City of New Carrollton v. Rogers, 33

• Decision Date: 08 February 1980
• Docket Number: No. 33,33
• Parties: CITY OF NEW CARROLLTON v. James W. ROGERS et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 56

287 Md. 56

410 A.2d 1070

CITY OF NEW CARROLLTON v. James W. ROGERS et al.

No. 33.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 8, 1980.

John R. Foran, College Park (Horowitz, Oneglia, Goldstein, Foran & Parker, P. A., College Park, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward C. Gibbs, Jr. and Russell W. Shipley, Upper Marlboro (Shipley, Knight, Manzi & Zanecki, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, ^* COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Chapter 863 of the Acts of 1977, now codified as Maryland Code (1957, 1975 Repl. Vol., 1979 Cum. Supp.), Art. 76A, §§ 7-15, and commonly known as the Sunshine Law (the Act), requires that meetings of public bodies, with designated exceptions, be open to the public. The principal issue in this case is whether the Council of the City of New Carrollton (the City Council) violated the Act in conducting certain meetings pertaining to the possible annexation of areas adjoining the city known as the Metro East Triangle (MET) and West Lanham Hills.

(1)

Codified under the subtitle "Meetings of Public Bodies," the Act provides in § 7 that "(i)t is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that except in special and appropriate circumstances public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy." The Act applies only to public bodies "exercising legislative, quasi-legislative or advisory functions." ¹ § 9. By the express provisions of § 9, the Act does not apply to "a public body when exercising executive, judicial or quasi-judicial functions." A "Public body " is defined by the Act, § 8(g), to include the legislative body of a municipality. Section 10 requires that "meetings of every public body shall be open to the public," unless they are authorized to be closed as within enumerated exceptions contained in § 11. A "Meeting " is defined in § 8(f) to mean:

"the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body for the purpose of considering or transacting public business. It does not include chance encounters, social gatherings, or other occasions which are not designed or intended for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this subtitle."

Section 12 requires that a public body "give reasonable advance notice of its open meetings." In this regard, the section provides that "(w)henever reasonable under all the circumstances," the notice be in writing and include the date, time and place of the meeting. Section 12(c)(3) provides that the required notice may be given by posting at a convenient public location at or near the place of the meeting, "if prior public notice has been given that this method will be used." Section 13 requires every public body subject to the Act to keep written minutes of all its meetings, reflecting the items considered and the actions taken, together with any recorded vote. The section provides that the minutes "shall be prepared as soon as practicable under the circumstances," and designates them as public records, open to public inspection. Section 14 provides that any person "adversely affected" by an action in violation of § 10 (requiring that meetings be open to the public) and § 12 (requiring that public notice be given) may file suit to compel compliance "with the provisions of these sections, determining the applicability of these sections, or voiding the action." Section 14(c) creates a presumption "that the public body did not violate §§ 10 or 12"; it also provides that "the burden of proving a violation is on the complainant." Section 14(e) authorizes the court to issue an injunction "to determine the applicability of this subtitle to the discussions or decisions of public bodies, or to grant such other relief as may be appropriate." Section 14(e)(2) authorizes the court to "declare void any final action taken at a meeting held in wilful violation of §§ 10 or 12 . . . if the court finds that no other remedy would be adequate under the circumstances."

(2)

On October 2, 1978, a number of property owners affected by New Carrollton's proposal to annex the MET and West Lanham Hills sued the City, the Mayor and the City Council, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged that beginning at a time prior to August 16, 1978 the date upon which they claimed that the annexation proposal was first divulged to the public the Mayor and City Council "secretly embarked" upon a "positive scheme," consummated by closed meetings held in violation of the Act, to bring about the desired annexation. As a consequence of these "secret meetings," the complainants asserted that they were denied the opportunity to participate in the functioning of government, and to voice their opinions regarding the annexation process when it was in its formative stages. In view of the alleged violations of the Act's provisions, the complainants prayed that the "actions taken by the Mayor and City Council at all closed meetings dealing with the issue of annexation" be declared void and that an injunction be issued prohibiting the defendants from going forward with the annexation process.

