Opinion ID: 1810080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Applicability of the Sunshine Law to meetings of fewer than a quorum

Text: We next address whether the Sunshine Law applies to a meeting of fewer than a quorum. `The attendance of a quorum is a condition precedent to everything. Until then there is an absolute incapacity to consider or act in any way upon any matter. When the body is so legally convened and constituted, it has power to consider what is within its jurisdiction and authority, and to declare the existence of facts other than the fact of its own existence. Until it comes into existence, it cannot proceed, nor make any record of its proceedings. It has no authority to make a record showing anything. Less than a quorum are without power to act or bind anybody in any manner. Their action, being absolutely void, may be ignored or attacked in any proceeding. The record of a legally constituted tribunal is aided and upheld by a presumption in favor of regularity. Surely, there can be no presumption in favor of a record made by persons who have no shadow of authority to act.' Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 155, 160, 131 So. 14, 18 (1930) (quoting City of Benwood v. Wheeling Ry., 53 W.Va. 465, 476, 44 S.E. 271, 276 (1903); emphasis added). Accord Ex parte Atkinson, 493 So.2d 991, 992 (Ala.1986) (In order to conduct business, a quorum of the Board must be present.). Thus, the Board can legally act to set policy regarding Auburn University only with the presence of a quorum of trustees. Amendment 670, Penton, supra, Wallis, supra, and Ex parte Atkinson, supra . Accordingly, fewer than a quorum of the Board meeting together do not constitute the Board acting as as a deliberative body to set policy regarding Auburn University. Wallis, 493 So.2d at 1369. Thus, the Sunshine Law does not apply to a meeting of fewer trustees than a quorum. [1] See Amendment 670, Penton, supra, and Ex parte Atkinson, supra . Accord Graham County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Town of Safford, 95 Ariz. 174, 388 P.2d 169 (1963); Adler v. City Council of Culver City, 184 Cal.App.2d 763, 7 Cal.Rptr. 805 (1960); Turk v. Richard, 47 So.2d 543 (Fla.1950); Daily Gazette Co. v. North Colonie Bd. of Educ., 412 N.Y.S.2d 494, 67 A.D.2d 803 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979); Orange County Publ'ns v. Council of Newburgh, 401 N.Y.S.2d 84, 60 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1978); State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc. v. Showers, 135 Wis.2d 77, 398 N.W.2d 154 (1987). See Waters v. City of Birmingham, 282 Ala. 104, 209 So.2d 388 (1968). Although the various standing committees of the Board met to consider proposals and to make recommendations, the standing committees, with the exceptions of the Property and Facilities Committee and the Athletic Committee, could not and did not take any action on behalf of the Board. Thus, but for the two exceptions, none of the standing committees met as a deliberative body to set policy regarding the public matters with which the [Board] is entrusted Wallis, 493 So.2d at 1369. Moreover, because fewer than a quorum of the Board, eight trustees, cannot legally conduct the business of the Board, any meeting of one of the non-exceptional standing committees attended by fewer than eight trustees is not a meeting or session of a group of individuals who sit as a deliberative body to set policy regarding the public matters with which the [Board] is entrusted, id., and is not, therefore, a meeting or session within the meaning of the Sunshine Law. See Amendment 670, Penton, supra, and Ex parte Atkinson, supra . Accord Graham County Elec. Coop., Adler, Turk, Daily Gazette Co., Orange County Publications, and State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc., supra . Similarly, an ad hoc meeting of trustees attended by fewer trustees than a quorum is not a meeting or session of the Board within the meaning of the Sunshine Law. See Amendment 670, Penton, supra, and Ex parte Atkinson, supra . Accord Graham County Elec. Coop., Adler, Turk, Daily Gazette Co., Orange County Publications, and State ex rel. Newspapers, Inc., supra . The newspapers did not challenge the action of the Board delegating its authority to act on behalf of Auburn University to the two exceptional standing committees  the Property and Facilities Committee and the Athletic Committee. Therefore, we do not address the validity of that action of the Board. However, we infer from the record that a quorum of the Property and Facilities Committee or of the Athletic Committee is fewer than a quorum of the Board. Yet the Board has empowered these two exceptional standing committees to act on behalf of Auburn University. Therefore, so long as either of these two exceptional standing committees purports to act on behalf of Auburn University in any matter, any meeting of a quorum of such exceptional standing committee is subject to the Sunshine Law, within the parameters of this opinion.