11. Other penalties

There are no other penalties stated in the open meetings laws for violations. The law specifies that suits to enforce the OMA cannot be brought against members of a governmental body in their individual capacity. Although there are criminal penalties that might arguably apply for knowing and willful violations of the law, this is a very unlikely scenario.

However, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that an allegation of violation of the Open Meetings Act states adequate grounds for a recall, Meiners v. Bering Strait School District, 687 P.2d 287, 301 (Alaska 1984), and public officials have been recalled in a number of communities on this ground. State law requires that the grounds for recall be stated with particularity to give the office-holder a fair opportunity to defend his conduct in a rebuttal limited to 200 words. AS 29.26.260(a)(3). A court reviewing a challenge to a recall petition will not determine the truth or falsity of allegations in the recall petition, because that is the role of the voters, not the courts. Meiners, 687 P.2d at 300, n. 18; von Stauffenberg v. Committee for an Honest and Ethical Sch. Bd., 903 P.2d 1055, 1061 (Alaska 1995).

While a court cannot determine whether the facts alleged against an official who is the subject of a recall are true or not, the right to recall municipal officials in Alaska is limited to recall for cause, and a court is empowered to review the legal sufficiency of allegations in recall petitions. To do so, it assumes for the sake of the review that the allegations in the petition are true, and then determines whether, if so, the allegations state one of the specified grounds for recall listed in the statutes ("misconduct in office, incompetence, or failure to perform prescribed duties"). Noncompliance with the Open Meetings Act was found by the Supreme Court in Meiners to constitute a failure to perform prescribed duties. In Meiners, the Supreme Court stated that a petition that alleges violation of totally nonexistent laws is legally insufficient, while a petition, that merely characterizes the law in a way different than the targeted official would prefer, is legally sufficient. Meiners, 687 P.2d at 301. As to the latter case, the Supreme Court stated that the "rebuttal statement is the proper forum in which the official may defend against the charges." In von Stauffenberg, the Supreme Court assumed for purposes of review that School Board members had entered into a closed-door session for consideration of whether to retain a school principal, where that discussion was likely to address sensitive personal information, and limited its review to determining whether doing so was a violation of Alaska law. The court stated that "given the relevant exception to the Open Meetings Act (referring to AS 44.62.310(c)(2)), the grounds for recall allege a violation of a totally nonexistent law. That is, there is no law which precludes public officials from discussing sensitive personnel matters in closed-door executive sessions." 903 P.2d 1060, n.13.

While not subject to the OMA itself, regulated utility cooperatives are subject to statutory open meetings requirements pursuant to AS 10.25.175 and their own bylaws. Utility board members may be recalled for violations of open meetings requirements, much as public officials can be. Matanuska Electric Association v. Rewire the Board, 36 P.3d 685, 693 (Alaska 2001). Legally sufficient but unfounded charges must be defended against in the recall process, not dismissed, and where some alleged open meetings violations are legally sufficient and others are not, severance is the proper remedy, not throwing out the recall petition. Id.

The Court has discretion to remove a public officer from office if it “determines that a public officer with intent to deprive the public of information violated any provision of [the OML].”  A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A).

Negligent violation of the FOIA is a criminal offense, a Class C misdemeanor. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-104. Upon conviction, the defendant can be punished by a fine of no more than $500, a jail term of up to 30 days, or both. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-104, -201, -401. Criminal prosecutions for FOIA violations are relatively infrequent but do occur. For example, the mayor of Hartford was convicted in Greenwood Municipal Court for participating in discussions about matters other than personnel issues during an executive session of the city council. The municipal court ordered the mayor to read the FOIA and to attend a seminar on the act. See Amy Sherrill, Judge rules mayor ran afoul of FOI, Southwest Times Record, July 20, 2000. The FOIA formerly expressly allowed sentences of “appropriate public service or education, or both,” alternatively to fine or jail term, but that language was deleted with implementation of a legislative overhaul of criminal code provisions in 2005.

Both Acts provide that it is a misdemeanor for a member of a state or legislative body to attend a meeting in violation of any provision of the Act, where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11130.7 (Bagley-Keene Act), 54959 (Brown Act).

Any actions in violation of the statute are declared invalid. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(8). In all such actions, the prevailing plaintiff recovers costs and reasonable attorney fees. If there is no violation, and if the court finds that the action was frivolous, vexatious, or groundless, then the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the other party. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(9).

See Records Outline at V.D.

None.

Not specifically addressed.

A public officer who knowingly violates section 286.011 by attending a meeting not in accordance with section 286.011 is guilty of a second-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and/or a fine up to $1,000. Fla. Stat. §§ 286.011(3)(b), 775.082(4)(a), 775.083(1)(d) (2020).  A party is not eligible to receive monetary damages under the Sunshine Law.  Sinclair v. Town of Yankeetown, 2008 WL 660089 at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2008).

Officials who violate the Act may be subject to recall. See Steele v. Honea, 261 Ga. 644, 409 S.E.2d 652 (1991).

