing Co. v. Board of Regents, 256 Ga. 443 (1986) (records showing the assets, liabilities, income and expenses of the private University of Georgia Athletic Association are public records). Nonprofit entities that operate "as vehicles for public agencies" are subject to the Act regardless of the amount of funding they receive from the public. Northwest Ga. Health Sys. v. Times-Journal, 218 Ga. App. 336, 340, 461 S.E.2d 297 (1995). In 1999, the Assembly also amended the Act to reach records received or maintained by a private entity "in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of" a government agency. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(a). A related statute, the Open Meetings Act, specifies that nonprofit organizations that receive at least a third of their funds from tax revenues are automatically subject to the Act. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(a)(1)(E). See full OGG entry for Georgia

Hawaii
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The UIPA defines "agency" to include any unit of government which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of the State or any county. This may conceivably include nongovernmental bodies receiving public funds or benefits, although a case-by-case examination is necessary to determine whether such an organization is, for purposes of the law, a government agency. See East-West Center, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 92-2 (Mar. 4, 1992) (discussing autonomy of East-West Center from University of Hawaii operations and federal funding as factors whose consideration in a determination of whether Center was a state agency was obviated by a statutory measure exempting the Center from classification as a state "agency"). A "totality of circumstances" test will include an examination of whether an entity performs a government function or enforces laws or government regulations. Public Access to Dog License Information Maintained by the Hawaiian Humane Soc'y Inc., OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-31 (Oct. 25, 1990) (holding also that UIPA definition of "agency" is broader than definition under federal FOIA case law); see also Application of the UIPA to the Villages of Kapolei Ass'n, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 94-5 (Apr. 26, 1994) (opining that the Villages of Kapolei Association, created by state government was not subject to UIPA because its members, not the government, control the business affairs of the association).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: The UIPA is unclear about the status of nongovernmental organizations whose members include governmental officials. Again, case-by-case examination of the circumstances may determine the extent of state control and/or the extent to which such organizations perform government functions, and, hence, whether such entities qualify as government agencies.See full OGG entry for Hawaii

Idaho
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: There have been no reported decisions on the applicability of the Idaho Public Records Act to such bodies. To the extent that such bodies meet the broad definition of either a "state agency" or "local agency," their records would be considered "public records" under the act.

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: There have been no reported decisions on the applicability of the Idaho Public Records Act to such bodies. To the extent that such bodies meet the broad definition of either a "state agency" or "local agency," their records would be considered "public records" under the act. See full OGG entry for Idaho

Illinois
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The Act does not specify any covered non-governmental bodies, although it does cover subsidiary bodies, which include committees and subcommittees that are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue. 5 ILCS 140/2(a). The reasoning in a case construing the Illinois Open Meetings Act definition of public bodies, which is almost identical to the definition contained in the Freedom of Information Act, will be employed by a court construing the FOIA provision. In that case, Rockford Newspapers Inc. v. Northern Illinois Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency, 64 Ill. App. 3d 94, 380 N.E.2d 1192, 21 Ill. Dec. 16 (2d Dist. 1978), the court found that a private, not-for-profit organization formed to administer drug and alcohol treatment programs was not subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, despite the fact that 90 percent of its funding came from governmental grants and contracts, and despite the fact that its programs were monitored and regulated by federal, state and local governments.

The court relied on its findings that the organization had a legal existence independent of the governmental bodies which regulated it, and declared that general supervision does not transform the supervised company into a subsidiary of the government. Rockford Newspapers, 64 Ill. App. 3d at 96-97, 380 N.E.2d at 1193-94, 21 Ill. Dec. at 17-18. This does not foreclose the issue, however, and disclosure of records may depend on the facts of the particular case.

Hopf v. Topcorp, 170 Ill. App. 3d 85, 527 N.E. 2d 1, 122 Ill. Dec. 629 (1st Dist. 1988), applied the Rockford Newspapers analysis to a FOIA claim. An economic development corporation, owned by a city and a private university, was found to not be a public body within the meaning of the Act.

It should be noted and emphasized that, in certain contexts, records relating to non-governmental entities may be available from the governmental entities that fund them. For example, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled that private landlords receiving federal funds for housing through a local housing authority have no protectable right of privacy that prevents disclosing a list of those landlords who receive such funds, the amount of payments received and the addresses of properties subsidized under the program. Mid-America Television Co. v. Peoria Hous. Auth., 93 Ill. App.3d 314, 417 N.E.2d 210, 48 Ill. Dec. 808 (3d Dist. 1981).

