AG 1993 03 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SECTION D. PROPOSED LEGISLATION OF CONCERN (Continued) H120 H120 AMEND OPEN MEETINGS LAW Manager Recommendation: Oppose elimination of Property Acquisition, Personnel Action and Economic Development matters as justification for Executive Sessions "To amend the Open Meetings Law.~ Rep. George Miller (Durham). This bill, referred to the House Judiciary Committee #1, would make a series of changes in North Carolina's Open Meetings Law, Article 33C of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes. It would eliminate all current provls]ons permitting executive sessions and would permit only three basis for holding "closed meetings:~ "(1) When a dosed meeting is required to prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to a statute of this State or of the United States; (2) When a closed meeting is required to prevent the premature disclosure of an honorary degree, scholarship, prize or similar award; or (3) When a closed meeting is required to permit a public body to receive advice from an attorney employed or retained by the public body with respect to a judicial proceeding in which the public body has a direct interest. As used herein, "Judicial proceeding* would mean a pending or imminent lawsuit, appeal, arbitration, or administrative proceeding before a state or federal court or other judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. The publl¢ body would be deemed to have a "direct interest" in a judicial proceeding if it is a party or if it is the governing or representative body of a party. As judicial proceeding would be deemed to be 'imminent' if it has been publicly threatened or if the public body has been notified in writing of its probable occurrence.' The bill would also proGde that a "motion to close a meeting" would have to cite one of these purposes. With respect to privileged or confidential information, the motion would have to "state the name or citation of the statute that renders the information to be discussed privileged or confidential.~ With regard to subdMsion (3) relating to judicial proceedings, the motion would have to ~identify the parties or potential parties in each judicial proceeding concerning which the public body expects to receive advice during the closed meeting.~ The bill would add provisions relating to assessment of attorney's fees when an action is brought to void an action that violated the Open Meetings Law by authorizing a court to "order that all or any portion of any fee so assessed be paid personally by any indMdual member or members of the public body found by the court to have knowingly or intentionally committed, caused, permitted, suborned or participated in the violation." Courts would be required to accord priority to actions brought under the Open Meetings Act. Minutes of "dosed meetings" would be required and would be public records, but could be "withheld from public inspection so long as public inspection would frustrate the purpose of a closed meeting." The bill was referred to the House Jud3ciary Committee #1. I)-7