*1 get attorney’s seeking condemnor cannot fees un- to condemn the Stewarts’ real property. pre- der Rule 82 in the initial determina- Because the Civil State was the vailing party on However, the issues unrelated to the tion of a condemnation action. claim, State’s it is attorney’s entitled to we also held that if condemnee asserts fees.3 basically counterclaims that are common (such negligence),
law actions as the con- above, For the reasons stated AF- demnor can be awarded costs if it is the FIRM the trial court. prevailing party on those issues. stat-We
ed:
The issue raised the defendants con- cerning damages parking pave- lot involving charge neg-
ment was one a ligent negligent construction or failure to properly repave the areas affected HAYES, Barnes, Joe Ramona Mitch activity. construction Pursuant Abood, Adams, Al Charles Bussell City’s request, the trial court should Terry Martin, Appellants, required have the owners here to file a v. event, any counterclaim tort. CHARNEY, M.R. Executive Director of City emerged prevailing party as the Legislative Council, Hugh Malone, proved what to be a successful defense Council, Chairman of the against an essentially common law ac- Mullin, Bill Director of Finance of the Therefore, tion. it violates neither the Alaska, Department State of Admin language policy 72(k) nor the of Rule if istration, Rudd, Lisa Commissioner of attorney’s costs and relating fees to that Alaska, Department the State of of Ad City defense are awarded to the in ac- ministration, and Roark-Harmon Asso cordance with the civil rules allo- ciates, Appellees. cating expenses ordinary such in an civil MULLIN, Rudd, Bill Lisa suit. Cross-Appellants, Id. at 1178. find analogous We the case at bar HAYES, Barnes, Joe Ramona Mitch litigated Scavenius. Abood, Adams, Al Charles Bussell parties agreed after the State to the dis Martin, Terry Cross-Appellees. missal were unrelated to the eminent do brought by main action State. When Nos. 7860. sought temporary Stewarts restrain Supreme Court of Alaska. preliminary injunction, order and a they Jan. sought only prevent the State from re
moving building trees and retaining from property. wall on the State’s own These issues were not related to the State’s action Valdez, City taking,
3. In Williams v.
purported
James David Smith, Gruening, Anchorage, Robinson & appellants. for Bradley, Finley, B. Rob- James Pamela ertson, Monagle, Eastaugh & Ju- neau, appellee Charney. for Rubini, Atty. Gen., Jonathan B. Asst. Juneau, Gorsuch, Atty. and Norman C. Gen., Juneau, appellees/cross-appel- for Rudd and Mullin. lants BURKE, C.J., Before and RABINOW- ITZ, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.
OPINION
BURKE, Chief Justice. dispute
This arose out of the award tele- coverage of the activities of the Thir- vision (hereinafter Legislature.1 Television cov- tin collectively teenth Alaska referred to as past erage ninety days first ses- Legislators”)2 “the complaint filed a in the budgets funded from the superior sions had been against Charney, defendants Department of Education or the Alaska Malone, Mullin, (hereinafter and Rudd col- Broadcasting Educational Commission. State”),3 lectively referred as “the Coverage past the first nine- that continued Associates, requesting Roark-Harmon ty days session funded from had been *3 performance enjoin to the of contract supplemental appropriations Legisla- to the with In support Roark-Harmon. of their Agency, through tive which Affairs the complaint, Legislators alleged, among the 1983, Legislative acts. for Council the other things, that all actions taken at the years, specif- first time in five was no there 4, January 1983, meeting Council’s were appropriation coverage. ic for television void, complied as the Council had not with Legislative meeting At a on Council No- the requirements “reasonable notice” of 16, 1982, Kelly noted vember Senator that Open Meetings They Alaska’s Act.4 also plans coverage had no for television been argued possess that Council the did not the made, whereupon the Council decided to or statutory authority constitutional to 8, solicit proposals. On December the award a for coverage. television the it proposals Council referred had re- More particularly, the Legislators alleged review; ceived to committee for at a that the intentionally not 1983, 4, meeting January held thirteen appropriated any funds for television cover- days before the full was sched- age, coverage, and that to for such convene, uled to decided award the the appropriated Council used monies for filming legisla- contract for the of 1983 so, purposes. other In doing Legisla- tive session to Roark-Harmon Associates. claimed, usurped tors legisla- the Council 12, 1983, Representatives power tive and On in violation of 1, Barnes, Abood, II, Hayes, Joe Ramona Mitch article of section the Alaska Constitu- Adams, Terry A1 argued legisla- Charles Bussell and Mar- tion.5 The State (a) meetings permanent legislative body, 1. The Council is a inter- All of a agency regents, im committee and service of the Alaska board or of of an administrative Legislature. board, commission, committee, AS body, 24.20.010. Its existence man- sub- II, committee, council, dated article the Alaska authority, agency, or oth- president composed It is Constitution. of the organization, including er subordinate units him, appointed by six the senate and senators groups, any of the above of the state or of its speaker representa- and the of the house and six subdivisions, councils, political including ... appointed by tives him. AS 24.20.020. The divisions, bureaus, ..., ... commissions ad- provides “full-time technical assistance otherwise, visory or or the state local research, accomplishing reporting ... government supported part by or in in whole and administrative services essential to public spend money public or authorized to development legislation pub- of sound in the except money, open public are as other- purpose, lic interest." AS 24.20.010. For provided by Except wise this section. when granted pow- broad authorized, voice votes are the vote shall be ers. AS 24.20.060. public in such a conducted may manner that person vote of entitled know the each "Legislators,” appellants, six 2. The are members vote.... Representatives of the House of includ- (b) subjects excepted If are to discussed ing Speaker Hayes Majority Leader Barnes. meeting, at a first must be con- public meeting vened as a and ... "State," comprised appellees, the 3. The are Charney, Legisla- M.R. Executive Director (e) given Reasonable notice shall be Council; Malone, Representative Hugh tive meetings required open for all to be under Council; Chairman of the lin, Bill Mul- this section. Director Finance of the State of (f) contrary Action taken to this section is Administration; Rudd, Department Lisa void. Alaska, Depart- Commissioner State of Const, ment of Administration. provides: legis- art. 1 "The § 5.Alaska power legisla- lative of the State is vested in a provides pertinent part: consisting membership of a senate 44.62.310 ture with a exception in funding pri- for The prohibited interest
ture had never session, main of three fac coverage of volves consideration television vate 1) allocation issues specific disputed are a mere omission of tors: whether the legislative intent. repetition, indicator of the moot not an was doctrine, may repeatedly if applied, ness Legisla- superior court denied and, 3) review of the issues circumvent and dis- request injunctive relief tor’s impor presented are so no finding it involved missed justify tant that, if the questions6 and even justiciable overriding E.g., the mootness doctrine. presented justiciable, questions were Etheredge 502 P.2d granting the case not favor equities of did 1972); Johansen v. requested. the relief (Alaska 1971). These factors are which the equitable considerations strictly not determinative them compelling included superior court found merely aspect Each is one selves. filing delay in Legislators’ three month public interest question of whether the dic *4 non-judi- suit, the existence of alternative Ultimately, review this court. the tates remedies,7 public the interest avoid- cial to a moot determination whether review “contracting by injunction,” and defer- to of question is left the discretion the government. of ence to a coordinate branch 1065, Watkins, P.2d court. v. 579 Witt appellants The seek to two issues (Alaska 1978); Etheredge 1071 n. 19 v. 1) the present to this court are: 153; State, 502 P.2d v. at R.L.R. Legislative Council the Alaska violated 27, (Alaska 1971). case, In 487 P.2d 45 this giving Act reason Open Meetings by not no hold that neither the “reasonable Legislative notice and whether the able power” the “usurption tice” issue nor of unconstitutionally usurped the Council present public import issue matters of such pub power legislature appropriate to justify invoking exception an to the do the merits of lic funds. We not reach mootness doctrine. claims, however, we refrain these because First, public importance we examine the deciding questions “where the facts from concerning of the issue the Council’s al- the moot.” Doe legal have rendered leged provisions of notice of violation the 1971). In 53 Meetings Open the Act. legislative session is the over, and the contract in has been Legislators allege The do not fully performed by parties. judg A both meeting the Council of advisory only. ment this court be would actually public. the How was closed to ever, Legislators us invoke they
The would have do contend that the Council’s exception interest to the moot- a public the failure to follow standardized notification “[Wjhere Open Meetings the matter is one procedure ness doctrine: violated the Act public par grave public deprived right concern and is recurrent the of its to and review, evading ticipate making,8 arguing is we have law the but “reasonable”, though ques- given review effec undertaken even notice was not may technically tively closing meeting public.9 tion moot.” Id. to the twenty representatives Open Meetings and a with a 8. The Alaska Act enacted house of was to forty.” membership provide opportunity the citizens to with an at- participate agency meetings. tend in all suggests controversy 6. The trial that the opportunity specifically is This fostered justiciable may not be because it involves a requirement public that reasonable notice be political question. 44.62.310(e). given public. to the Council, Legislature Legislative under 7. The primarily This notice consisted contract, solicitation X Clause Roark-Harmon newspapers, press bids in the of coverage with limited power legislature to The also terminate it. possibly in Juneau and elsewhere has the to the actions of the influence the state. through legislation. itself Council impose Thus, legislature power this court to has the they urge constitutional to reasonableness, prohibit in terms of definition of such actions.12 matter, subject in order to timeliness and moot. appeal is dismissed as SO meetings.10 council avoid future “closed” ORDERED. would Judicial review this issue Ar do little to further interest. WITZ, Justice, with RABINO whom 12 of the
ticle
Alaska Constitu COMPTON, Justice, joins, dissenting.