And in Family Life League v. Dep't of Public Aid, 112 Ill. 2d 449, 493 N.E.2d 1054, 98 Ill. Dec. 33 (1986), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois Department of Public Aid was required to disclose the names of doctors who provide abortion services, the number of abortions performed and the amounts paid for the services. In making its ruling, the court noted that receipt of state funds by physicians creates a public interest in the physicians' activities regarding the use of the funds that outweighs the physicians' limited privacy interest in the information. See Family Life League, 112 Ill. 2d at 457, 493 N.E.2d at 1058, 98 Ill. Dec. at 37. The same principles may be applicable in other factual situations.

Indiana
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: The definition of "public agency" includes any entity or office that is subject to budget review by the State Board of Tax Commissioners or the governing body of a county, city, town, township or school corporation, or subject to an audit by the State Board of Accounts. Under this definition, non-governmental bodies receiving public funds or benefits would be subject to the Act. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2.

The State Board of Accounts is empowered to "examine all accounts and all financial affairs of every public . . . entity." Ind. Code § 5-11-1-9. A "public entity" is defined as any provider of goods, services, or other benefits that is: (1) maintained in whole or in part at public expense; or (2) supported in whole or part by appropriations or public funds or by taxation. Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n Inc. v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 1991) (holding that ICVA is a public agency subject to Open Records Act).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: Unless the group exercises any part of the executive, administrative, judicial or legislative power of the state or its political subdivisions or is subject to budget review or governmental audit, it would not be subject to the Act. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2. See full OGG entry for Indiana

Iowa
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: Governmental bodies cannot prevent the examination or copying of public records by contracting with nongovernmental bodies to perform governmental duties or functions. Iowa Code § 22.2(2). "In other words, a governmental body may not delegate or 'contract away' its duties or functions in order to avoid disclosure of what would otherwise be a public record." KMEG Television Inc. v. Iowa State Board of Regents, 440 N.W.2d 382, 385 (Iowa 1989) (network bid proposals received by communications company pursuant to company's contract with state university for broadcast of sporting events are not public records because broadcasting sporting events is not a governmental function). But see, Gannon v. Board of Regents, 692 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 2005), overruling KMEG in part and holding that the Iowa State University Foundation "performs a government function by virtue of its contract with ISU. Therefore, its records are "public records" subject to examination." Id. at p. 44.

"The term 'governmental body' means this state, or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, tax supported district, nonprofit corporation whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D, or other entity of this state, or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, committee, official or officer of any of the foregoing or any employee delegated the responsibility for implementing the requirements of this chapter [chapter 22]."

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: The records of nongovernmental groups whose members include governmental officials are public if the records are held by governmental officials in their official capacity. Dubuque v. Dubuque Racing Ass'n, Ltd., 420 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Iowa 1988). See full OGG entry for Iowa

Kansas
Nongovernmental bodies: Includes any entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or part by public funds. K.S.A. 45-217(e)(1). Does not include entities receiving public funds in return for property, goods, or services. K.S.A. 45-217(e)(2)(a). See full OGG entry for Kansas

Kentucky
Bodies receiving public funds or benefits: A nongovernmental body that receives 25 percent of its institutional funding from Kentucky state or local authorities is a public agency and subject to the ORA. See KRS 61.870 (1)(h).

Entities which have been held to be public agencies include the Kentucky State University Foundation Inc., a fundraising organization, see Frankfort Publishing Co. v. Kentucky State Univ. Foundation Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681 (Ky.1992), the Governmental Services Corporation, see 94-ORD-13, and the Kentucky Employers Mutual Insurance Authority, see 97-ORD-66. Entities established and controlled by a public agency under ORA are also considered agencies. Univ. of Louisville Found. v. Cape Publications Inc., No. 01-CI-003349, 2004 WL 22748265, at *5(Ky. App. May 12, 2004); KRS 61.870(j).

Entities that are considered private agencies include doctors who receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, see 93-ORD-90, and a private hospital that leases its building from a public agency, see 92-66.

An agency that receives only a portion of its funding from state or local authority funds, pursuant to KRS 61.870(1)(h), will solely disclose records pertaining to the "functions, activities, programs or operations funded by state local authority." KRS 61.870(2).

Bodies whose members include governmental officials: Entities having a governing body a majority of which was appointed by a public agency as defined under 61.872 or by a member of a public are subject to the ORA, pursuant to 61.870(i).

An interagency body of two (2) or more public agencies where each public agency is defined as an agency under the ORA is collectively a public agency under this act. KRS 61.870(k).

The control of a private entity by a government official does not necessarily convert the entity's records into public records. See Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co. v. Park Broad. of Kentucky, Inc., 913 S.W.2d 330 (Ky. App. 1996) ("The company's records should not lose their private status simply because the public agency has used, possessed or has access to them.").

An agency "established, created and controlled by a public agency," including "every state or local government officer," is a public agency. KRS 61.870 (1). See full OGG entry for Kentucky

Alabama - Kentucky | Louisiana - Ohio | Oklahoma - Wyoming | next >