Title: Leland M. Wilson v. City Council of the City of Saraland; Mayor Ken Williams; and Joe McDonald, Newton Cromer, Sidney Butler, Howard Rubenstein, and Veronica Hudson, in their official capacities as members of the City Council of the City of Saraland
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1091509
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 15, 2011

REL 04/15/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
_________________________
1091509
_________________________
Leland M. Wilson
v.
City Council of the City of Saraland; Mayor Ken Williams;
and Joe McDonald, Newton Cromer, Sidney Butler, Howard
Rubenstein, and Veronica Hudson, in their official
capacities as members of the City Council of the City of
Saraland
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court
(CV-09-2117)
COBB, Chief Justice.
Leland M. Wilson, the plaintiff below, appeals from the
order of the Mobile Circuit Court  dismissing this case. We
affirm.
1091509
2
Facts
A separate case, Leland M. Wilson v. City of Saraland,
CV-07-1332 ("the separate case"), was set for trial on
November 16, 2009, in the Mobile Circuit Court.  The separate
case involved a dispute between Wilson and the City of
Saraland regarding a drainage problem on real property owned
by Wilson.  The November 16 trial setting was continued so
that the City of Saraland could call a meeting of the city
council to review a proposed engineering plan submitted by
Wilson's engineer that, if implemented, would resolve the
drainage problem and allow the separate case to be settled.
Wilson's engineer's plan was hand delivered to the city
council on November 18, 2009.
On November 19, 2009, counsel for Saraland sent the
following letter to Wilson's counsel:
"I 
am 
in 
receipt 
of 
your 
correspondence
regarding attending the City Council meetings next
week. ... [A] workshop is scheduled for November 23,
2009 and the Council meeting is scheduled for
November 30, 2009.  Due to the time constraints in
this case, the City Council plans to call a special
Council meeting on November 23rd, at which time they
will go into executive session to discuss this
matter.  I think that your presence at the workshop
meeting next week would not be a good idea and may
in fact hinder any chance of settling this case.  In
addition, you would not be allowed to attend the
executive session anyway."
1091509
3
Wilson did not attend the November 23 meeting of the
Saraland City Council.  According to the official minutes of
the meeting, members of the city council Newton Cromer,
Veronica Hudson, and Joe McDonald were in attendance.  At the
beginning of the open portion of the city-council meeting,
other members of the public voiced their opposition to any
plan to alleviate the drainage problem on Wilson's property.
The city council then voted to go into an executive session to
discuss the drainage plan with its counsel.  After the
executive session concluded, the open meeting resumed.
According to the official minutes, no additional business was
addressed following the executive session, and the meeting
adjourned.  The minutes do not reflect that any vote was taken
on whether to adopt the drainage plan prepared by Wilson's
engineer.
On November 24, 2009, counsel for Saraland sent the
following letter to Wilson's counsel:
"Last night I attended the specially called
Saraland City  Council meeting to discuss the
[drainage] fix proposal.  As a result of discussions
during the executive session and subsequent action
by the City Council, the council has concluded that
it 
does 
not 
want 
to 
undertake 
an 
agreement
concerning [Wilson's proposed drainage plan].  As a
result, I do not see where mediation tomorrow would
be fruitful and it is my position that going forward
1091509
4
with mediation would be a waste of time based upon
the impasse over the ... issue.  As a result I would
formally declare an impasse in any immediate further
settlement and mediation talks."
On December 14, 2009, Wilson filed in the Mobile Circuit
Court a verified complaint against the Saraland City Council,
Saraland Mayor Ken Williams, and Saraland City Council members
Joe McDonald, Newton Cromer, Sidney Butler, Howard Rubenstein,
and Veronica Hudson (collectively, "the defendants").  In his
complaint, Wilson alleged that, at the November 23, 2009,
meeting of the Saraland City Council, the defendants violated
various provisions of the  Alabama Open Meetings Act, Ala.
Code 1975, § 36-25A-1 et seq.  Wilson requested relief in the
form of an injunction invalidating the action he contends was
taken at the November 23, 2009, council meeting with regard
the drainage proposal. In addition, Wilson requested that the
trial 
court 
"impos[e] 
appropriate civil penalties and
expenses, as set forth in the Alabama Open Meetings Act."
On January 13, 2010, the trial court held a preliminary
hearing on the complaint pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-
9(a).  During the hearing, the trial court asked Wilson's
counsel what Wilson ultimately wished to accomplish by filing
the action against the defendants alleging a violation of the
1091509
5
Open Meetings Act.  Wilson's counsel responded that "the Court
can impose penalties if [it] find[s] a violation" of the Open
Meetings Act and that what his client "primarily" wanted was
an opportunity to present his drainage plan to the Saraland
City Council.  Without making any findings as to whether
Wilson had carried his burden of proof at the preliminary
hearing to show a violation of the Open Meetings Act, the
trial court obtained the parties' agreement that Wilson would
be allowed to present his drainage plan at the next city-
council meeting.
