Opinion ID: 2586441
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged wrongdoing by the LBC

Text: It is clear that Mullins's complaints against the LBC were mooted by the election. Mullins appealed the LBC's decision to approve the petition, seeking to have the superior court overturn the decision based on various alleged defects in the approval process. The vote against incorporation voided the approval decision and provided the principal relief that Mullins sought in her appeal to the superior court. [12] Even if claims are moot, a court may still hear them if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. In determining whether the public interest exception applies, a court considers: (1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine. [13] None of these factors is dispositive; each is an aspect of the question of whether the public interest dictates that a court review a moot issue. [14] The proper inquiry in this case is not only whether the LBC's challenged approval decision falls under the public interest exception, but also whether the underlying wrongful conduct alleged by Mullins does. [15] The LBC's approval of the petition, and its allegedly arbitrary finding that the petition satisfied regulatory requirements for incorporation, do not fall under the public interest exception because it is unlikely that a similar petition will be filed with and approved by the LBC, and such approval decisions can be, and often are, the subject of legal review. First, regulations prevent the LBC from accepting a substantially similar petition for two years after such a petition is rejected by voters. [16] And as a practical matter, the LBC is highly unlikely to approve the same petition after it was so overwhelmingly rejected by voters. If and when another petition is submitted, even tracing the same boundaries as the petition submitted in January 2006, the LBC must again review whether the petition satisfies the criteria for incorporation, a highly fact-specific inquiry. [17] It is unlikely that the allegedly erroneous findings and approval decision will be repeated. Second, citizens have the right to appeal decisions of the LBC under the Administrative Procedure Act. [18] These decisions, including the LBC's interpretation and application of regulations concerning incorporation, are regularly challenged in court and do not evade review. [19] Therefore, even accepting that they are issues of public importance, the approval of the petition by the LBC, and any errors in applying regulatory criteria for incorporation, are moot and will not be considered under the public interest exception. Mullins's remaining complaints regarding the LBC's conduct relate to public participation: exclusion of minority groups from the incorporation process, insufficient distribution of informational documents, and reliance on a meeting closed to the public in making its decision. Such problems are arguably capable of repetition, although the facts in each instance may vary slightly. [20] Moreover, failure to adequately inform and include the public in decision-making is a matter of public importance. But complaints regarding public participation do not repeatedly evade judicial review. We analyze this prong of the public interest exception test by comparing the time it takes to bring the appeal with the time it takes for the appeal to become moot. [21] There is no reason to believe that the time between the approval of a petition by the LBC based on inadequate public participation and the incorporation election is insufficient to permit judicial review. [22] Even when it is, public participation claims remain live and can be adjudicated where the public votes for incorporation. In Lake and Peninsula Borough v. Local Boundary Commission, for example, certain villages appealed the LBC's approval of an incorporation petition subsequently approved by voters in part on the grounds that the LBC provided inadequate notice during the incorporation process. [23] The superior court found that notice was defective, a ruling we affirmed, and the LBC was directed to remedy its notice violations. [24] We thus find that Mullins's public participation claims are moot and do not fall within the public interest exception. Mullins specifically alleges that the LBC violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by using information gathered during a private tour of the proposed borough in making its decision. [25] She argues that this claim is not moot, relying on our statement in Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers, Local No. 2404 v. University of Alaska ( ACCFT ) that [t]he mootness bar is especially inappropriate in OMA cases. [26] In ACCFT, the plaintiff sought to void a governmental decision on the grounds that it had been reached at a private meeting. [27] At the superior court's direction, the decision-making body held a properly noticed open meeting at which it affirmed its previous decision. [28] The court then dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on whether the original meeting violated the OMA, finding that any violation had been remedied. [29] We reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the superior court to determine whether a violation of the OMA occurred and if so, whether the subsequent meeting remedied the violation. [30] Unlike in ACCFT, the LBC's approval decision was not reaffirmed at a curative meeting, and it is not still in effect. Mullins, unlike the plaintiff in ACCFT, cannot obtain the substantive relief she seeks because the LBC's decision allegedly made in violation of the OMA has been voided by subsequent events. Where a decision is still in effect when an OMA claim is brought, the holding in ACCFT requires that a court review the alleged OMA violation even if a curative meeting was held. Where a decision is no longer in effect, as is the case here, a court should conduct a standard mootness analysis to determine whether to address the OMA claim. In this case, for the reasons described above, Mullins's public participation challenge to LBC's private car tour as a violation of the OMA is moot and we will not consider it. [31]