NC Open Meetings Law

Discusses a Court of Appeals decision that addresses the purchase of real property and the circumstances in which the name of the landowner, the location of the property, and the city's proposed use of the property are not material terms of a contract to acquire property. Consequently the local government is obliged to disclose those facts in open session.

Presents a broad review of questions that arise under the authorization for closed sessions, which has been the subject of four court of appeals decisions in recent years. For that reason, it is appropriate to undertake a detailed consideration of the authorization, both to review the recent decisions and to discuss other aspects of the statutory language. For a related publication, see Open Meetings and Local Governments in North Carolina, Seventh Edition.

Discusses public bodies holding closed sessions including the attorney-client privilege between the public body and its lawyer and how the privilege does not apply to all conversations between attorneys and their clients. In the case of public bodies, there are countervailing statutes that point toward openness, since the people's business is involved.

Explores the tension between North Carolina's Open Meetings Act and the desire for confidentiality in mediation hearings addressing public disputes.

In Multimedia Publishing of North Carolina, Inc. v. Henderson County, decided on February
15, 2000, the North Carolina Court of Appeals explored the contours of the open meetings
law provision that allows a public body to hold a closed session to "consult with an attorney
employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege
between the attorney and the public body." The Court held that this authorization for a closed
session is not restricted to situations in which there is a threatened or pending claim against
the public body. Rather, a public body may meet in closed session with its attorney to discuss
any matter legitimately within the attorney-client privilege. The Court went on, however, to
hold that if the legitimacy of such a closed session is challenged, the public body must present
some sort of objective indication that the session was properly held, and the Court suggested
that the minutes of the closed session are the best means of doing so. This Local Government
Law Bulletin reviews this recent decision of the Court of Appeals and suggests some practical
implications of the Court’s holding.

The 1997 General Assembly enacted two session laws that make changes to the open meetings law and at least three that affect public access to government records. This bulletin discusses the new requirement in the open meetings law that all public bodies prepare a "general account" of their closed sessions, and most of this bulletin considers this new requirement.

The 1994 General Assembly enacted Chapter 570 (HB 120), which makes significant changes to the state's open meetings law, effective October 1, 1994. The major changes are made in two areas of the statute: first, in the definition of public body, the type of group subject to the statute; and second, in the authorizations to hold closed sessions. A number of the changes are not entirely clear in their effect and will probably not become clear until and unless they are litigated or a later General Assembly clarifies them. This Local Government Law Bulletin, which is being sent to attorneys for counties, cities, school boards, and other local government agencies, discusses the changes made by Chapter 570 and identifies some of the areas of uncertainty. The text refers to the law in effect before October 1, 1994, as the current law.