On January 14, 2010, the Saraland City Council held a
meeting.  According to Wilson, the matter of his drainage plan
was called at the January 14, 2010, meeting, but no vote was
taken on whether to adopt Wilson's drainage plan.
On April 15, 2010, the trial court held a second
preliminary hearing to determine, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975,
§ 36-25A-9(a) through (c), whether Wilson could meet the
initial burden of proof to establish a violation of the Open
Meetings Act and whether to set the matter for discovery and
a hearing on the merits.  At the April 15, 2010, preliminary
hearing, the parties agreed that an open meeting of the
Saraland City Council had occurred on November 23, 2009, and
1091509
6
that an executive session had been called during the November
23, 2009, city-council meeting.  Wilson argued that the
Saraland City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by
excluding him from the open portion of the November 23, 2009,
city-council meeting.
On April 20, 2010, the trial court entered the following
order:
"A hearing pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] §
36-25A-9, was held by this Court on April 15, 2010.
Testimony was taken and counsel for [Wilson] and
counsel for the Defendants were able to present
their case. The Court has reviewed [Wilson's]
Complaint with attachments, and the Defendants'
Answer as well as the other pleadings of record in
this case. In addition, the Court has taken into
account the testimony provided at the hearing and
the 
arguments 
from 
counsel. 
Based 
upon 
this
information, the Court concludes that [Wilson] has
not met his burden pursuant to Ala. Code [1975,] §
36-25A-9(b).
"As a result, this matter is DISMISSED as to all
of the claims raised by [Wilson]."
(Capitalization in original.)
On May 20, 2010, Wilson filed a motion to alter, amend,
or vacate the trial court's judgment dismissing the case.  On
June 18, 2010, the trial court entered an order denying
Wilson's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment. On
1091509
In addition,  Wilson was required to establish by a
1
preponderance of the evidence that the Saraland City Council
held a meeting on November 23, 2009, and that each of the
defendants attended.  See Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-9(b).
Because we affirm the dismissal of this case on other grounds,
we need not address in this opinion whether Wilson met his
burden of showing that all the defendants attended the
7
July 30, 2010, Wilson filed a notice of appeal to this Court
from the trial court's judgment.
Analysis
To prevail at the preliminary hearing and be permitted to
proceed with the case, Wilson was required to "present
substantial evidence of one or more of the following claims":
"(1) 
That 
the 
defendants 
disregarded 
the
requirements for proper notice of the meeting
pursuant to the applicable methods set forth in
Section 36-25A-3. 
"(2) 
That 
the 
defendants 
disregarded 
the
provisions of this chapter during a meeting, other
than during an executive session. 
"(3) That the defendants voted to go into
executive session and while in executive session the
defendants 
discussed matters other than those
subjects included in the motion to convene an
executive 
session 
as 
required 
by 
Section
36-25A-7(b). 
"(4) That, other than a claim under subdivisions
(1) 
through 
(3), the defendants intentionally
violated other provisions of [the Open Meetings
Act]."
Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-9(b).1
1091509
November 23, 2009, city-council meeting, or the standard of
review applicable to this issue.
8
We review de novo the trial court's determination as to
whether Wilson presented substantial evidence of one or more
of these claims at the preliminary hearing.  Cf. Alabama Power
Co. v. Aldridge, 854 So. 2d 554, 560 (Ala. 2002) ("We apply
the same standard of review to a ruling on a motion for a
[judgment as a matter of law] as the trial court used in
initially 
deciding 
the 
motion. 
This 
standard 
is
'indistinguishable from the standard by which we review a
summary judgment.'  Hathcock v. Wood, 815 So. 2d 502, 506
(Ala. 2001).  We must decide whether there was substantial
evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, to warrant a jury determination.").  "Evidence is
'substantial' only if it is 'of such weight and quality that
fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can
reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be
proved.'" Hathcock, 815 So. 2d at 506 (quoting West v.
Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871
(Ala. 1989)).
The Open Meetings Act requires that, "[e]xcept for
executive sessions permitted in Section 36-25A-7(a) or as
1091509
9
otherwise expressly provided by other federal or state
statutes, all meetings of a governmental body shall be open to
the public."  Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-1.  On appeal, Wilson
contends that he presented substantial evidence showing that
the Saraland City Council 
intentionally 
violated 
this
requirement of the Open Meetings Act by excluding Wilson from
the public portion of the November 23, 2009, city-council
meeting.  
