CBC 08-13-1994L.R. CITY ATTRYS TEL=371-4675 Apr 18 94 13:12 No.013 P.10
o,f
r\
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Office of the Attorney General
Wr 4"" or"M Z�IiphoM
Atte"My Oorwral 1601 4e=-20
diainton Flo.
August 13, 1991
The Honorable Anarev J. surer
Prosecuting Attorney
rourth Judloial Distriet
reyotteville courthouse
rayettovills, JAR 72701
Dear Mr. riser:
This iR in response to your requ.at for on opinion taragard3nq
the Arkansas Ereedow of Information Act (MIA), which is
Codified at A.C.A. , $15-19-101 I. nws• Yaw question
pertains, epwcifically, to the public ■setings requirement.
A.C.A, S2s-19-1o5. You have set forth the following facts
es forming the basip for your "Atfone
Two elected members of the Fayetteville
city board of Directors and !Me OW
employees rot. with several, city
reeidonts to discuss a proposed street
widening project that of ected those
roe idents. Nv notice tiers given to the
press conceirning this Meeting.
You have asked whether the press should be notified of such
o aeeUng under the MIA, You have also asked for guieranaa
on ►►hat conotitutss s public sestirq under, the sou,
thereby requiring notice to be given.
It is my opinion that the I0e0ting In ell likelihood falls
Within the Poza. The tiwn and ploCe of such a aeetinq
should, therefore, to turnIshed to anyone who requaoto the
information. A.c.h, Sj3-xv-3Qi(b)j_)-
200 Tow#, 5Vyidirl, 723 CtriIo► Sireei 0 l-:11e Ruck. Arkgn»s 72201.2010
L.R. CITY RTTRYS TEL=371-4675 _ ., Apr 18 94 �` :13` No.013 P.11
Honorable Andrew J. Siser
Opinion No. 91-225
!►uqust 19, 1991
^. Page 1
section 29-1e-106(a) etatta that unless othexviss
spocirically provided by low, i°ail meetings, formal or
i nvorsa i, spec t&2 or requl ar, of the governirg bodies of a l l
municipelitiss..,shall be p�+bllc meetings. Alt omgh the
precise facts sat fortis In your request have not been
addramood by the Arkansas supreaa Court, it is by Opinion
that s ign1 f 1Canc! must be attached to the f of lo►►i nq
statement in the use of
moo furk• aas, 044 S"W.24 ?oi (1976):
we can think of no reason for the Act
eptcifying its applicability to informal
meetirgs...unlsss it vas intended to
vov+err informal twt unofficial group
meetings for the direcuosion of
godorrussntal business as distinguished
from those contaots by the individual
members that occur in the daily lives of
every public official.
14, at •14,
The L1 _, IJWdo Aro&dcatstidl'W 9960 ipvolved a conference
attended by the mayor, four of the city'■ sight aldermen,
the city attvrrosy, aPd a U. ea. Dcpartaeent of Justice
reprasentatiw. tt thus stems clamor that the court
prec#iveg the Well meetings r"mirm*nt as extending to a
lite cannot undertake, in the cont0vt of thls opinion,
a thorough discussion of ►ghat constitv"s al *pvblia Beeting"
ritn lrespeet to all of the voriens entities outlined in
lg-ia-lUi(aj. This subseotlon applies to "all
municipalities, aaunties, tovnships, eared school districts
and all boards, butvaus, 00iasions, or orvanizativns of
the State of Arkansas, except grand juries, supported vho]ly
or in part by public funds or expending public funds----'
Reference say be soda to 'Watkins, SWOU-15pet
3$ Ark. L. Rev. 268
(i#64j for a comprehenelve review of the public Meetings
provision of the r01A. It should also be hotel that the
Crf ice of the Attorney General is cv rreretly in the proc'ess
of developing s now F01A handbook, which should be available
for d#ssamirstion within the next few months.
