Opinion ID: 2353245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Activities of the Ad Hoc Committee

Text: [¶ 27] Title 1 M.R.S. § 402 (2006) defines the term public proceeding to include the functioning of any municipal board, commission, agency, or authority: 2. Public proceedings. The term public proceedings as used in this subchapter means the transactions of any functions affecting any or all citizens of the State by any of the following: . . . . C. Any board, commission, agency or authority of any county, municipality, school district or any regional or other political or administrative subdivision. The board, commission, agency, or authority must provide public notice of such public proceedings if the meeting involves three or more persons: Public notice shall be given for all public proceedings as defined in section 402, if these proceedings are a meeting of a body or agency consisting of 3 or more persons. This notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance and shall be disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to notify the general public in the jurisdiction served by the body or agency concerned. In the event of an emergency meeting, local representatives of the media shall be notified of the meeting, whenever practical, the notification to include time and location, by the same or faster means used to notify the members of the agency conducting the public proceeding. 1 M.R.S. § 406 (2006). [¶ 28] Mason and Johnson have not indicated how any violation of section 406 by the ad hoc committee would invalidate the purchase and sale agreement. Although the ad hoc committee was charged with reviewing proposals, and had some involvement in the process leading up to review by the City Council and the ultimate execution of the contract, Mason and Johnson have not provided a legal basis for their contention that the ad hoc committee's failure to provide public notice of its meetings somehow renders the purchase and sale agreement invalid. The City Council was the body with the power to authorize entry into the purchase and sale agreement. See Augusta, Me., City Charter, art. II, § 4 (2006) (authorizing the City Council to administer all the fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs of the city). The City Council did, in fact, meet and vote to authorize the city manger to execute the purchase and sale agreement. Mason and Johnson have not asserted any defect in the City Council's notice of its meetings. They have therefore failed to establish their claim that the purchase and sale agreement is invalid on the basis of the public notice statutes.