There seems to be a bit of confusion about the impact of today’s opinion from the N.C. Court of Appeals in the Wake County open meetings suit. Perhaps a direct quote from Judge Donna Stroud’s opinion might help clarify the situation:
We affirm the trial court’s order which found that on 23 March 2010, defendants violated the Open Meetings Law by their last-minute adoption of a ticketing policy and by exclusion of members of the public from the COW [Committee of the Whole] meeting, but we vacate the trial court’s conclusion as to defendants’ failure to accommodate a disabled person because the Open Meetings Law makes no distinction between access by disabled members of the public and access by non-disabled members of the public. The trial court properly considered defendants’ actions according to the standard of reasonableness of opportunity for public access to the meetings. In addition, the trial court properly exercised its discretion by declining to grant affirmative relief and dismissing the case where the violations occurred only on 23 March 2010, defendants have taken reasonable measures to avoid future violations, and the violations were not committed in bad faith.
While those working with the plaintiffs have trumpeted the portion of the opinion represented by the first half of the first sentence, they have ignored completely the rest of the important items noted in this quotation.
As in the case of the trial-court decision, there is no “affirmative relief.” In other words, the plaintiffs didn’t get what they wanted, which was for the court to overturn decisions made at the March 23, 2010, meeting. In addition, the unanimous Appeals Court panel recognizes — as did the trial judge — that the school board has taken “reasonable measures” to avoid future violations, and “the violations were not committed in bad faith.”
It’s truly bad form to ignore this part of the ruling.