gives
power
tion
I dissent from the court’s refusal
to
rules,11
duty
its own
to establish
merits
appellant’s
reach the
claim that
Legislative
subject
is
to the sole
Open
Council violated the
If
legislature.
direction and
control
Meetings
by failing
Act
to
reason-
notice
change
to
wishes
for a January
able notice
at
procedures
meet
which the council
awarded a
impose
require
ings,
only
the notice
need
legislative
film
my
the 1983
session.
ments it deems fit.
exception
view the
interest
Second,
Legislators contend that the
applicable
doctrine is
here
mootness
for the
unconstitutionally
Legislative Council
following reasons:
usurped
power
Accepting
position
the court’s
appropriate public funds.
exception
involves three
argue
I
Legislators
that there
main factors
first address the
legitimate public
determining
interest in
issue is
important
so
*5
constitutionality of
justify overriding
the Council’s action
interest as to
IX,
Alaska
under article
section 13 of the
mootness doctrine.
In Alaska Communi-
Constitution,
Teachers,
money
ty
states that
Colleges’
which
Federation
Local
“[n]o
University Alaska,
shall be
from the
trea
withdrawn
[state]
sury except
appropria
in accordance with
we
noted that
44.62.-
is,
question
law.”
tions made
312 made
clear that
312 of the
therefore,
dispute
primarily
this
between OMA exists
to advance
inter-
people
ests of the
Alaska. There we
significant public
is of such
further observed that when
OMA is
despite
“people’s right
warrant our
its mootness.
it is the
review
breached
to be
not,
We conclude
it is
which
injury.1
because
informed”
sustains
Community Colleges’
authority
10. In Alaska
to control the
Federation
Teachers,
University
specifically precluding
Local No. 2404 v.
funds
the use of
for tele-
(Alaska 1984) (hereafter
Open Meeting I am of the view that particularly invocation of a mootness bar is inapplicable in case. disclosure Public
of the nature and circumstances of an component important an
OMA violation is the Act.2 In remedy available under underlying part, philosophy Alaska’s regarding publicity OMA is that malfunc- salutary have a tioning government will upon government the behavior of effect officials, making responsive them more It follows that the concerns. knowing
has an interest adequate council failed to notice of 4, 1983, meeting. its turn this court, appeal, in this should determine given by whether the notice the council was in fact under the reasonable OMA.3 Alyss MOLOSO, Individually L. and as Representative
Personal Estate Moloso, Deceased, of Robert E. Moloso, Individually Linda K. and as Representative Personal of the Estate *6 Moloso, Deceased, Joseph Appel- R. lants/Cross-Appellees, Alaska,
STATE of Appellee/Cross-Appellant. S-116,
Nos. S-142. Supreme Court of Alaska.
Jan.
public provision of information to the deci-
I think it is clear that the issue in this case is
sion-maker,
greater public acceptance
creates
capable
repetition
application
and that
action,
government
promotes
of
reporting
accurate
impor-
mootness bar will frustrate review of an
governmental processes.
Open Meeting
tant
under Alaska’s
Act.
Community Colleges'
Federation
(Alaska 1971)
See Doe v.
Teachers,
University
Local 2404 v.
(“[W]here
grave public
the matter
is one of
(Alaska 1984).
P.2d
concern and is recurrent but is
of evad-
review,
we have undertaken review even
2. Id. at