Any person willfully violating any provision of the open meetings law is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, can be summarily removed from the board unless otherwise provided by law. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-13.

Any action taken in a meeting which violates the Open Meeting Law, or which stems from deliberations or decision making in a meeting that violates the law, "shall be null and void." Idaho Code § 74-208(1).

The Open Door Law does not authorize other penalties for violations beyond Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-7.5.

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.

“The district court may require a defendant to complete training approved by the attorney general concerning the requirements of the open meetings act.”  K.S.A. 75-4320a(a).

"Any person who knowingly attends a meeting of any public agency covered by [the Open Meetings Act] of which he is a member, not held in accordance with the provisions of [the Open Meetings Act] shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100)." Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.991(1).

None.

None.

None.

A public official who intentionally violates the OMA may be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of up to $500, plus costs and attorney’s fees to the person or group of persons bringing the action. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.273(1). An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive or exemplary relief under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.271. Id. § 15.272(3). A 1996 amendment to the OMA provides for penalties if the governing board of an institution of higher education covered under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.268(j) violates the OMA with respect to the process of selecting a president any time after the recommendation of final candidates to the governing board. In this situation, the institution is responsible for the payment of a civil fine of "not more than $500,000." Id. § 15.273a. This fine is in addition to other remedies or penalties in the OMA. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.273a also provides that "[t]o the extent possible, any payment of fines imposed under this section shall be paid from funds allocated by the institution . . . to pay for the travel and expenses of the members of the governing board."

If a person is found by the court to have "intentionally violated" the Open Meeting Law in three or more actions involving the same governing body, "such person shall forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office such person was then serving." Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3(a).

No additional penalties are specified in the statute.  In chancery court, however, if a plaintiff obtains a consent decree, violation of the decree is civil contempt and a plaintiff establishing civil contempt is entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees. Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisors v. Common Cause, 551 So. 2d 107, 125 (Miss. 1989). A party who fails to prove criminal contempt cannot appeal the judgment because to do so would place the defendant in double jeopardy. Common Cause v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 412 (Miss. 1989).

In addition to injunctive relief to preclude future violations of the Sunshine Law, under certain circumstances a court may void an action taken by the public governmental body. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.5. First, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the public governmental body violated the Sunshine Law. Second, the court must find under the facts of the particular case that the public interest in the enforcement of the policy of the Sunshine Law outweighs the public interest in sustaining the validity of the action taken in the closed meeting, record, or vote. Id.

N/A.

A violation of the OML may result in a misdemeanor for a member of a public body who attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of the OML, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof. NRS 241.040(1). A person who willfully fails or refuses to comply with a subpoena issued by the Attomey General investigating violations of the OML is guilty of a misdemeanor.

None.

There are no statutory provisions for other penalties in the OML.

The North Carolina Open Meetings Law makes no provision for the imposition of other penalties against public bodies or individual members of public bodies.

The attorney general may refer to the appropriate state’s attorney any public servant as defined in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-04 who has been found in more than one opinion issued to have violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-18, 44-04-19, 44-04-19.2, 44-04-20, or 44-04-21. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.3. A public servant who knowingly violates N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-18, 44-04 19, 44-04-19.2, 44-04-20, or 44-04-21 is guilty of an offense under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-06.

Invalidation of action taken in or resulting from a session closed in violation of the statute. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(H). Doran v. Northmont Bd. of Educ., 147 Ohio App. 3d 268, 770 N.E.2d 92, 2002-Ohio-386 (Ohio App. 2d Dist.) (refusing to invalidate action, viewing a board's failure to establish a notice rule as a mere technical violation).

A member of a public body who knowingly violates an injunction to obey the statute may be removed from office by an action brought by a prosecuting authority or the attorney general. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(I)(4).

Upon conviction of a misdemeanor, a public official may be imprisoned up to one year in the county jail. See Hillary, supra.

Not specified.

No provision.

None.

Criminal penalty of up to 30 days and/or up to $200 fine. SDCL §22-6-2.

The Act mandates that the court retain jurisdiction over the case for one year and order the defendants to report in writing to the court semiannually of their compliance with the Act. T.C.A. § 8-44-106(d).

In addition to fines and damages, possible jail time can result from violation of the Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.143 et seq.

A person who is a member of a public body who knowingly and intentionally violates the open meeting law may be convicted of a misdemeanor.  1 V.S.A. § 314(a).

If the Court finds that the violation was willfully and knowingly made, it will impose upon the member of the public body, in his individual capacity, a civil penalty not less than $500.00 and not more than $2,000.00. The penalty for the second violation shall not be less than $2,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3714.

Prior to the 1999 amendments, the Act required that upon conviction of the misdemeanor offense of willfully and knowingly violating the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, a member of a public or governmental body may be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than ten days, in addition to the fine. W. Va. Code § 6-9A-6. That provision was removed from the Act in 1999.

None stated.