In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Advisory committee" or "subcommittee" means any entity, however designated, that is officially established, on motion and order of a public body or by the presiding officer of the public body, and whose members have been appointed for the specific purpose of making a recommendation concerning a decision to be made or considered or a course of conduct to be taken or considered by the public body.
2. "Executive session" means a gathering of a quorum of members of a public body from which the public is excluded for one or more of the reasons prescribed in section 38-431.03. In addition to the members of the public body, officers, appointees and employees as provided in section 38-431.03 and the auditor general as provided in section 41-1279.04, only individuals whose presence is reasonably necessary in order for the public body to carry out its executive session responsibilities may attend the executive session.
3. "Legal action" means a collective decision, commitment or promise made by a public body pursuant to the constitution, the public body's charter, bylaws or specified scope of appointment and the laws of this state.
4. "Meeting":
(a) Means the gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum of the members of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations by a quorum with respect to that action.
(b) Includes:
(i) A one-way electronic communication by one member of a public body that is sent to a quorum of the members of a public body and that proposes legal action.
(ii) An exchange of electronic communications among a quorum of the members of a public body that involves a discussion, deliberation or the taking of legal action by the public body concerning a matter likely to come before the public body for action.
5. "Political subdivision" means all political subdivisions of this state, including without limitation all counties, cities and towns, school districts and special districts.
6. "Public body" means the legislature, all boards and commissions of this state or political subdivisions, all multimember governing bodies of departments, agencies, institutions and instrumentalities of this state or political subdivisions, including without limitation all corporations and other instrumentalities whose boards of directors are appointed or elected by this state or a political subdivision. Public body includes all quasi-judicial bodies and all standing, special or advisory committees or subcommittees of, or appointed by, the public body. Public body includes all commissions and other public entities established by the Arizona Constitution or by way of ballot initiative, including the independent redistricting commission, and this article applies except and only to the extent that specific constitutional provisions supersede this article.
7. "Quasi-judicial body" means a public body, other than a court of law, possessing the power to hold hearings on disputed matters between a private person and a public agency and to make decisions in the general manner of a court regarding such disputed claims.
Notes of Decisions
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 72× “Yavapai Community Hospital Association (Association) and the nine individual members of its board of trustees appeal from a judgment declaring they must comply with the Arizona open meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., and enjoining them from closing a "retreat" previously…”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). . The State also argues that the IRC has implicitly acknowledged that it must comply with the OML because it has utilized executive session and other aspects of the OML in fulfilling its mandate.”
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa Cnty., 144 P.3d 1254 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). ¶ 21 Individual supervisors do not have the power to “[d]irect and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 8× “III Although line drawing is necessary in balancing the competing interests of open government and confidentiality that may assist the operation of government, I part from the majority because it concludes that both the Board [3] and this court have the authority to do the line…”
Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, 275 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 6× “¶ 44 In removing Mathis, the Governor did not refer to Arizona’s open meeting statutes, A.R.S. §§ 38-431 to -431.09. Indeed, the question of whether those statutes apply to the IRC was the subject of pending litigation and unresolved when Mathis was removed.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 6× “ISSUE After considering Prescott’s petition and Chino Valley’s cross-petition, we granted review and ordered supplemental briefing on the following narrow issue: Is consultation between a governmental entity and its attorney “legal action” as defined in A.R.S. § 38-431 and thus…”
Karol v. Bd. of Educ. Trs., 593 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 6× “The teachers filed a special action in the superior court alleging that the open-meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431, et seq., was violated and that their contracts were automatically renewed as a result thereof.”
Arizona Newspapers Ass'n. v. Superior Court, 694 P.2d 1174 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “§ 11— 217 governing “publication” of county proceedings and the open meeting law provisions of A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. The superior court upheld the decision of the Board, and this petition for special action challenges the superior court judgment.”
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm'n, 686 P.2d 1301 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “1 We first note that the Commission’s failure to vote in open meeting to have certain urine specimens analyzed by the Denver laboratory did not constitute a violation of Arizona’s open meeting law (A.R.S. § 38-431, et seq.). We agree with the Commission that the day-to-day…”
Rosenberg v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 578 P.2d 168 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 4× “SECOND AND THIRD CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Appellant’s second and third claims request review of the Superior Court’s dismissal of her action based on a second count alleging a violation of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431, et seq., and a third count based on an alleged…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431(2) — 11 cases
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891 (Ariz. 1990).
“ISSUE After considering Prescott’s petition and Chino Valley’s cross-petition, we granted review and ordered supplemental briefing on the following narrow issue: Is consultation between a governmental entity and its attorney “legal action” as defined in A.R.S. § 38-431 and thus…”
Karol v. Bd. of Educ. Trs., 593 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1979).
“The teachers filed a special action in the superior court alleging that the open-meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431, et seq., was violated and that their contracts were automatically renewed as a result thereof.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431(3) — 7 cases
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa Cnty., 144 P.3d 1254 (Ariz. 2006).
“” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). ¶ 21 Individual supervisors do not have the power to “[d]irect and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). . The State also argues that the IRC has implicitly acknowledged that it must comply with the OML because it has utilized executive session and other aspects of the OML in fulfilling its mandate.”
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Yavapai Community Hospital Association (Association) and the nine individual members of its board of trustees appeal from a judgment declaring they must comply with the Arizona open meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., and enjoining them from closing a "retreat" previously…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431(4) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). . The State also argues that the IRC has implicitly acknowledged that it must comply with the OML because it has utilized executive session and other aspects of the OML in fulfilling its mandate.”
Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, 275 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. 2012).
“¶ 44 In removing Mathis, the Governor did not refer to Arizona’s open meeting statutes, A.R.S. §§ 38-431 to -431.09. Indeed, the question of whether those statutes apply to the IRC was the subject of pending litigation and unresolved when Mathis was removed.”
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Yavapai Community Hospital Association (Association) and the nine individual members of its board of trustees appeal from a judgment declaring they must comply with the Arizona open meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., and enjoining them from closing a "retreat" previously…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431(5) — 2 cases
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, 785 P.2d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Yavapai Community Hospital Association (Association) and the nine individual members of its board of trustees appeal from a judgment declaring they must comply with the Arizona open meeting law, A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq., and enjoining them from closing a "retreat" previously…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-431(6) — 10 cases
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis, 290 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). . The State also argues that the IRC has implicitly acknowledged that it must comply with the OML because it has utilized executive session and other aspects of the OML in fulfilling its mandate.”
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa Cnty., 144 P.3d 1254 (Ariz. 2006).
“” A.R.S. § 38-431(3). ¶ 21 Individual supervisors do not have the power to “[d]irect and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.”
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.