10. Fines

Remedies available under the Open Meetings Act include a civil penalty up to $1,000 or one half of the defendant’s monthly salary for the government body, whichever is less. Ala. Code § 36-25A-9 (f)–(g).

There are no fines specified in the public meetings laws for violations.

A civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars may be imposed against a person who violates or knowingly aids in the violation of the OML.  A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A).  Any penalty assessed shall be deposited in the public body’s general fund.  Id.

The FOIA contains no provisions for civil penalties or forfeitures. However, a person who negligently violates the FOIA is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and can be fined up to $500. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-104, 5-4-201, 5-4-401, 25-19-104.

There is no provision for fines for violation of the open meeting requirements of either of the Acts except those which may be imposed if a member is found to be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Unlike the Open Records Act, the Open Meetings Law does not provide for fines or penalties for its violation.

See Records Outline at V.D.

None.

If the court finds that a member of a public body engages in a pattern or practice of willfully participating in one or more closed meetings in violation of the Act's provisions, it may impose a civil fine of not more than $250 per violation.  D.C. Code Ann. § 2-579(e).   

A public officer subject to section 286.011 who violates a provision therein is guilty of a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a fine up to $500. Fla. Stat. § 286.011(3)(a) (2020).

The Act makes knowing and willful violation of its provisions a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00. Alternatively, a civil penalty may be imposed by the court in any civil action brought to enforce the Act against any person who negligently violates the Act’s terms, in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00 for the first violation. A civil penalty or criminal fine not to exceed $2,500.00 per violation may be imposed for each additional violation that the violator commits within a 12-month period from the date that the first penalty or fine was imposed. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-6.

Private persons may sue to enforce the Act’s civil penalty provision and to receive the civil penalty paid. Williams v. DeKalb Cty., 308 Ga. 265, 840 S.E.2d 423 (2020).

No express provision.

The Open Meeting Law provides for three levels of civil penalties. Idaho Code § 74-208(2) imposes a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for any member of the governing body who “conducts or participates in a meeting” which violates the Open Meeting Law. Idaho Code § 74-208(3) imposes a civil penalty not to exceed $1,500 upon any member of a governing body who “knowingly violates” the Open Meeting Act. And, Idaho Code § 74-208(4) provides that any member of a governing body who has violated the Open Meeting Act (knowingly or unintentionally) more than once in a twelve (12) month period shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500.
Idaho Code § 74-208(7) was added to encourage and allow governing bodies to “cure” any violations of the Open Meeting Law. Under section 74-208(7)(a), a violation of the law may be cured by a public agency upon: (a) the agency’s self-recognition of a violation; or (b) the service of a complaint alleging a violation of the Law. Once the agency is put on notice of such a violation, it has 14 days to respond by either acknowledging a violation and an intent to cure it or determining that no violation has occurred. Failure to respond shall be treated as a denial for purposes of proceeding with any enforcement action. I.C. § 74-208(7)(a)(i)-(ii). If the agency acknowledges a violation, it has 14 days to cure the violation “by declaring that all actions taken at or resulting from the meeting in violation of this act void.” Idaho Code § 74-208(7)(b). All enforcement actions are stayed during the “response and cure” periods but may recommence at the discretion of the complainant after the cure period has expired. I.C. § 74-208(7)(c). An agency’s cure of an alleged violation “shall act as a bar to the imposition of the civil penalties” provided in the law. I.C. § 74-208(7)(d).

The Illinois Open Meetings Act provides for civil remedies as well as criminal penalties for violations or impending violations of the Act.

If a complaint has been filed by the State’s Attorney, the court may impose penalties. Violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act is a Class C misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,500 or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. 5 ILCS 120/4; see 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-65, 5/5-9-1.

The Open Door Law authorizes penalties in certain circumstances. See Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-7.5. The Act also provides defenses to civil penalties. Id. § 5-14-1.5-7.5(d). Notably, individuals are personally liable under the Act, unless directed by a public agency officer. Id. § 5-14-1.5-7.5(h), (k).

Costs and reasonable attorney fees to one establishing violation paid by members assessed damages pursuant to § 21.6(3)(b), or if no such members exist, by the governing body.

Up to $500 per violation under K.S.A. 75-4320(a).

Upon a finding that the public agency willfully violated the Open Meetings Act, a Circuit Court, in its discretion, may award an amount not to exceed $100 to the complaining party for each instance in which the Court finds a violation. Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.848(6). Such award will be assessed against the agency responsible for the violation. Id.

