Sheila Anolik v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport
64 A.3d 1171
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege the February 23, 2009 Newport Zoning Board agenda item violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to specify the nature of the business.
- Defendant board had previously approved a two-year extension for Congregation Jeshuat Israel’s improvements with a March 24, 2009 decision imposing deadlines and progress-report requirements.
- Agenda item stated: ‘IV. Communications: Request for Extension from Turner Scott received 11/30/08 Re: Petition of Congregation Jeshuat Israel.’
- Plaintiffs filed a Superior Court complaint on August 21, 2009 seeking injunctive relief and voiding the extension.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants; plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding the agenda item violated the Act.
- Court concluded the item failed to describe the nature of the business and did not identify the property or matter affected, rendering notice insufficient under § 42-46-6(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the agenda item satisfy § 42-46-6(b)’s ‘statement specifying the nature of the business’? | Anolik argued the item was vague and lacking specificity. | Board and Turner Scott argued Tanner’s flexible standard allowed fair notice under the circumstances. | No; agenda item failed to fairly inform the public. |
| Was labeling the item as ‘Communications’ sufficient to convey potential action on the extension? | Notice should indicate the extension and its implications. | Agenda categories allowed for communications review and possible action. | Not sufficient; failed to describe the purpose or action to be taken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanner v. Town Council of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784 (R.I. 2005) (flexible standard for ‘statement specifying the nature of the business’ under totality of circumstances)
- Solas v. Emergency Hiring Council of Rhode Island, 774 A.2d 820 (R.I. 2001) (Open Meetings Act construed in favor of public access)
- North End Realty, LLC v. Mattos, 25 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2011) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in Open Meetings Act context)
- Pichardo v. Stevens, 55 A.3d 762 (R.I. 2012) (de novo standard for summary judgment in statutory claims)