Supreme Court on Open Meetings
Nebraska Supreme Court Ruling Regarding URNRD Suit Against the District Court
On Friday, March 2, 2007, the Nebraska Supreme Court entered a ruling regarding the Open Meetings lawsuit the Upper Republican NRD filed against the District Court. The URNRD action was in response to a March 22, 2006, District Court order requiring the URNRD to answer questions about the executive sessions it held in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The URNRD disputed the District Court order and asked the Nebraska Supreme Court to block the requirement they answer questions about the closed sessions.
The URNRD made three arguments:
1. The Open Meetings Act protects the URNRD.
2. Attorneys were present, so what was said is confidential.
3. The closed door sessions were about State secrets, so are protected.
On March 2, 2007, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on the three arguments.
The Court ruled against the URNRD on the first argument that the Open Meetings Act protected them. This was the primary argument members of the URNRD used as an excuse for blocking public access to information about its discussions with the DNR when setting up water allocations for 2005 through 2007.
The Court ruled “maybe” on argument two. It said that just because an attorney is present, it doesn’t protect the URNRD. But, there might be things that are protected, so the District Court has a ministerial duty to allow the URNRD to show the judge evidence that would support their claim. The Supreme Court says this is best done in camera.
“In camera” is Latin for "in chambers."
“A legal proceeding is ’in camera’ when a hearing is held before the judge in her private chambers or when the public is excluded from the courtroom. Proceedings are often held in camera to protect victims and witnesses from public exposure, especially if the victim or witness is a child. There is still, however, a record made of the proceeding, typically by a court stenographer. The judge may decide to seal this record if the material is extremely sensitive or likely to prejudice one side or the other.” From www.nolo.com
Regarding the URNRD claim that State secrets were discussed in closed session, the Court said, “You never used this argument before now so we will not address it now.”
So what happens now? The matter returns to the District Court. The URNRD will be required to appear before the District Court Judge, in his chambers, and is allowed to present evidence about which, if any, of the close door communications qualify as attorney-client privilege. The Judge will then permit questions about whatever might not be privileged to help determine if the URNRD illegally excluded the public from the formation of public policy.
You can read the Supreme Court ruling at: http://tinyurl.com/yu4mfw.