Court Opinion

ID: 9739132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:09:19.51267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.222532
License: Public Domain

*582SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I agree with much of the majority's opinion.1 I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that the Board conducted a reasonably accessible meeting, thereby complying with the open meeting law, secs. 19.81-19.98, Stats. 1989-90. I conclude that the Board violated the open meeting law.
The statutory requirement that meetings shall be held "in places reasonably accessible to members of the public" and "shall be open to all citizens at all times,"2 adopts, as the majority concludes, a "reasonableness" standard.3 Upon review of the record, I find myself in *583disagreement with the majority's application of the reasonableness standard to the facts of this case.
Reading together the words "in places reasonably accessible to members of the public" and "shall be open to all citizens at all times," sec. 19.81(2), I conclude that the open meeting law requires governmental units to hold their meetings in open, not secret, sessions and that a meeting is not in open session unless it is reasonably accessible to members of the public. When the meeting place may not be large enough to accommodate all the people who may wish to attend, the governmental unit must balance the public's right of access against the burdens that providing additional public access would impose on the governmental unit. The stated policy of the open meeting law is that "the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business." Section 19.81(1), Stats. 1989-90.
Thus the governmental unit must strive for reasonable accessibility. Its selection of a meeting place must be reasonable under the circumstances. It must be flexible in setting the meeting place to accommodate unusually large crowds. 67 Op. Atty Gen. 126 (1978).
When, as happened in this case, a meeting place is challenged under the open meeting law as being too small to be reasonably accessible to members of the public, the court's role is to review the decision of the governmental unit to determine whether its selection of the meeting place was reasonable. In doing so, the court need not look for optimal outcomes, but must seek to determine whether the local governmental unit achieved a reasonable balance under the circumstances presented at the time its decision was made.
*584In the present case, I believe that the Board's decision to hold its meeting at its usual site was not reasonable under the open meeting law. The usual meeting room can accommodate 69 members of the public through a combination of seating capacity for non-Board-affiliated persons and standing room in the foyer. However, from the facts available to the Board prior to the April 17 meeting it was only reasonable to conclude that more than 69 members of the public could be expected to attend.4 First, development projects are often controversial. A previous development project had aroused controversy in the village and a large number had attended the Board meeting at which that project was considered. Second, the public interest in this particular meeting was evident. Between 1,600 and 1,700 people had signed a petition opposing the development project to be discussed at the meeting. The petition did not lead the Board to anticipate that 1,600 people would appear at the meeting, but it should have alerted the Board that interest in the meeting was high. Third, a Planning Commission meeting on April 11,1990, involving the same development project, had drawn a crowd of *585between 75 and 150 people. The large turnout should have signaled the Board that the public was willing to attend meetings on this issue. Finally, the Board had received two communications from a concerned citizen in advance of the meeting date, asking that the meeting place be changed to accommodate a large turnout. I thus conclude that the Board, acting reasonably, should have expected an attendance far in excess of the public attendance capacity of its regular meeting room and its foyer.
Since the only reasonable conclusion the Board could have reached from the available information was that more than 69 people would probably attend, it should have considered its options for making the meeting "reasonably accessible" to the number of people expected. In considering its options, the Board was required to attempt to make the meeting "open" for two purposes — for citizens to hear the proceedings and for citizens to participate in the proceedings during the time allotted for public comments.
Several alternatives were available. In one possible scenario, the Board could have kept its regular meeting site and provided a sound system in the foyer or elsewhere. While standing for long periods is not conducive to citizen participation (and seeing as well as hearing is important), a sound system could have made the proceedings at least partially accessible to more people. As another alternative the Board could have made closed circuit television available outside the meeting room. Although the record shows that the Board did not have a sound system, the record does not demonstrate that the cost or commercial unavailability of a sound or TV system precluded either of these options.
Still another alternative would have been to schedule the meeting at a larger facility, if one was available in *586a reasonable location and at a reasonable cost. The community's schools apparently had suitable rooms, since a school had been used for a prior Board meeting. The Board, however, did not explore any alternatives to its regular meeting site.
Under the circumstances presented, I would conclude that the Board violated the open meeting law when it failed, in advance of the meeting, to explore the use of a sound system, closed circuit TV, or an alternative site to provide additional access to what could reasonably have been expected to be an overflow crowd.5
The majority concludes that "at most three persons were ultimately denied entrance because of the crowd" and that the Board's holding the meeting at the usual meeting place "was reasonable." Majority op. at 561. To borrow a phrase from other areas of the law, this reasoning by hindsight employs a "harmless error" test, not a reasonableness test. In this case reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of the Board prior to the meeting: What should the Board have done to assure that the meeting would be reasonably accessible to the public, considering the information the Board had or *587should have had before the meeting about the anticipated size of the crowd and the available alternatives.
Even if I were to use a harmless error test to determine whether the Board had violated the open meeting statute, I would conclude that the error was not harmless in this case. The circuit court decided the case on summary judgment and made no findings of fact. The record contains conflicting statements about how many people tried to attend and how many people were turned away. As I read the record, it is likely that more than three people were denied admission.6 We also cannot know how many citizens were deterred from attempting to enter or to attend the meeting because they did not want to stand or to be in a large crowd confined to a small area. On this record, the error was not harmless.
I would conclude that under the circumstances presented in this case the Board's failure to have the meeting at a place that would accommodate more people was a violation of the open meeting law. For the reasons set forth, I dissent.

