Recent Court Decisions

This case is a reminder to school officials that nothing online is truly anonymous. Here, a county board candidate (candidate) pursued a defamation claim against a fictitious Internet name, “Fuboy.” Fuboy referred to the candidate as a “molester.” This decision is centered on the candidate’s motion requesting the court to direct an Internet provider to provide the identity and last known address of its subscriber, Fuboy, whose actual name was unknown. The candidate needs Fuboy’s identity to properly name the subscriber in the lawsuit. The court also addressed the candidate’s failure to ask the court for permission to file against the fictitious name Fuboy (lawsuits must name an actual person). While the candidate should have sought permission under court rules to file against the fictitious name Fuboy, the case will still go forward, and the Internet service provided will need to respond to the subpoena requesting it to provide the identity and last known address of its subscriber using Fuboy.

A public body posted its agenda 48 hours before a meeting as OMA requires. Then, it amended its agenda 29 hours before the meeting. The amendment deleted two action items upon which the public body would vote on at a later date. The intent of the amendment was to inform the public that the items would not be voted upon during the meeting as previously announced. In this case, the public still had at least 48 hours’ notice of the items for which the public body would take action. The PAC found no violation of OMA.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

Confidentiality provisions entered into by public bodies are contrary to the specific language of Section 2.20 in FOIA and the legislative intent underlying that section of the law. The PAC found such provisions in settlement agreements are not enforceable and must be released pursuant to FOIA requests.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that prayers before a New York town’s board meetings do not violate the First Amendment.

“The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports with our tradition,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, “and does not coerce participation by nonadherents.”

This decision only addressed the specific factual circumstances presented by the town of Greece, N.Y. Very little guidance about how other communities may participate in prayers without violating the Constitution was offered in this opinion. Contact local board counsel for assistance with how this recent decision applies to your board.

A public body received a FOIA request for its legal bills. It denied the request citing several exemptions under FOIA.

The PAC instructed the parties that records containing the following information must be disclosed:

a. general descriptions of the nature of the services performed by an attorney,

b. dates on which work was performed,

c. the initials of the attorney performing the work,

d. the numbers of hours billed, and

e. the corresponding dollar amount billed for each entry.

The PAC did inform the parties involved that any descriptive entries contained in legal invoice records that describe services rendered, which reveal privileged attorney-client communications may be redacted (withheld or blacked-out on a document that contains exempt and non-exempt records) under section 7(1)(m) of FOIA.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.