The Open Meetings Act establishes an Office of Open Government, D.C. Code Ann. § 2-592, that may bring a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court for injunctive or declaratory relief for any violation of the Act before or after the meeting in question takes place. D.C. Code Ann. § 2-578(a). The Act explicitly states that nothing in it shall be construed to create or imply a private cause of action for a violation. Id. § 2-579(a)(1). Curiously, the Act also states that nothing in it shall restrict the private right of action citizens have under D.C. Code Ann. § 1-207.42. Id. § 2-598(a)(2). No court has specifically considered what private rights of action § 1-207.42 creates. Cf. Smith v. Henderson, 982 F. Supp. 2d 32, 48 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing Sunshine Act claim against D.C. Public Schools on the merits after holding that plaintiffs had Article III standing). However, a line of D.C. Court of Appeals cases interpreting identical language from the Open Meeting Act's predecessor appears to assume, without deciding, that private citizens may bring suits to invalidate official actions that violate the open meetings rule. See Jordan v. District of Columbia, 362 A.2d 114, 117-19 (D.C. 1976); see also Bernstein v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 376 A.2d 816, 820 n.12 (D.C. 1977) (affirming Jordan); Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 364 A.2d 610, 613-14 (D.C. 1976) (same).
Georgia superior courts have jurisdiction to enforce the Act’s requirements. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5(a). In addition, the Office of the Attorney General has established an Open Government Mediation Program “to help citizens with questions or concerns about local government’s decisions to close meetings to the public or governmental responses to Open Records requests.” Further information, including a contact name and phone number, is available at: http://law.ga.gov/open-government-mediation-program.
W. Va. Code § 6-9A-4(b)(6) provides that executive session is appropriate:
To discuss any material the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy such as any records, data, reports, recommendations or other personal material of any educational, training, social service, rehabilitation, welfare, housing, relocation, insurance and similar program or institution operated by a public agency pertaining to any specific individual admitted to or served by the institution or program, the individual's personal and family circumstances.
No court decisions have interpreted or applied this provision.