Attorney General's Opinion 1971-72 #467A

April 11, 1972

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COWAN
Commonwealth's Attorney of King George County

71-72 467A

I am in receipt of your letter of April 6, 1972, which reads:

"The King George County Board of Supervisors is currently holding closed meetings with the School Board concerning the budget pursuant to § 2.1-344(7) of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended. Immediately upon convening of the meeting, the Board will vote to go into closed session and will thereafter take up the business at hand. We have received a request from a citizen of this State pursuant to §2.1-343 that he be notified as to all meetings of the Board. His request includes that he receive notice of these meetings with the School Board which will be closed meetings pursuant to vote taken when the meeting convenes.

"Is the Board required by law to give this individual notice of these closed meetings?"

I am enclosing herein the opinions of this office to the Honorable William J. McGhee, County Attorney of Montgomery County, dated October 18, 1971 [71-72 Va. AG 466], and to the Honorable James E. Baylor, Secretary, Electoral Board, City of Norfolk, dated April 15, 1969, and found in 68-69 Va. AG 261, which are applicable to your inquiry.

As ruled in the McGhee opinion, § 2.1-343 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which reads: "Except as otherwise specifically provided by law and except as provided in §§ 2.1-344 and 2.1-345, all meetings shall be public meetings. Information as to the time and place of each meeting shall be furnished to any citizen of this State who requests such information." is applicable only to "public meetings", defined as "a meeting at which the public may be present." § 2.1-341(d).

A closed or executive meeting however, cannot be held unless first there is an open meeting wherein an affirmative vote is taken, allowing an executive session to be held. This vote is taken in open session and would, in my opinion, be a public meeting, and one to which § 2.1-343 would be applicable. Consequently, it would be one which a citizen would be entitled to notice as to the time and place of the meeting.

The McGhee opinion raised the factual situation wherein an open meeting was held, an affirmative vote to go into executive session taken, and the executive session was to be held at a later time. Under these circumstances, § 2.1-343 would be inapplicable as to the convening of the closed meeting.

In the factual situation you describe, it is apparent that an open or public meeting is called. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the board is required, by law, to furnish the individual notice of such a meeting, giving him an opportunity to attend, even though the board can immediately vote to go into closed session.

You indicate that the individual in question also requested that he be notified as to all meetings of the board. As ruled in the Baylor opinion, the board is not required to maintain a mailing list, but must give out such information upon request concerning the holding of any public meeting.