affirming trial court’s order that the FOIA applies to any group meeting called by the mayor or any member of the city council at which members of the city council, less in number than a quorum, meet for the purpose of discussing or taking action on any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the city council
How later courts described this case
- affirming trial court’s order that the FOIA applies to any group meeting called by the mayor or any member of the city council at which members of the city council, less in number than a quorum, meet for the purpose of discussing or taking action on any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the city council
- noting in dicta that the trial court's order applied to "any group meeting . . . at which members . . . less in number than a quorum meet for the purpose of discussing or taking any action on any matter on which foreseeable action will be taken. . . ."
- indicating that in a city of the first class, the mayor and four of the eight aldermen did not constitute a quorum
- "We can think of no reason for [FOIA] specifying its applicability to informal meetings of governmental bodies unless it was intended to cover informal but unofficial group meetings for the discussion of governmental business as distinguished from those contacts by the individual members that occur in the daily lives of every public official."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. I would affirm the judgment, if modified to confine the holding to the particular facts of this case, which I consider to be in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. However, the opinion, in my view, goes much further, and I accordingly dissent.