Montgomery Advertiser v. Montgomery County Board of Education

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Litigation.png

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article.

Montgomery Advertiservs.Montgomery County Board of Education
Number: CV-91-1878-G
Year: 1991
State: Alabama
Court: Alabama 15th circuit court
Other lawsuits in Alabama
Other lawsuits in 1991
Precedents include:
This case established that the exemption for discussion of character did not automatically result in a closed meeting but merely required the meeting leader to control the material presented.
WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption


Montgomery Advertiser v. Montgomery County Board of Education was a case in Alabama's 15th circuit in 1991 concerning closed meetings.

Important precedents

This case established that the exemption for discussion of character did not automatically result in a closed meeting but merely required the meeting leader to control the material presented.

Background

  • On May 1, 1991 a petition was entered, calling for the resignation of a principle in the montgomery county school district.
  • The board announced that it would hold a closed meeting to hear complaints about the principle. It justified the meeting as closed by the clause of the Alabama Open Meetings Act that declared that meetings could be closed if they pertained to the good name and character of an individual.
  • The Advertiser filed suit for press access to the meeting.

Ruling of the court

The court ruled in favor of the press and maintained that the state open meetings act and sunshine law clearly applied to the board and thus the meeting concerning the principle was required to be open. However, it did acknowledge the exemption for the discussion of the character of individuals and merely required the chairmen of the Board of Education to guide the meeting and prevent character attacks so that the meeting was in compliance with this exemption.

Associated cases

See also

External links

References