Opinion ID: 852362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mediation Agreement Subject to Open Door Laws

Text: Upon finding that the Plan Commission acted in bad faith in failing to approve the Subdivision until October 25, 2007 after granting its attorneys full settlement authority, the trial court concluded that the Plan Commission should reimburse the Developers $1,578.55 for their mediation costs. Appellant's App'x at A14-A15. On cross-appeal, the Plan Commission challenges this conclusion and the finding of bad faith, arguing that its attorneys in the mediation could not, as a matter of law, bind the Commission to a settlement in violation of Indiana's Open Door Laws and that the agreement reached in mediation could only be a provisional agreement subject to a condition precedent and, therefore, was unenforceable until that condition precedent was satisfied. Br. of Cross-Appellant/Appellee at 15. The Developers assert that the settlement agreement was final and not required by the Open Door Law to be subsequently approved in a public meeting and thus that the Plan Commission's failure to comply with the agreement supported the trial court's finding of bad faith. [2] The Developers argue that the discussions and resulting settlement agreement during the mediation do not constitute a meeting of the Plan Commission that must be open to the public under the Open Door Law because of the absence of a majority of the governing body of a public agency, citing Indiana Code § 5-14-1.5-2(c). According to the Developers, the Open Door Law was satisfied by the Plan Commission's pre-mediation public meeting in July 2006 which authorized its attorney and representative to participate in the mediation with full settlement authority. The Plan Commission responds by arguing that a plan commission's issuance of a subdivision primary plat approval is non-delegable because of the absence of specific statutory delegation authorization, and that evidence was presented that demonstrated that the Commission did not delegate its approval authority to its representatives in this mediation. The Indiana Open Door Law, Ind.Code §§ 5-14-1.5-1 to -8, seeks to assure that government business be conducted openly so that the general public may be fully informed. Dillman v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 848 N.E.2d 348, 351 (Ind.Ct. App.2006), trans. denied. Administrative actions taken by delegated representatives of governing bodies, however, are not subject to the Open Door Law. Id. at 353. An advisory plan commission is authorized by statute to delegate authority to perform ministerial acts in all cases except where final action of the commission is necessary. Ind.Code § 36-7-4-402(a). As to plats involving land covered by a subdivision control ordinance, the exclusive control over the approval of plats is assigned by statute to plan commissions. Id. § 36-7-4-701. And a plan commission's act is deemed not official, unless it is authorized, at a regular or special meeting, by a majority of the entire membership of the plan commission. Id. § 36-7-4-302(a). We conclude that this statutory scheme operates to preclude the delegation of plan commission authority for final approval of subdivision plats, but instead requires final approval by a majority of the commission members at meetings subject to the Open Door Law. Because the settlement agreement resulting from the mediation was thus not final until its approval by a majority of the Plan Commission at a public meeting, the Commission's failure to promptly approve the subdivision did not constitute bad faith conduct warranting sanctions. While we generally favor the amicable settlement of disputes and encourage the use of mediation to facilitate such agreements, these processes cannot substitute for legislatively mandated official and public assent to the resulting settlement agreements. Resort to mediation can be extremely beneficial to all parties, but, as observed by the Court of Appeals, it is wise practice to include language in a settlement agreement that the agreement is contingent upon compliance with the Open Door Law and that it must be approved at an open meeting. Lake County Trust Co., 883 N.E.2d at 136. Because we conclude that the Plan Commission did not act in bad faith, we do not address the parties' dispute regarding whether Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1010(a) provides a basis to recover attorney fees in this case.