City of Fort Smith v. Wade, 578 S.W.3d 276

Background

Fort Smith hired a new police chief who sought to change Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules to allow external candidates for sergeant and higher; a CSC meeting on May 22, 2017, did not adopt the changes.
Between May 21–31, 2017, three city directors and the city administrator exchanged emails discussing the CSC issue, options for action (including dissolution), and opinions about supporting the chief.
Bruce Wade sued, alleging the May emails constituted meetings in violation of Arkansas FOIA's open-meeting provisions; later added individual directors as defendants after further email responses about a proposed settlement.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to Wade; the City appealed arguing (1) email cannot constitute a FOIA meeting and (2) the email content was non-decisional/background material.
The Arkansas Supreme Court held that FOIA’s open‑meeting provisions can apply to emails but concluded, on these facts, the exchanged emails were informational/unilateral or unsolicited responses and did not constitute a meeting; it reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether email exchanges can constitute a FOIA "meeting"	Wade: electronic exchanges among officials can be meetings and must be public	City: FOIA has not been amended to include email; emails should not be treated as meetings	Court: Emails and electronic communications can constitute FOIA meetings generally
Whether the May 21–31 emails here constituted a meeting	Wade: those emails discussed public business and sought support, so violated FOIA	City: emails were background/non-decisional information provided in advance of public meeting	Court: On these facts, emails were informational with unsolicited responses and did not amount to a meeting; no FOIA violation in this instance
Whether precedent like Harris (telephone polls) requires statutory amendment before applying FOIA to email	Wade: analogizes email to phone communications that can form meetings	City: legislative silence means email should be excluded absent explicit statutory language	Court: Court precedent and liberal FOIA construction support treating emails like telephonic contacts; Legislature can change law if desired
Remedy and further proceedings	Wade sought concessions and attorney fees; proposed settlement would bar future informal email meetings without notice	City opposed and appealed summary judgment and some costs rulings	Court reversed circuit court's judgment for Wade and remanded for entry of order consistent with opinion; limited costs awarded previously were not disturbed

Key Cases Cited

Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 359 Ark. 355 (Ark. 2004) (telephone polls/one‑on‑one contacts can constitute FOIA meetings)
Rehab. Hosp. Servs. Corp. v. Delta-Hills Health Sys. Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397 (Ark. 1986) (telephone poll with notice may be an open meeting)
McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith, 2012 Ark. 452 (Ark. 2012) (informational memoranda to board members that do not solicit responses or produce exchanges are not FOIA meetings)
El Dorado v. El Dorado Broad. Co., 260 Ark. 821 (Ark. 1976) (definition and scope of informal meetings under FOIA)