Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/22/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable John E. Brown State Senator 17900 Ridgeway Drive Siloam Springs, Arkansas 72761-8866
Dear Senator Brown:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on several questions concerning the holding of public meetings under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), codified at A.C.A. §§
1. Can public meetings be held behind locked gates?
2. Must a citizen verbally identify themselves to a guard to gain entrance to a public meeting?
3. Must a citizen show proof of identification to attend a public meeting?
4. Must a citizen have their [sic] picture taken to attend a public meeting?
5. Is a citizen required to sign a sign in sheet when attending a public meeting?
RESPONSE
In my opinion if the "locked gates" prevent reasonable access to the public meeting, then the answer to your first question is "no." In response to your second, third, fourth and fifth questions, in my opinion an identification requirement to gain access to a public meeting violates the FOIA.
Question 1 — Can public meetings be held behind locked gates?
It has been stated that the "reasonableness of . . . access that is afforded [to attend a public meeting] must, of course, be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Op. Att'y. Gen.
With regard specifically to holding public meetings behind "locked gates," in my opinion if the gates are locked but opened readily by security personnel upon the arrival of persons wishing to attend the public meeting, there may be no violation of the FOIA. The impediment to public access would be small in such a case. If reasonable and timely access to the meeting is denied such persons because of the locked gates, however, a violation will in my opinion exist.
Question 2 — Must a citizen verbally identify themselves to a guard togain entrance to a public meeting?
This question is not as purely concerned with "access" to the public meeting as your first question. "Access" is defined as "permission, liberty or ability to enter. . . ." Webster's Seventh New CollegiateDictionary (1972) at 5. A locked gate may impede or slow a person's ability to enter a given locale. The question in that case is therefore whether the access is reasonable under the circumstances. A verbal identification requirement, however, places a separate condition on such entrance. The question is whether this condition violates the FOIA.
I have found no helpful case law or precedents from any jurisdiction on this question. In some states, the applicable statute prohibits an identification requirement to attend a public meeting. See e.g., Kentucky Revised Statutes §
One definition of the word "open" is "requiring no special status, identification, or permit for entry or participation." Webster's SeventhNew Collegiate Dictionary (1972) at 590. One definition of the word "public" is "open to all." Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) at 1104 (emphasis added).
I must conclude, therefore, that a requirement of identification to attend a public meeting is contrary to the "open meetings" requirement of the FOIA. This is not to say, however, that other types of security measures will necessarily violate the act. Identification, however, in my opinion, is a peculiarly problematic condition to attach to public meeting attendance. I therefore cannot conclude that an identification requirement is consistent with the act, absent an amendment of the relevant statutory scheme.
Question 3 — Must a citizen show proof of identification to attend apublic meeting?
No. See response to Question 2.
Question 4 — Must a citizen have their [sic] picture taken to attend apublic meeting?
In my opinion the photographing of a citizen in such context is, similarly, contrary to the FOIA. This condition is indistinguishable, in my opinion, from the identification requirements discussed above.
Question 5 — Is a citizen required to sign a sign in sheet when attendinga public meeting?
In my opinion such a requirement would violate the FOIA for the same reasons discussed above. See response to Question 2.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Elana C. Wills prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
MARK PRYOR Attorney General
MP:ECW/cyh