Hughes Bros., Inc. v. Town of Eddington
130 A.3d 978
Me.2016Background
- Hughes Bros. sought permits to operate a quarry; Planning Board denied a 20-acre proposal and recommended a moratorium; later drafts of a moratorium ordinance were prepared.
- On January 29, 2014 the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen held a publicly announced joint meeting and then entered a combined executive session stating its purpose as “Consultation with Legal Counsel” under the FOAA exception (1 M.R.S. § 405(6)(E)).
- The joint executive session lasted ~80 minutes; drafts of a moratorium ordinance were prepared around that time; no ordinance was finally adopted in executive session.
- Subsequent public proceedings culminated in a town meeting vote (April 8, 2014) adopting a moratorium ordinance; Planning Board halted further action on Hughes’s application pending the moratorium.
- Hughes sued in Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the executive session violated the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) and rendered the moratorium void; the trial court ruled for the Town and Hughes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stated purpose of the executive session was legally sufficient and the session was limited to that purpose | Hughes: Purpose description was inadequate and the session exceeded permissible scope (improperly involved drafting legislative text) | Town: Session was properly noticed as consultation with counsel about legal rights/duties and limited to drafting compliant ordinance language | Court: The record shows the session was for permitted consultation with counsel, narrowly confined to legal advice about drafting; no final action occurred in executive session, so FOAA complied |
| Whether two municipal boards may hold a joint executive session to consult counsel | Hughes: FOAA does not permit joint executive sessions of separate municipal boards | Town: FOAA does not prohibit joint sessions; shared counsel advice is permissible and fiscally prudent | Court: FOAA contains no bar to joint executive sessions; combined consultation with counsel is lawful if statutory conditions are met |
| Whether any final approval of the moratorium occurred in executive session | Hughes: The moratorium was effectively approved via secret deliberations | Town: No final approval occurred; formal adoption was by public town meeting vote | Court: Final adoption occurred publicly at the town meeting; executive session did not effect final approval, so §405(2) not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Blethen Me. Newspapers, Inc. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 947 A.2d 479 (Me. 2008) (upheld executive session where record showed permissible purpose and adherence to scope)
- Underwood v. City of Presque Isle, 715 A.2d 148 (Me. 1998) (public body bears burden to prove compliance with FOAA exceptions for executive sessions)
- Vella v. Town of Camden, 677 A.2d 1051 (Me. 1996) (concerning when official action is considered finally approved)
- Dow v. Caribou Chamber of Commerce & Indus., 884 A.2d 667 (Me. 2005) (stating FOAA’s purpose to open public proceedings)
- Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of Me. v. Bureau of Ins., 866 A.2d 117 (Me. 2005) (statutory exceptions to openness are strictly interpreted)