## Facts

- A deputy city administrator learned of a real-estate auction and advised that the City could gain a competitive advantage only if its maximum bid were not publicly disclosed in advance.
- Instead of convening a public meeting, the city administrator contacted members of the City’s Board of Directors individually, in person and by telephone.
- The administrator sought each member’s approval for the City to bid and agreement on maximum bid amounts.
- After obtaining assent from a majority of the Board through these sequential contacts, the City submitted a bid and was the successful bidder.
- Several days later, the Board held a special public meeting and formally approved the purchase.
- David Harris attended the special meeting and sued, alleging the City violated the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) open-meetings requirement by obtaining collective approval through private serial communications.

## Issues

1. Whether the city administrator’s serial one-on-one communications with individual Board members to obtain majority approval for a City bid constituted an FOIA-covered “informal meeting” requiring a public meeting.
2. Whether summary judgment for the City was proper on the theory that no “meeting” occurred.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and considered the appeal as if originally filed in that court.
- The court held that the administrator’s serial one-on-one contacts, used to obtain majority approval for Board action involving public funds, constituted an “informal meeting” subject to FOIA’s open-meetings mandate.
- The court ruled the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the City.
- The court affirmed the court of appeals, reversed the circuit court, and remanded for consideration of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas FOIA requires that “all meetings, formal or informal,” of municipal governing bodies be open to the public.
- FOIA is construed liberally to favor open conduct of public business and public access to governmental decision-making.
- A governing body may not avoid open-meeting requirements by fragmenting deliberation and decision-making into a series of private, sequential one-on-one communications that achieve collective approval.
- Contacts that are part of a coordinated effort to secure governing-body assent on a specific public action differ from incidental interactions among officials in daily life.
- Practical concerns (such as competitive disadvantage in real-estate acquisition) do not create an implied exception absent legislative authorization.
- Subsequent public ratification does not cure an earlier FOIA violation where substantive consensus and authorization occurred privately.

## Conclusion

The court held that the City’s use of serial private communications to obtain majority Board approval for a real-estate bid was an FOIA-covered informal meeting, reversed summary judgment for the City, and remanded for further proceedings on remedies.


Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 197 S.W.3d 461 (Ark. 2004)