Opinion ID: 2335720
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The December 14, 2005 site visit was a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act.

Text: Alaska's Open Meetings Act, AS 44.62.310(a), provides that [a]ll meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Reasonable notice is required for all meetings required to be open under the Act. [28] The statute defines meeting as: a gathering of members of a governmental body when more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity.[ [29] ] Gold Country claims the Borough conceded that the site visit was a special meeting because the Platting Board's Appeal Staff Report to the Planning Commission stated that [t]he site inspection was a properly noticed public meeting. The Borough counters that [s]ite visits ... are not `meetings' within the definition set forth in the Open Meetings Act because [t]he Board cannot perform any act that will legally bind the municipality on a site visit. It is undisputed that a quorum of four Platting Board members attended the site visit; the question is whether they collectively considered a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act during the visit. [30] Gold Country cites Brookwood Area Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage [31] in support of its contention that the site visit was a meeting for purposes of the Open Meetings Act. In Brookwood, a quorum of Anchorage Municipal Assembly members met with Quadrant, a developer, after the Planning and Zoning Commission rejected Quadrant's rezoning application. [32] The meeting took place in Quadrant's office. [33] Quadrant employees and Assembly members discussed the rejected rezoning application and the Assembly later approved an amended version of the rezoning application. [34] A homeowners association filed suit against the Municipality alleging that the Quadrant meeting violated the Open Meetings Act. [35] The superior court held that no meeting took place at Quadrant's offices for purposes of the Open Meetings Act, but we reversed that decision on appeal. We held that a `meeting' includes every step of the deliberative and decision-making process when a governmental unit meets to transact public business. [36] Here, the Platting Board's site visit is distinguishable from the meeting in Brookwood: The Board did not directly interact with the applicant at the site visit (although Mr. Kniffen was present at the site during the visit), and, unlike the Brookwood meeting, the Platting Board's visit was publicly announced in the newspaper and on the Borough's website. Nonetheless, we conclude that the information-gathering and discussion at the site visit constituted collective consideration of a matter upon which the governmental body [was] empowered to act [37] and a key step in the deliberative and decision-making process [38] by which the Platting Board reversed its initial vote and approved the Kniffens' variance application. The Platting Board members received evidence in the sense that they made observations of the site and had an opportunity to assess the merits of the safety concerns voiced at the November 17 meeting. We thus hold that the site visit was a meeting for purposes of the Open Meetings Act.