## Facts

- The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Reno acquired the Mapes Hotel in 1996 and sought developers for rehabilitation or redevelopment; the hotel had been closed for many years.
- On June 28, 1999, the Agency adopted a resolution to accept bids to rehabilitate the hotel or, alternatively, to begin steps toward possible demolition.
- Agency staff issued a request for proposals, widely advertised and distributed; six qualifying proposals were received by an August 13, 1999 deadline.
- Two private, back-to-back staff briefings occurred on August 31, 1999: one attended by staff and two board members, and another attended by staff and three board members; a quorum required four members.
- Witnesses for the Agency described the briefings as informational updates and testified that no deliberations occurred.
- At a public meeting on September 13, 1999, the board reviewed the proposals, heard staff presentations and public testimony, discussed options, and voted to demolish the Mapes Hotel after a meeting lasting about six hours.
- The Mapes Hotel was demolished in January 2000.
- Preservation advocates sued, alleging the serial private briefings amounted to an unlawful closed meeting that should void the demolition approval.

## Issues

1. Whether private, back-to-back staff briefings attended by less than a quorum at each briefing can constitute an unlawful meeting or impermissible serial communications under Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
2. If an Open Meeting Law violation occurred, what remedies are available, including injunctive relief and invalidation of subsequent agency action.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s finding that the Agency violated the Open Meeting Law and vacated the permanent injunction.
- The court held that, absent substantial evidence of serial communications showing action or deliberation toward a decision, private staff briefings attended by less than a quorum do not violate the Open Meeting Law.
- Because it found no violation, the court did not reach the cross-appeal seeking to void the demolition vote or asserting additional defects.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada’s Open Meeting Law applies to gatherings at which a quorum is present to deliberate or take action on public business.
- Serial contacts may violate the Open Meeting Law only when there is substantial evidence they were used to accomplish action or deliberation toward a decision by or through a quorum outside public view.
- Informational staff briefings involving less than a quorum are not unlawful per se; proof of deliberative, decision-oriented serial communications is required.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court held that nonpublic, back-to-back staff briefings with less than a quorum do not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law without substantial evidence that the briefings were used for quorum-level deliberation or action toward a decision, and it therefore reversed the violation finding and vacated injunctive relief.


Dewey v. Redevelopment Agency of Reno, 64 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2003)