.a
L.R. CITY RTTRYS TEL=371-4675 Apr 18 94 13:13 No.013 P.12
Honorable Andrew J, giver
Opinion No. 91-32S
August 13, lots
�. Pago 3
me t inq of loss than a quorum of the governing body. of
additl,onal sigaltiance, in or opinion, is the court's
relerenoe to the trial court•r order as applying to:
any group weating called by the mayor or
any member of the city council Pt which
moube>rs of tho city council. less in
number than a quorum meet for the
purpose of discussing or taking any
action an any Satter on which
toreso*able action vill be taken by the
city 004"cil.
M-PP
The court -did also state, In its review of the trial court's
oar4er, that it did not interpret that order am applying the
FOIA to a "chance .eating air even a planned Sasting or any
two members of the aity c0unci l . * 19L Read sa ■ Whole,
however, taking into account the, court►s emphasis upon
''meetir►rgs for the discussion of governmental businoss,w it
is my opinion that Vie number of members attending a meatinq
i• "t dispositivo. TAis is Consistent with f ar�el perhaps
foreseeable follwinq the courts decision in Arklaza
garotte co- r. PiCXM, 25i Ark. ie, S23 s.M.zd 330 (1975) ,
in wh14ch the Arkansas w%spr&n* court se j*eted the contention
that a► rro>.mittee of a board Is not subject to the rQ1A,
stating:
[T) i+a conclusion which we have reached
in this asse...is not in any manner
predicated upon the number of board
members conotitutiol the Student Affairs
committee* and our decision would be the
"us It that eowoittet ►r+ero Composed of
a lesser number.
2SS Ark. at 73,
2The use of the term "nesting," hovever, appears to
contemplate nor* than ens member in attendencee in
iiatkiris, *= note 1, at 30L-30a.
L.R. CITY ATTRYS TEL=371-4675 Apr 18 94 13:14 No.013 P.13
Honorable Wrow J. user
Opinion No, 91-Z29
Auquat 1;, 1991
Pogo 4
`rho court in F12kSai •• Aaei,ed. the policy etateeent in the
r01A that ■UWWLS be performed in nn open a114
public manner." 11j, at 74, his alai A.C.A. 1253 19-10Z
(espp?�asis orIgInal). Reference was also made in that
decision to the potential for evasion of the M71A through
closed coumittee meetlrgs- Id... at 75. A sisilar concern
ras expressed In AL-Wrado _Bxoadeas.j;jn9 with respect to
infomaal pre -meeting conferences. 260 Lurk. at v23, pig
i9 eel. kptr. lea,
2e3 Cal.App.24 41 (1968).
It is ay opinion that this concern would in all likelihood
compel the court to refuse to draw a line based on numbers
where, as it aRpebrs from the facts prevented In this
instance, two oity board residers met to diacues a matter
that mill foreseeably be acted Upon by the board of
directors. 1'hs potential for abuse through succwssivs
meetings of two members prior to board action is apparent.
Notice should, in ■y opinion, be given of the meeting in
this Instance.
The toregaInq opinion, which I hereby approve, Vas px:pared
by Deputy Attorney General 1811sabeth A. Masker.
since •1y,
SWW SIRYAN'I'
Attorney Csntral 7
Mti:brb
The City Beautiful Commission
AGENDA
The City Beautiful Commission will hold its regular
meeting Tuesday, May 10, 1994 in the City Board
Conference Room, 2nd floor of City Hall at 10:00 A.M.
I. Roll Call
II. Public Hearing
III. Approval of Minutes _
IV V. Judge David Stewart # nn1 iy, �u •F
�Q 1m 71v::� V . City Beautiful Kids
C. �S5,000 UN �S v'b l
Lot w jZ2l rJ�.�
VI. City Beautiful By -Laws
VII. Lighting Project Update
VIII. Lighting Contest Update --
IX. Parks and Recreation Activities —
X. Miscellaneous
XI. Adjournment
J
rJ
500 West Markham, Room 108 Little Rock, AR 72201 371-4770