We know of no statute or case law that directly addresses this point in Alabama; nonetheless if a state entity that deals with federal programs comes within the statutory definition of a governmental body covered by the Alabama Open Meetings Act that body is presumptively subject to the Act. See Ala. Code § 36-25A-1, et seq.
A public body may hold an executive session about a federal program, if pertaining to a “discussion, consultation or consideration for international and interstate negotiations.” SeeA.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(6). The provision, however, does not apply to meetings at which the public body receives recommendations from a federal agency. Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I80-159.
There are apparently no statutory provisions dealing with meetings to discuss federal programs. If, however, federal statutes or regulations demand closed sessions, these provisions will be controlling. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-186 (“federal law will control in the event of conflict with state law”).
There is no provision for closing meetings to discuss federal programs, unless authorized by a federal statute or other state statute, see Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-1; § 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(7), or unless it fits in the general categories for executive sessions in Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-6.1(b).
No Iowa statutes governing open meetings, and discussing participation in federal programs, have been found. It should be noted that meetings to discuss records required or authorized by federal law to be kept confidential are not open to the public. Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(a).
Presumably open, provided they involve a state agency, board, commission or department required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting; the governing body of a school district, unorganized territory, county, statutory or home rule city, town, or other public body; the committees, subcommittees, boards, departments, or commissions of any public body; or the governing body or commission of a statewide public pension plan or local public pension plan. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1.
No specific exemption, but see Grein v. Board of Education, 216 Neb. 158, 164, 343 N.W.2d 718, 723 (1984). Where public finances are involved, the "public interest" ordinarily demands an open meeting. Id.
A meeting of an effective majority of public body to discuss applications for federal grants or other aspects of a federal program is open to the public unless the discussions involve (i) contract negotiations or (ii) anticipated litigation, or (iii) where the release of information would impair the right to receive federal funds. See N.J.S.A. 10:4-12b(2) and (7).
The provisions of the OML do not extend to any matter made confidential by federal law. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 108(3) (McKinney 1988). See also Oneonta Star v. Bd. of Trustees, 66 A.D.2d 41, 54, 412 N.Y.S.2d 927 (3d Dep’t 1979) (applications for federal funds are matters of public concern and the public’s business and should be discussed at an open meeting).
Local boards which are supported by federal funds and/or receiving in-kind services at local taxpayer expense are covered under the Act. 1971 OK AG 245. However, such meetings may be closed where disclosure of information would violate confidentiality requirements of federal law. 25 O.S. § 307.B.7.
Presumably open. Specifically, the Act provides that community action agencies that administer community action programs under 42 U.S.C. § 2790, are governing bodies subject to the openness requirements of the Act. T.C.A. § 8-44-102(b).