B. Court interpretations of the Sunshine LawCourt interpretations of
the Sunshine Law:

1. Good name and character: The Supreme Court of Alabama
discussed the intention of this exception in its opinion in Miglionico
v. Birmingham News Company, 378 So.2d 677 (Ala.1979). There
the Supreme Court stated:
"We believe that the legislature intended by the use of the words
'character' or 'good name' to permit executive sessions whenever
there is a discussion of one's general reputation, i.e., the estimate the
public places on a person, his reputation, good or bad, and the
personal attributes of an individual. It might also include such
personal traits as honesty, loyalty, integrity, reliability, and other such
characteristics, good or bad, which make up one's individual
personality."

2. NoticeNotice Required: In Slawson & Furman v. Alabama
Forestry Commission, 631 So. 2d 953 (Ala. 1994), a unanimous
court held that our Sunshine Law "requires [a public agency] to
provide public notice of its special meetings.... The public must be
given a reasonable opportunity to be aware of the place where the
notice will be posted; and the time, date and place of the meeting
must be available to the public upon reasonable inquiry. When
special circumstances arise or when a meeting is called for truly
emergency purposes, the agency holding the meeting should so
declare and should give such notice as is reasonable under the
circumstances, unless the giving of such notice is impractical or
impossible."

3. Attorney-client Meetings: The Alabama Supreme Court in Dunn
v. Alabama State University Board of Trustees, 628 So. 2d 519, 88
Ed. L. Rptr. 484 (Ala. 1993) recognized a limited attorney-client
privilege as an exception to Alabama's Open Meeting Act: ALA.
CODE § 13A-14-2(a)(1975). The court held that "discussions
between a public body and its attorney concerning pending litigation
are not subject to the Open Meetings Act." Also in that case the
Alabama Supreme Court recognized the potential for abuse of the
attorney-client privilege by public officers and limited the privilege
solely to the communications by the lawyer to the public body and
not to discussions in the presence of the lawyer between members of
the public body about what action to take. The court specifically
stated: "[O]nce any discussion, whatsoever, begins among the
members of a public body regarding what action to take, based upon
advice from counsel, whether it be settlement or otherwise, such
discussion shall be open to the public and failure to do so shall
constitute a clear violation of the Open Meetings Act." According to
the Court: "The exception is limited to meetings in which discussion
of present and pending litigation takes place."

4. Definition of a Meeting: In Dale v. Birmingham News, 452 So. 2d
1321 (Ala. 1984), the court said, "Under this statute all meetings of
these bodies named, whether formal or informal, whether or not an
official vote is taken, must be open to the public, except where the
character or good name of the person is involved. The right to public
access extends to the entire process from public policy discussion
and formulation through adoption and enforcement. Otherwise,
business could be conducted in secrecy and public meetings held
only to ratify decisions already made in secret." In 1986, the
Alabama Supreme Court said that the state open meetings law
applies only to those governmental entities which are governed by a
group of individuals who sit as a deliberative body to set policy
regarding public matters. In Advertiser Co. v. Wallis, 493 So. 2d
1365 (Ala. 1989) the court said that the law did not apply to
agencies or departments administered by a single individual.

The Attorney General has held that the Sunshine Law applies to
committee meetings or subgroups of the entire governmental body. If
a substantial number of the members of a committee meet, the
meeting should be open to the public and certainly, if a quorum of a
committee meets, the meeting must be open to the public. However,
members of a public body are not prohibited from meeting socially
or informally if no business of the body is conducted. Ala. Op. Atty.
Gen. 96-00118 (Jan. 29, 1986).

5. Other Sunshine Law Rulings:Other examples of sunshine law
rulings\:

a. Routine interviews with applicants for superintendent of education
job should be open to the public. Dale v. Birmingham News, 452 So.
2d 1321 (Ala. 1984).

b. The Birmingham City Council was enjoined from excluding the
public from meetings held to consider appointments to the city board
of education. Miglionico v. Birmingham News, 378 So. 2d 677 (Ala.
1979).

c. Votes by government officials during meetings should be cast
openly and not by secret ballot. In 1990, the Alabama Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit held that where an Alabama city
council that met in executive session as a "committee of the whole"
and held secret ballot for election of council president and president
pro tempore, and then convened a formal council meeting and
unanimously elected by voice vote the same individuals chosen in
the secret ballot, the city council was in violation of the Alabama
sunshine law. The newspaper was held to be entitled to an order
compelling disclosure of persons for whom each council member
voted in the secret ballot election. In that case, the newspaper was
also able to recover reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.

d. A water authority is not required to hold a public hearing on
whether to enter into a water purchase agreement. City of Wetumpka
v. Central Elmore Water Authority, 703 So. 2d 907 (Ala. 1997).

e. The Sunshine Act does not prohibit vote by written ballot under
certain circumstances. Ex parte Shelby Medical Center, Inc., et al.,
564 So. 2d 63 (1990).