Charles Gregory Lambert v. David McPherson et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 03/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100766 Charles Gregory Lambert v. David McPherson e t a l . Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-10-324) PITTMAN, Court Judge. Charles Gregory Lambert appeals Limestone C i r c u i t Court from a judgment o f t h e d i s m i s s i n g h i s complaint t o enforce t h e A l a b a m a Open M e e t i n g s A c t , § 36-25A-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 ( " t h e A c t " ) . The c o m p l a i n t named as d e f e n d a n t s David 2100766 McPherson, R u s s e l l Johnson, James L u c a s Board -- five of the seven of E d u c a t i o n ("the amendment, defendants mail, had "where meetings"; Lambert's complaint made p r i o r meetings had public improper d e l i b e r a t i o n about l i t i g a t i o n n o t i c e ; t h a t the s e s s i o n ; and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s with the attorney t e l e p h o n e and e - m a i l . The trial court held that voting held for the v i a e¬ in open without had the engaged i n strategy i n executive circumvented the Act the defendants a to defendants had and a s s e r t e d v a r i o u s a f f i r m a t i v e The alleged been required conferring City affirm. i n s c h o o l - b o a r d meetings d e c i s i o n s were such We and Procedural History participated that members o f t h e A t h e n s Board"). F a c t s and After L a r r y Keenum, B e v e r l y M a l o n e , Board via denied the by cellular allegations defenses. preliminary hearing c o m p l a i n t , as r e q u i r e d by § 36-25A-9, A l a . Code 1975. on the At t h a t h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o k no t e s t i m o n y ; t h e c o u r t a d m i t t e d one i t e m o f d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e , h e a r d a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l , and then took the matter under advisement. As the only e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c o m p l a i n t , L a m b e r t s u b m i t t e d an e¬ m a i l message t h a t , on the p a r t i e s 2 stipulated, had been s e n t 2100766 May 21, 2010, by s c h o o l - b o a r d member L a r r y Keenum t o a l l o t h e r b o a r d members. record on The e - m a i l message i s n o t a p p e a l , but the parties agree e x p r e s s e d Keenum's d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h Board p o l i c y c o n t a i n e d i n the that a proposed concerning renewal of c o n t r a c t s o t h e r employees the message change t o a f o r coaches or o f t h e B o a r d who h a d s u p p l e m e n t a l c o n t r a c t s -¬ a m a t t e r t h a t h a d b e e n e x p e c t e d t o come b e f o r e t h e B o a r d f o r a decision and t h a t was, t h e B o a r d on J u l y 15, i n fact, addressed at a meeting of 2010. S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 5 A - 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, provides: "It i s the policy of this state that the d e l i b e r a t i v e p r o c e s s o f g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d i e s s h a l l be open t o t h e p u b l i c d u r i n g m e e t i n g s as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 36-25A-2(6). Except f o r e x e c u t i v e sessions p e r m i t t e d i n S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 5 A - 7 ( a ) o r as o t h e r w i s e expressly p r o v i d e d by other federal or state s t a t u t e s , a l l m e e t i n g s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l body s h a l l be open t o t h e p u b l i c and no meetings of a g o v e r n m e n t a l body may be h e l d w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g n o t i c e pursuant to the requirements of Section 36-25A-3. No e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d by t h i s chapter to be held under any circumstances. E l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s h a l l n o t be u t i l i z e d t o c i r c u m v e n t any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r . " (Emphasis added.) Lambert constituted Keenum " s e n d s argued that Keenum's e-mail message itself a " m e e t i n g " u n d e r t h e A c t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , when o u t a message t o a l l t h e b o a r d members and 3 he 2100766 d e t a i l s i n i t h i s p o s i t i o n on s o m e t h i n g t h e y ' r e g o i n g t o v o t e on, h i s p o s i t i o n a b o u t o t h e r m e e t i n g s , a n d o t h e r t h i n g s have t a k e n p l a c e a n d how he f e e l s coming up, defendants that constitutes argued that about b o a r d p o l i c y a meeting." Keenum's e-mail involve was defines not a because i t d i d not " d e l i b e r a t i o n , " as d e f i n e d i n § 3 6 - 2 5 A - 2 ( 1 ) . 36-25A-2(6)a.3. that's In response, the message " m e e t i n g , " as d e f i n e d i n § 3 6 - 2 5 A - 2 ( 6 ) a . 