Any member of a public body who "knowingly and willfully" participates in a meeting that violates the Open Meeting Law shall be personally liable for a civil penalty of up to $100 per violation. Suit must be instituted within sixty days of the violation. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42:13.

State government agencies and local government entities may be fined for willful FOAA violations committed by its officers or employees. 1 M.R.S.A. § 410(1). Fines are tiered for repeated violations within a 4-year period: $500 for a first violation, a fine up to $1000 for a second violation, and a fine up to $2,000 for each additional violation. 1 M.R.S.A. § 410(2). Fines may not be collected by private parties.  See Cook v. Lisbon School Cmte, 682 A.2d 672, 680 (Me. 1996) (“only the Attorney General or his representative may enforce the Freedom of Access Act by seeking imposition of a fine pursuant to section 410”).

The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $250 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation occurring within 3 years after the first violation for any public body that willfully convenes a closed meeting knowing that it is being held in violation of the Act. § 3-402.

The court may impose a fine of not more than $1,000 for each intentional violation, as set forth above. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(c), (f).

Public officials who are found to have intentionally violated the OMA may be fined up to $1,000 under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.272(1). A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating the act for a second time within the same term may be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to one year, or both. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.272(2). This is a specific intent crime and the offender must have a subjective desire to violate OMA or knowledge that the offender is committing an act violative of OMA. People v. Whitney, 578 N.W.2d 329 (1998). The phrase "official" used in this section and in Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.273 is limited to the definition contained in People v. Freedland, 308 Mich. 449, 14 N.W.2d 62 (1944), and may not be expanded to public employees. 1977-78 Op. Att'y Gen. 21, 42 (1977). Five elements are indispensable in any position of public employment, in order to make it a public office of a civil nature:

a. It must be created by the Constitution or by the legislature or created by a municipality or other body through authority conferred by the legislature;

b. It must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power of government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public;

c. The powers conferred, and the duties to be discharged, must be defined, directly or impliedly, by the legislature or through legislative authority;

d. The duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law, unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office, created or authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior officer or body; and

e. It must have some permanency and continuity, and not be only temporary or occasional.

See Mich. Cont. art. 11, § 1.

A person who "intentionally" violates the Open Meeting Law is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $300 for a single occurrence, which cannot be paid by the public body. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 1.

Yes. As discussed above, individual members found to have willfully or knowingly violated the Act may be fined $500 for a first offense, and $1,000 for subsequent offenses.

Where the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body purposefully violated the Sunshine Law, it may order that body or that member to pay a civil fine in an amount not more than $5,000. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.5. Where the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a public governmental body or a member of a public governmental body knowingly violated the Sunshine Law, it may order that body or that member to pay a civil fine in an amount not more than $1,000. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.3. See The Kansas City Star v. Shields, 771 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989) (affirmed a fine imposed on a member of city council who failed to leave a meeting of the council’s finance committee that violated the Sunshine Law). The amount of the penalty shall be determined based on the size of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and previous Sunshine Law violations by that member or body. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.3.  The court “shall void any action taken in violation of [the law] if the court finds under the facts of the particular case that the public interest in enforcement of the policy of [the law] outweighs the public interest in sustaining the validity of the of the action taken at the closed meeting.” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.5.

Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees only.

Knowing violation of Open Meetings Act is Class IV misdemeanor for first violation and Class III misdemeanor for second and subsequent violations. Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-1414(4). Maximum penalty for Class IV misdemeanor is $500 fine; no imprisonment available. Neb. Rev. Stat. §28-106(1). Maximum penalty for Class III misdemeanor is three months imprisonment, $500 fine, or both. Id.

A maximum of a $500 civil penalty.

On complaint of the Attorney General or the County Prosecutor, any person who knowingly violates any provision of OPMA shall be fined $100 for the first offense and no less than $100 nor more than $500 for any subsequent offense. N.J.S.A. 10:4-17.

Theoretically, the statute provides for fines of not more than $500, but fines are rarely pursued.  Two successful prosecutions have been reported from 1976 and 2002.  See NMSA 1978 § 10-15-4.

There are no statutory provisions for fines in the OML, but the court has the power to fine a party for contempt. Orange Cty. Publications v. Cty. of Orange, 120 A.D.2d 596, 502 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2d Dep’t 1986), appeal dismissed, 68 N.Y.2d 807, 498 N.E.2d 437, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1037 (1986) (county legislature’s persistent dereliction of the mandates of the OML, contrary to previous court orders to comply, permit a fine for contempt of court and an award of attorneys’ fees); Prisco v. Cmty. Sch. Bd. 31, No. 082767/94 (Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty., Feb. 24, 1995) (school board in contempt of court for violating OML by-laws and prior court order).

