Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008

Thomas and Rebecca Arnold own property in Stanley, Idaho and submitted written comments concerning proposed Ordinance 189.
The City noticed three public hearings (5:00, 5:15, 5:30) and a regular council meeting for 6:00 p.m. on August 9, 2012.
The third hearing started five minutes early and the 6:00 p.m. council meeting began at 5:31 p.m.; the City did not amend the notices or otherwise notify the public of the earlier starts.
Ordinance 189 was discussed and adopted at the meeting that began early; the Arnolds’ written comments were read into the record, and they did not attempt to attend or participate in person.
The Arnolds sued under Idaho Code § 67-2347(6) to void actions taken at the meeting as violating the open meeting law; the district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the Arnolds lacked standing because they were not "affected by" the open-meeting violation.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed and awarded attorney fees to the City under I.C. § 12-117, concluding the Arnolds’ appeal lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 67-2347(6) permits a private enforcement suit by someone not directly affected by the procedural open-meeting violation but whose substantive rights were affected by an action taken at the violative meeting	Arnolds: "Affected by" should be read broadly to cover persons whose substantive rights (e.g., property interests) were harmed by an ordinance adopted at a meeting that violated the open-meeting law	City: "Affected by" requires being impacted by the violation itself (e.g., prevented from attending or participating); being affected only by a substantive action is insufficient	Held: § 67-2347(6) limits standing to persons actually affected by the open-meeting violation; Arnolds lacked standing because they suffered no effect from the earlier start time
Whether the City is entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117	Arnolds: their statutory reading was reasonable and a matter of first impression merit	City: the appeal was without reasonable basis in law or fact and merits fees	Held: Fees awarded to City; the appeal lacked a reasonable factual or legal basis given the plain statutory language

Conner v. Hodges, 157 Idaho 19, 333 P.3d 130 (statutory interpretation and summary-judgment standards)
Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning controls)
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 130 Idaho 176, 938 P.2d 1214 (purpose of Idaho open meeting law)
Castrigno v. McQuade, 141 Idaho 93, 106 P.3d 419 (awarding attorney fees where appeal lacked reasonable basis)
Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Ada Cnty., 146 Idaho 862, 204 P.3d 502 (reluctance to award fees in matters of first impression, but not a blanket bar)