Is the North Carolina Property Tax Commission subject to the Open Meetings Law, and if so, can it close its adjudicatory deliberations to the public?

Plain-English summary

The North Carolina Property Tax Commission hears appeals from local property-tax determinations. A county assessor values a parcel; the taxpayer appeals to the county board of equalization and review; if dissatisfied, the taxpayer may appeal to the state Property Tax Commission, which acts as the state board of equalization and review. The Commission conducts evidentiary hearings, takes testimony and exhibits, and then enters findings of fact and conclusions of law that resolve the appeal.

The Commission asked the AG two related questions. First, did the Open Meetings Law in Article 33C of Chapter 143 cover the Commission at all? Second, if so, did the law require the Commission's adjudicatory deliberations (the part where members talk among themselves to decide how to rule on each appeal) to be open to the public?

Senior Deputy Attorney General Reginald L. Watkins and Special Deputy Attorney General George W. Boylan answered yes and no, respectively.

On coverage: the Commission is an administrative and quasi-judicial body. § 143-318.10(b) defines a "public body" broadly enough to capture quasi-judicial state agencies that conduct public business. The Property Tax Commission falls squarely within that definition. The Open Meetings Law therefore applies.

On the adjudicatory-deliberations question: § 143-318.18(7) creates an explicit exclusion for sessions convened by public bodies subject to the Executive Budget Act and held solely to make decisions in adjudicatory proceedings. The Property Tax Commission is covered by the Executive Budget Act under § 143-2 because it receives and spends state funds. So when the Commission convenes to deliberate after the evidentiary hearing and to reach the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by § 105-290(b)(3), it may do so behind closed doors. The exclusion is discretionary, meaning the Commission can keep its deliberations public if it wants, but the statute does not require open deliberations for adjudicatory decisions.

The opinion is short and direct. The takeaway for the Commission's members: open the evidentiary hearing as the Open Meetings Law requires, close the post-hearing deliberation if you choose, but be careful to keep the substantive decision points within the deliberative session and not blur them into general Commission policy discussions that have to stay open.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The Open Meetings Law and its exclusions have been amended multiple times. § 143-318.18(7) has been restructured. The Executive Budget Act has been replaced by the State Budget Act, codified at N.C.G.S. Ch. 143C. Anyone applying these rules today should work from the current statutes.

Background and statutory framework

North Carolina's open-government laws are organized around a strong public-meeting presumption. § 143-318.9 declares that public bodies "exist to conduct the people's business" and must therefore meet in public. Closed sessions are allowed only when a specific statutory exception authorizes the closure.

The exception in § 143-318.18(7) for adjudicatory decisions reflects a structural choice the General Assembly made when deciding how to apply the Open Meetings Law to public bodies that act as decisionmakers in individual cases. Adjudication is different from policymaking. When a body sits as a judge over a particular dispute, the deliberative process is closer to a court's chambers conference than to a city council debate. Forcing public-body adjudicators to deliberate in open session would inhibit candid exchange among the members, slow the process, and pull deliberation toward performance rather than analysis.

The Executive Budget Act tie-in was the General Assembly's way of limiting the exclusion to state-level bodies. Local bodies (county boards, town councils, special-purpose boards) generally fall outside the Executive Budget Act. By tying the exclusion to Act coverage, the legislature kept the adjudicatory-closure exception to state agencies and state commissions. Local bodies that conduct quasi-judicial proceedings have their own statutory frameworks, including the quasi-judicial provisions in Chapter 160A and 153A and the contested-case provisions in Chapter 150B.

The Property Tax Commission's adjudicatory work is heavy. Property tax appeals are factually intensive, often involving comparable-sales analyses, income-approach valuations, and complex regulatory questions. The Commission's findings have to be specific enough to support appellate review by the courts under the Administrative Procedure Act. Allowing closed deliberation lets the Commission talk through these issues frankly before committing to a written ruling.

Common questions

Is the Property Tax Commission's evidentiary hearing open to the public?

Yes. The Open Meetings Law requires that any meeting of a public body, including evidentiary hearings, be open to the public unless a specific exception applies. The adjudicatory-decision exception in § 143-318.18(7) applies to the deliberative session after the hearing, not to the evidentiary hearing itself.

Can the Commission discuss other Commission business in a closed adjudicatory session?

No. The exclusion in § 143-318.18(7) is narrow. It allows closure for sessions "convened solely to make decisions in adjudicatory proceedings." Mixing non-adjudicatory business into a closed adjudicatory session would defeat the exclusion.

Does the closure apply to the Commission's written decision?

No. The written decision must be publicly available. § 105-290(b)(3) requires the Commission to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing. Those findings and conclusions become part of the public record of the proceeding.

What is the Executive Budget Act?

The Executive Budget Act was the framework governing state budget preparation, appropriation, and execution. It was located in Article 1 of Chapter 143. State agencies and commissions that received and spent state funds were subject to its provisions. The Act was substantially replaced by the State Budget Act in Chapter 143C in 2006, but the open-meetings tie-in still works similarly with respect to state-level adjudicators.

Why was the Commission asking?

A Forsyth County official had received a January 3, 1996, advisory letter from the AG's Office stating that the Open Meetings Law covered the Commission. The county shared the letter with Commission members and warned them of possible personal liability for open-meetings violations. The Commission, understandably concerned, asked the AG to clarify how the law would apply to adjudicatory sessions in particular.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/application-of-the-open-meetings-law-to-north-carolina-property-tax-commission/

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 105-288 (State Property Tax Commission; powers)
• N.C.G.S. § 105-290(b), (b)(3) (Commission as state board of equalization; findings of fact and conclusions of law)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-2 (Executive Budget Act coverage)
• N.C.G.S. Ch. 143, Art. 33C (Open Meetings Law)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-318.10(b) (public body definition)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-318.18(7) (adjudicatory-deliberations exclusion)

Original opinion text

February 19, 1996

Janet L. Shires, Secretary Property Tax Commission Post Office Box 871 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Re: Advisory Opinion; Application of the Open Meetings Law to North Carolina Property Tax Commission; Article 33C of Chapter 143; G.S. § 105-290; G.S. §§ 143-2 and 318.18(7).

Dear Ms. Shires:

By letter of 3 January 1996 we advised a Forsyth County official that the North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("Commission") is covered by the Open Meetings Law codified within Article 33C of Chapter 143. The County has presented the letter to the Commission and has alerted its members to possible personal liability for open meetings violations. You request our opinion on the narrower question as to how the law may affect the Commission's adjudicatory sessions.

Our earlier letter is entirely correct. The Commission is an administrative and quasi judicial body functioning as the State board of equalization and review. G.S. §§ 105-288 and 290(b). So constituted, it qualifies as a "public body" as defined by G.S. § 143-318.10(b), falling squarely within the open meetings provisions of Chapter 143.

As part of its quasi judicial duties, the Commission enters findings of fact and conclusions of law "after" the full evidentiary hearings it conducts for taxpayer/appellants. G.S. § 105-290(b)(3).

G.S. § 143-318.18(7) specifically excludes from open meetings requirements sessions convened by public bodies subject to the Executive Budget Act and held solely to make decisions in an adjudicatory proceeding. The Commission is covered by the Executive Budget Act since it receives and expends State funds. G.S. § 143-2. Consequently, G.S. § 143-318.18(7) authorizes the Commission in its discretion to close adjudicatory sessions conducted under G.S. § 105-290(b)(3).

We hope you find the foregoing helpful.

Reginald L. Watkins Senior Deputy Attorney General

George W. Boylan Special Deputy Attorney General