## Facts

- A newspaper publisher and a Maine school administrative district had an ongoing dispute over the district’s use of executive sessions.
- The school board received multiple complaints about the superintendent’s job performance.
- On March 30, 1998, the board met in executive session to hear complaints regarding the superintendent, and later requested written submissions; fourteen written complaints were received.
- On April 14, 1998, the board met again in executive session with counsel to determine how to proceed on the complaints; counsel recommended an independent investigation, and the board agreed to follow that advice.
- The board did not approve a specific investigator, authorize a contract, or approve an expenditure of public funds during the executive session; counsel handled the investigation arrangements.
- On April 15, 1998, counsel retained an outside attorney to conduct the independent investigation.
- The newspaper sued under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) alleging the board took prohibited “official action” in executive session.
- After suit was filed, the investigator’s report was considered at an open board meeting on May 26, 1998.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal presented a live controversy or was moot because the investigation and consideration of the report had already occurred.
2. If moot, whether any exception justified review, including a showing that the dispute was likely to recur yet evade appellate review.

## Decision

- The Law Court dismissed the appeal as moot and did not reach the merits of the alleged FOAA violation.
- The court concluded the challenged events were completed and no effective appellate relief could be provided.
- The court found the newspaper did not develop a record showing a concrete, continuing controversy or facts supporting an exception to mootness.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court will dismiss a case as moot when there is no longer a real and substantial controversy and the court cannot grant effective relief.
- Exceptions to mootness (including matters capable of repetition yet evading review) require a meaningful, record-based showing that the challenged conduct is likely to recur in a way that will consistently avoid review.
- FOAA generally favors public access but permits executive sessions for specified personnel-related matters under applicable statutory provisions.

## Conclusion

Because the independent investigation was completed and the report was addressed in an open meeting, and because the newspaper failed to show a concrete ongoing dispute or a basis for a mootness exception, the court dismissed the FOAA appeal as moot without deciding whether the board took “official action” in executive session.


Lewiston Daily Sun v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 43, 738 A.2d 1239 (Me. 1999)