 I agree with the majority that the court should decide the issues raised in this case. While the controversy about the validity of the Board's approval of the development project may have been eliminated by the Board's holding a second meeting in compliance with the open meeting law, the legality of the initial meeting remains in controversy. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for attorney fees depends on the court's deciding whether the open meeting law was violated in this case. Section 19.97(4), Stats. 1991-92. Finally, questions about open meetings recur and might evade review if this court were to accept the Board's mootness argument in this case. The open meeting issues are of sufficient public interest to justify the court's addressing them even if we were to determine that the case was moot. State ex rel. LaCrosse Tribune v. Circuit Court, 115 Wis. 2d 220, 229-30, 340 N.W.2d 460 (1987).
1 also agree with the majority's conclusion that the open meetings law required that notice be given when a majority of the Board members attended a meeting of the Plan Commission.

 Sections 19.81(2), 19.82(3), 19.83, Stats. 1989-90.

 See 67 OAG 125 (1978). I agree with the attorney general that there is no requirement that the place which has the greatest accessibility be used. The test is whether the meeting place is reasonably accessible; that is a factual question to be determined in each case.

 The majority opinion assumes that admission to the foyer (standing room for 25 people) constituted adequate access to the meeting. I would not so conclude. As the majority concedes, there is evidence in the record that some citizens couldn't hear the proceedings from the foyer. (Majority op. at 563.) Jeanne Sullivan testified about her experience in the foyer, "... there was enough room so that as long as we couldn't see or hear mostly anything, we sat on the floor with our legs out, and we thought we might as well wait until the meeting was over to find out really had happened from other people." (R:26-23) There is no evidence that any provision was made to enable the people in the foyer to participate in the public question and comment segment of the meeting.

 Since the Board was alerted in advance of the meeting to the probability that a larger facility would be needed and should have made the necessary arrangements before the date of the meeting, I do not have to discuss the question of whether the Board should have rescheduled the meeting when an overflow crowd appeared at the meeting. It is not clear whether, on the evening of the meeting, the Board could have changed its location. Greendale Village Manager Donald Fieldstad, Jr. stated in an affidavit that arrangements to move the meeting to alternative rooms at Village schools "must be made when representatives of the School District are working and could not have been made just prior to the Village Board meeting on April, 17, 1990."

 Bernice Badke testified that she and her husband sat in their car and watched other people being turned away. Police officer David Sjoberg estimated that he held six people outside and kept them from entering the building, although three of them were apparently able to enter later.