Bd. of Dir. of the City of Hot Springs v. Pritchett, 454 S.W.3d 223

In 2011 the Hot Springs Board created a 21-minute public-comment period after regular meetings; the city manager had been televising those public comments.
At a February 8, 2013 workshop/retreat the Board reached a consensus to stop televising the public-comment period; no formal vote at a regular meeting occurred then.
Citizens (including Robert Driggers) challenged the retreat decision under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), arguing the Board’s retreat action required a public vote at a regular meeting.
The Garland County Circuit Court ruled on December 2, 2013 that the Board violated FOIA because the retreat action constituted a policy decision that had to be ratified at a regular public meeting.
After that ruling but before this appeal, the Board voted at a regular public meeting to cease televising the public-comment period, and the circuit court later awarded appellees $3,000 in attorney’s fees and $530 in costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board’s retreat decision violated FOIA	Driggers: retreat decision was a policy action and required a public vote at a regular meeting	Board: decision was administrative/managerial; no vote was required and workshop notice sufficed	Dismissed as moot — Board later ratified decision at a regular meeting; court will not decide the substantive FOIA issue on appeal
Whether mootness exceptions apply	Driggers: (argued to keep case alive implicitly by seeking relief)	Board: case fits exceptions (capable of repetition yet evading review; substantial public interest)	Neither exception applied; appeal of FOIA ruling dismissed as moot
Whether appellees were entitled to attorney’s fees under FOIA	Driggers: prevailed and sought fees and costs	Board: argued on appeal it was substantially justified in its FOIA position (but did not raise this below)	Affirmed — fee award of $3,000 and costs $530 stands; appeal of fee award not moot because fees unpaid; Board failed to raise justification below so cannot raise on appeal
Whether Board preserved its substantial-justification defense	Driggers: N/A	Board: contended it was substantially justified	Held against Board — defense not raised in circuit court; arguments not raised at trial are not considered on appeal

Newman v. Crawford Cnty. Cir. Ct., 2014 Ark. 308 (general mootness principle)
Etherly v. Newsome, 2013 Ark. 391 (exceptions to mootness: capable of repetition yet evading review; substantial public interest)
Parmley v. Moose, 317 Ark. 52 (trial arguments not preserved on appeal are not considered)