Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.09 (2026)

Declaration of public policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is the public policy of this state that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided. Toward this end, any person or entity charged with the interpretations of this article shall construe this article in favor of open and public meetings.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, it is not a violation of this article if a member of a public body expresses an opinion or discusses an issue with the public either at a venue other than at a meeting that is subject to this article, personally, through the media or other form of public broadcast communication or through technological means if:

1. The opinion or discussion is not principally directed at or directly given to another member of the public body.

2. There is no concerted plan to engage in collective deliberation to take legal action.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 649 P.2d 985 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 649 P.2d 985 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “In 1978, the legislature adopted a declaration of public policy for the guidance of those charged with the interpretation of the open meeting law by adding A.R.S. § 38-431.09: Declaration of Public Policy.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 38-431.09. Reading the above provisions in isolation would suggest that a town council may not meet in executive session with its attorney to discuss the legality of a proposed tax ordinance.”
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 38-431.09, entitled "Declaration of Public Policy," provides: It is the public policy of this state, reflected in this article, that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information…”
Fisher v. Maricopa Cnty. Stadium Dist., 912 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “2d at 894 (quoting A.R.S. § 38-431.09). The Arizona Supreme Court has twice quoted with approval 7 from City of Lexington v.”
Ethridge v. Arizona State Bd. of Nursing, 796 P.2d 899 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-431.09 states in part: It is the public policy of this state, reflected in this article, that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform…”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 38-431 through § 38-431.09, challenging. After close study, while we find ourselves in agreement with a number of the mediate positions advanced by Prescott, we conclude that it was not entitled to the nullification relief it sought under § 38-431.”
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 3 Governing Bd., 20 P.3d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “2d at 894 (quoting A.R.S. § 38-431.09); Fisher, 185 Ariz. at 123 , 912 P.”
Cooner v. Bd. of Educ., 663 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “The purpose and policy of the open meeting law is presently set forth in A.R.S. § 38-431.09, as follows: It is the public policy of this state, reflected in this article, that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly.”
Tanque Verde Unified Sch. Dist. No. 13 v. Bernini, 76 P.3d 874 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 38-431.09. ¶ 10 The respondent judge ruled that the District’s board had violated § 38-431.”
Desert Mountain v. Flagstaff (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “480, 483 (1990) (quoting A.R.S. § 38-431.09 (1990)). Hundreds of public bodies—many of which authorize litigation on a somewhat frequent basis—must comply with the open-meeting law’s restriction on approving “legal action” in executive session.”
David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 3× “” § 38-431.09(A). We therefore read each law’s enforcement provision “broadly to effectuate the legislature’s purpose in enacting them.”
State v. Murphy, 641 P.2d 268 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 38-431.09. Appellee contends that he acted within the spirit of the above section in disclosing the transcript to the public.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431.09(A) — 2 cases
David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021). “” § 38-431.09(A). We therefore read each law’s enforcement provision “broadly to effectuate the legislature’s purpose in enacting them.”
Desert Mountain v. Flagstaff (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “480, 483 (1990) (quoting A.R.S. § 38-431.09 (1990)). Hundreds of public bodies—many of which authorize litigation on a somewhat frequent basis—must comply with the open-meeting law’s restriction on approving “legal action” in executive session.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.