The only evidence Wilson submitted at the preliminary
hearing in support of his contention that he was excluded from
the portion of the meeting open to the public was the November
19, 2009, letter from Saraland's counsel to his own counsel.
The parties do not dispute that the letter stated that
Wilson's attendance at the November 23, 2009, meeting "would
not be good idea and may in fact hinder any chance of settling
this case" and that Wilson would "not be allowed to attend the
executive session" of the meeting.  
However, nothing in the letter indicates that Wilson
would be excluded or prohibited from attending the open
portion of the meeting if he so desired.  Thus, the letter
does not constitute evidence, much less substantial evidence,
1091509
"Unless otherwise permitted by this chapter or directed
2
by provisions in the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, or other
10
that the defendants failed to hold a meeting that was "open to
the public" as required by the Open Meetings Act, Ala. Code
1975, § 36-25A-1.  See Ala. Code § 36-25A-2(7), defining "open
or public portion of a meeting" ("The open or public portion
of a meeting is that portion which has not been closed for
executive session in accordance with this chapter ... and
which is conducted so that constituents of the governmental
body, ... persons interested in the activities of the
governmental body, and citizens of this state could, if they
desired, attend and observe."); see also Ala. Code 1975, §
36-25A-9(b) (requiring that, in an action alleging a violation
of the Open Meetings Act, the plaintiff must prove by
substantial evidence "[t]hat, other than a claim under
subdivisions (1) through (3), the defendants intentionally
violated other provisions of [the Open Meetings Act]").
On appeal, Wilson also contends that he presented
substantial evidence that the defendants either deliberated or
voted during the executive session of the November 23, 2009,
city-council meeting, in violation of Ala. Code 1975, § 36-
25A-5(b),  and Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-7(a)(3),  or that the
2
3
1091509
existing state law applicable to the governmental body, all
votes on matters before a governmental body... shall be made
during the open or public portion of a meeting .... Unless
permitted by this chapter, existing statute, or constitutional
amendment, no votes shall be taken in executive sessions."
Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-5(b). 
"(a) Executive  sessions  are  not required by 
3
this chapter, but may be held by a governmental body
only for the following purposes: 
".... 
"(3) To discuss with their attorney the legal
ramifications of and legal options for pending
litigation .... Notwithstanding the foregoing, if
any deliberation begins among the members of the
governmental body regarding what action to take
relating to pending or threatened litigation based
upon the advice of counsel, the executive session
shall be concluded and the deliberation shall be
conducted in the open portion of the meeting or the
deliberation shall cease."
Ala. Code 1975, § 36-25A-7(a)(3).
"A governmental body shall maintain accurate records of
4
its meetings, excluding executive sessions, setting forth the
... action taken at each meeting."  Ala. Code 1975, §
36-25A-4.
11
defendants failed to record actions taken during the open
portion of the public meeting as required by Ala. Code 1975,
§ 36-25A-4.    In support of this contention, Wilson points
4
out that the minutes of the November 23, 2009, city-council
meeting reflect no action, votes, or discussion during the
open meeting following the executive session.  However, in a
1091509
12
letter dated November 24, 2009, Saraland's counsel informed
Wilson's counsel that, "[a]s a result of discussions during
the executive session and subsequent action by the City
Council, the council has concluded that it does not want to
undertake an agreement concerning [Wilson's proposed drainage
plan]."  
The transcript of the April 15, 2010, preliminary hearing
in this case reflects that the trial court asked Wilson's
counsel several times to state precisely his contention as to
how the defendants violated the Open Meetings Act.  In
response, Wilson did not make any argument that the defendants
either deliberated or voted during the executive session or
that they failed to record actions taken during the open
portion of the city-council meeting.  Rather, Wilson stated
plainly on the record that "the only issue before [the trial
court]" was his contention that he was excluded from attending
the public portion of the November 23, 2009, city-council
meeting.  Therefore, we will not consider Wilson's arguments
on appeal that the defendants violated Ala. Code 1975, § 36-
25A-5(b), § 36-25A-7(a)(3), or § 36-25A-4.  See Campbell v.
Alabama Power Co., 567 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Ala. 1990) ("It is
1091509
13
well settled that issues not raised in the trial court may not
later be raised on appeal.").
For these reasons, the trial court correctly dismissed
this action on the ground that Wilson did not meet his burden
at the preliminary hearing in accordance with Ala. Code 1975,
§ 36-25A-9(b).  We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
AFFIRMED.
Woodall, Bolin, Murdock, and Main, JJ., concur.