The defendants, answering the suit, denied that the City Council and Mayor met in secret sessions in connection with the annexation proposal. They claimed that the challenged meetings of the Council were open to the public and were preceded by public notice, as required by the Act. In addition, the defendants asserted that minutes of the meetings were taken and made available for public inspection.

On October 4, 1978, two days after the plaintiffs had filed their suit, a resolution of annexation was introduced in the City Council to annex the MET, West Lanham Hills, and other designated areas adjoining the City's boundaries. The resolution recited that, as required by Maryland Code (1957, 1973 Repl. Vol.) Art. 23A, § 19, consent for the annexation had been obtained from not less than 25% Of the registered voters residing in the areas to be annexed, as well as from the owners of not less than 25% Of the assessed valuation of the real property located in the areas to be annexed. As required by § 19, the City Council, on November 21, 1978, held a public hearing on the resolution, adopting it thereafter on January 3, 1979. On February 7, 1979, a petition was presented to the Council to hold a referendum on the resolution, as authorized by § 19 of Art. 23A. On February 13, 1979, in accordance with the provisions of § 19, the Council provided for a referendum to be held on March 17, 1979, thereby suspending the effectiveness of the resolution pending the results of the referendum election.

On March 5 and 6, 1979, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Bowen, J.) conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing into the merits of the plaintiffs' action. Evidence was adduced showing that in late 1977 the City's Advisory Planning Committee (APC), an executive-branch agency established within the Mayor's office, was requested to study the annexation of areas adjoining New Carrollton. The APC met on December 8, 1977, January 12, February 9 and March 9, 1978, and discussed various annexation proposals. One of the proposals discussed was the annexation of the MET, a valuable tract of commercial and industrial properties adjoining New Carrollton's boundaries. The APC meetings were open to the public, and minutes taken at these meetings disclosed in a general way that annexation proposals were discussed. Neither the City Council nor any of its members attended these meetings.

On March 16, 1978, a "Special Workshop" meeting of the City Council was convened at the request of the Mayor for the purpose of considering the subject of annexation. Notice of the meeting was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall. It stated:

"The City Council will meet in a Workshop Session at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, March 16, 1978, at City Hall.

The following topic will be discussed:

I. Annexation proposal."

The meeting was attended by a quorum of the City Council, the Mayor, his administrative officer, and members of the West Lanham Hills Citizens Association (WLHCA), who had been invited to attend the meeting. The minutes of the meeting disclosed that the APC annexation study was discussed, together with various aspects and implications of the annexation process. Specific reference was made in the minutes to "the possible annexation of West Lanham Hills and the Metro Triangle." The minutes also indicated that the President of WLHCA stated that he looked with favor upon such an annexation proposal and would discuss it with his Board of Directors.

The City Council held another "Special Workshop" meeting on March 23, 1978 at City Hall. Public notice of the date, time and place of this meeting was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall; it was identical in format to the notice posted for the March 16 meeting. As before, the notice announced that the topic to be discussed at the meeting was "Annexation proposal." A quorum of the City Council was present, together with the Mayor, his administrative officer, and invited officers and directors of WLHCA. Minutes taken at the meeting reflected that WLHCA had voted on March 19 in favor of the annexation and "requested the City Council to proceed with the necessary procedures."

The posting of public notice of the Council's meetings of March 16 and 23, 1978 on the bulletin board at City Hall was in accordance with § 12(c) of the Act, which authorized this method of giving notice "if prior public notice has been given that this method will be used." Consistent with this requirement, the City, on July 28, 1977, in two county newspapers, had given "Public Notice" that pursuant to the requirements of the Act, "notice of scheduled meetings of the City Council, special and workshop sessions, and...