Handy v. Lane County
274 Or. App. 644
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff, a former Lane County commissioner, sued Lane County and three commissioners alleging violations of Oregon’s Public Meetings Law for (1) holding an emergency meeting without required minutes and without stating an emergency justifying less-than-24-hour notice and (2) engaging in private deliberations (serial communications) among a quorum to decide whether to release a letter from an attorney (the Thayer letter).
- Events: after a citizen complained about plaintiff’s fundraising solicitation, the county received Thayer’s letter; media requested the letter; county staff and three commissioners (the Agenda Team) exchanged emails and calls and scheduled a 9:00 a.m. emergency meeting the next morning; three commissioners voted to release the letter and did so shortly after the meeting.
- Defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s claims under Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute (ORS 31.150); the trial court granted the motion, dismissed the complaint, and awarded defendants fees.
- On appeal, plaintiff challenged (a) the trial court’s grant of the anti‑SLAPP motion and dismissal of his two Public Meetings Law claims and (b) denial of discovery and the fee award.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether defendants established that the claims arose from protected speech and whether plaintiff produced substantial evidence of a prima facie case to survive the anti‑SLAPP motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 192.630(2) prohibits a quorum from "meeting" via sequential/serial communications (i.e., aggregation of one‑on‑one calls/emails) to deliberate toward a decision | Serial communications among a quorum (emails, calls) amounted to private deliberation/decision about releasing the Thayer letter | The statute covers only contemporaneous gatherings (convening of a quorum); administrative/pre‑meeting logistics (whether to call a meeting) are not prohibited | A quorum can be deemed to have "met" via serial communications where, viewed in context, the communications evidence purpose and content of deliberation or decision; plaintiff produced sufficient evidence at this stage to survive anti‑SLAPP review (trial court erred in striking this claim) |
| Whether discussions about whether to call an emergency meeting alone violate ORS 192.630(2) | Such discussions were part of the private deliberative process | Deciding whether to call a meeting is not a "decision" under the statute (it requires no vote) and is administrative, so not covered | Court: discussing whether to schedule a meeting is not a prohibited "decision" because calling a meeting does not meet the statutory definition of "decision" |
| Whether the emergency‑meeting procedural claim (ORS 192.640(3), ORS 192.650) "arises out of" protected speech so anti‑SLAPP applies | Plaintiff framed claim as procedural noncompliance (failure to state emergency and to make minutes) — not an attack on protected speech | Defendants argued the complaint effectively attacks the decision to release the letter (protected) and so is subject to anti‑SLAPP review | Anti‑SLAPP does not apply to the emergency‑meeting procedural claim because its factual basis is defendants’ alleged failure to follow statutory meeting procedures (trial court erred in striking this claim) |
| Whether defendants were entitled to attorney fees under ORS 31.152(3) after prevailing on the anti‑SLAPP motion | N/A (fee award follows defendants' victory) | N/A | Because the anti‑SLAPP motion was improperly granted, the fee award is vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 (Or. Ct. App.) (explaining standard of review and evidentiary approach on anti‑SLAPP motions)
- Clackamas River Water v. Holloway, 261 Or App 852 (Or. Ct. App.) (describing anti‑SLAPP purpose and procedure)
- Young v. Davis, 259 Or App 497 (Or. Ct. App.) (two‑step burden shifting under ORS 31.150; plaintiff’s low probability standard explained)
- Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguishing informal social gatherings from deliberations; legislative history supports separate analysis for private deliberations)
- Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Members of Redevelopment Agency, 171 Cal App 3d 95 (Cal. Ct. App.) (California Brown Act case recognizing that serial communications can form a collective decision and informing Oregon’s interpretation)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal 4th 363 (Cal. 1993) (holding Brown Act intent cannot be evaded by sequential communications)
- Greene v. Bank of America, 216 Cal App 4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App.) (anti‑SLAPP standard: a true SLAPP lacks even minimal merit)