The North Carolina Open Meetings Law makes no provision for the imposition of fines or other penalties against public bodies or individual members of public bodies. However, the court may order that any or all of an attorney fees assessment be paid personally “by any individual member or members of the public body found by the court to have knowingly or intentionally committed the violation,” unless that individual sought and followed the advice of legal counsel.

For an intentional or knowing violation, the court may award damages in an amount equal to one thousand dollars or actual damages caused by the violation, whichever is greater. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1).

Where the court issues an injunction under the statute, the court "shall" order the enjoined public body to pay $500 to the person who successfully sought the injunction. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(I)(2); Specht v. Finnegan, 149 Ohio App. 3d 201, 776 N.E.2d 564, 2002-Ohio-4660 (Ohio App. 6th Dist.) (assessing a $500 fee for each unlawful meeting).

Upon conviction in a misdemeanor action, a public official may be fined up to $500. See Hillary, supra.

Fines may be imposed by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. ORS 192.685(1).

65 Pa. C.S.A. § 714 provides that any “member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose by that member of violating this act commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay:

(1) For a first offense, the costs of prosecution plus a fine of at least $100 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $1,000.

(2) For a second or subsequent offense, the costs of prosecution plus a fine of at least $500 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $2,000.

The court may impose a civil fine not exceeding $5,000 against a public body or any of its members who have been found to have committed a willful violation of the OML, not to exceed $1,000 total fine for any meeting.  R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d).

The act provides for civil fines of five hundred dollars where the public body acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violating the act. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-110(F).

No civil fine, but possible criminal fine of up to $200. SDCL §22-6-2.

Arguably, fines are available under a liberal reading of T.C.A. § 8-44-106(a), however, there is no reported case indicating that this has been done.  Based upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fannon as it relates to attorney’s fees, fines would be unlikely.

Pursuant to Section 551.144, a member of a governmental body who knowingly calls or aids in calling or organizing a special or called closed meeting, or who knowingly closes or aids in closing a regular meeting to the public, or who knowingly participates in a regular, special, or called meeting that is closed to the public, commits a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six months, or both. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the member of the governmental body acted in reasonable reliance on a court order or a written interpretation of this Act contained in an opinion of a court of record, the attorney general, or the attorney for the governmental body.
Section 551.143 provides that a member of a governmental body who knowingly engages in at least one among a series of communications that concern an issue within the body’s jurisdiction among a quorum of members, has committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six months, or both.
Section 551.145 provides that a "member of a governmental body commits an offense if the member participates in a closed meeting of the governmental body knowing that a certified agenda of the closed meeting is not being kept or that a tape recording of the closed meeting is not being made." A violation of this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor.
Under Section 551.146, an individual, corporation, or partnership commits an offense if, without lawful authority, he, she or it "knowingly discloses to a member of the public the certified agenda or tape recording of a meeting that was lawfully closed to the public" under the Act. An offense under Section 551.146 is a Class B misdemeanor and there is a provision for a civil remedy including actual damages (including damages for personal injury or damage), lost wages, defamation, or mental or other emotional distress as well as reasonable attorney fees and court costs and exemplary damages. It is a defense to prosecution and an affirmative defense that the defendant had good reason to believe the disclosure was lawful or the disclosure was the result of a mistake of fact concerning the nature or content of the certified agenda or tape recording.

 

The Open Meetings Act does not establish any fines or penalties for violating the chapter.

A person who is a member of a public body who knowingly and intentionally violates the open meeting law may be fined up to $500. 1 V.S.A. § 314(a).

 

The Act does not provide for criminal fines.

The court may assess a civil penalty of $500 against each member of the governing body of the agency who attended the meeting knowing it was in violation of the OPMA, or $1,000 for subsequent violations. RCW 42.30.120(1)(2).

Section 7 of the Open Meetings Act provides that a knowing and willful violation of the Open Meetings Act by a member of a public or governmental body constitutes a misdemeanor. The Act provides for a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. For second and subsequent offenses a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 may be levied. W. Va. Code § 6-9A-7.

The civil forfeiture is not less than $25 nor more than $300 per violation. Wis. Stat. § 19.96. These must be paid by the offending public officials who may not be reimbursed. Crawford v. City of Ashland, 134 Wis. 2d 369, 396 N.W.2d 781 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).

A willful and knowing violation of the Act is punishable by a civil penalty of not more than $750.