News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

Ethan C. Nobles, FOIArkansas Project

It took two closed committee meetings, a newspaper’s lawsuit, and the appeal of a lower court ruling in 1975 to clarify the public’s right to attend meetings of government committees.

A ruling in Pulaski County Circuit Court had said some committee meetings could be closed. That changed in 1975 when the state Supreme Court ruled in a case styled “Arkansas Gazette Co. vs. Pickens” that, when a committee of a board or commission that is subject to the state Freedom of Information Act meets for the transaction of business, the committee meeting is public.

The dispute that led to the court decision began in November 1973 when the Student Affairs Committee of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees met to discuss whether students of legal drinking age should be able to consume alcohol in facilities owned or controlled by the University of Arkansas.

The five-member committee met with the university system president, vice president and legal counsel prior to the board’s regular meeting to discuss the issue. Reporter Ginger Shiras of the Arkansas Gazette was at the committee meeting, but the board had asked her to leave. The university’s attorney told Shiras the meeting was not public under the Freedom of Information Act and was, therefore, closed to her.

The same committee met again in December 1973 and Shiras, who attempted to attend, again was asked to leave.

As a result, the Gazette sued Fred M. Pickens Jr. and nine other unnamed members of the board of trustees in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The Gazette asked for a judgment outlining the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

The circuit court sided with the committee, ruling such meetings could be closed to the public. The Gazette appealed to the state Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling of the lower court.

The Supreme Court concluded that allowing public bodies like the board of trustees to decide controversial issues by letting committees discuss those issues behind closed doors was contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Act.

The high court adopted language from a Florida Supreme Court decision that effectively said laws passed in the public interest, such as the FOIA, should be interpreted in the light most likely to benefit the public.