3 . , that Section " m e e t i n g , " i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as " [ t ] h e g a t h e r i n g , w h e t h e r o r n o t i t was p r e a r r a n g e d , o f a quorum o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l body o r a quorum o f a c o m m i t t e e o r a s u b c o m m i t t e e o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l body d u r i n g w h i c h t h e members o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e l i b e r a t e s p e c i f i c matters t h a t , a t the time of the e x c h a n g e , t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g members e x p e c t t o come b e f o r e t h e body, c o m m i t t e e , o r s u b c o m m i t t e e a t a l a t e r date." S e c t i o n 36-25A-2(1) d e f i n e s " d e l i b e r a t i o n " as " [ a ] n exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n o r i d e a s among a quorum o f members o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l body i n t e n d e d t o a r r i v e a t o r i n f l u e n c e a d e c i s i o n as t o how t h e members o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l body s h o u l d v o t e on a s p e c i f i c m a t t e r t h a t , a t t h e time o f t h e exchange, t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g members e x p e c t t o come b e f o r e t h e body i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n o r a t a l a t e r time." A f t e r h e a r i n g arguments, was inclined to believe the t r i a l that a single court stated that i t board member cannot " t a i n t t h e w h o l e b o a r d a n d v i o l a t e t h e Open M e e t i n g s [ A c t b y ] 4 2100766 firing away a letter or exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n . an email. To me, i t is I t i s one-sided not an That's not a meeting." The trial day after court complaint, preliminary ruled, had the Lambert referencing an e-mail hearing filed a the that case. in disallow the improper attempt Lambert had was L a m b e r t a l l e g e d t h a t he had message September amendment on to been 2010. the aware The not a defendant 2010 to i t represented an when he f a i l e d to present hearing. The f u r t h e r argued that evidence did indicate that of moved b u t t h a t he had not allegedly a d d i t i o n a l evidence i n November the amended b e e n made aware complaint defendants second defendants ground t h a t introduce before message t h a t had b e e n s e n t t o Keenum by a b o a r d member who in and of which filed the at the p r e l i m i n a r y a violation the a d d i t i o n a l of the Act had disallowed the occurred. On April amendment and Lambert timely 11, 2011, entered the trial court a judgment i n f a v o r of the appealed; his a p p e a l was defendants. t r a n s f e r r e d by supreme c o u r t t o t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, 2-7(6). 5 the § 12- 2100766 Standard of Review S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 5 A - 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, proof that hearing a plaintiff of [a] attended i s r e q u i r e d t o meet a t a conducted pursuant " e s t a b l i s h by s t a t e s the burden of to the Act. The preliminary plaintiff must a preponderance of the evidence t h a t a meeting governmental body the meeting." occurred Subsection and (b) that each defendant further requires " t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f one o r more o f t h e following claims: "(1) T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i s r e g a r d e d the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p r o p e r n o t i c e of the m e e t i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h e a p p l i c a b l e methods s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n 36-25A-3. "(2) T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i s r e g a r d e d the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s chapter d u r i n g a m e e t i n g , o t h e r t h a n d u r i n g an executive session. "(3) T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s v o t e d t o go into executive session and while in e x e c u t i v e s e s s i o n the defendants d i s c u s s e d matters other than those s u b j e c t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e m o t i o n t o c o n v e n e an executive s e s s i o n as r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 5 A - 7 ( b ) . "(4) T h a t , o t h e r t h a n a c l a i m u n d e r subdivisions (1) through (3), the defendants i n t e n t i o n a l l y v i o l a t e d other p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s chapter." S e c t i o n § 36-25A-9(c) p r o v i d e s , 6 in pertinent part, that, that 2100766 " [ i ] f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f has met i t s i n i t i a l b u r d e n o f p r o o f as r e q u i r e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (b) a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t s h a l l e s t a b l i s h a schedule f o r d i s c o v e r y and set the m a t t e r f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s . " An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r a p l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of one or more preliminary hearing. So. 3d 1190, 1193 claims Wilson under the Act at the v. C i t y C o u n c i l o f S a r a l a n d , 72 ( A l a . 2011). Discussion I. A single e-mail sent b o a r d members, w i t h o u t as defined three in § elements: by one b o a r d member t o more, does n o t 36-25A-2(6)a.3. (1) a meeting other c o n s t i t u t e a "meeting" That must the definition i n v o l v e "a includes quorum of a g o v e r n m e n t a l body o r a quorum o f a c o m m i t t e e o r a s u b c o m m i t t e e o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , " (2) " d u r i n g t h e w h i c h t h e members o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e l i b e r a t e " (3) a b o u t " s p e c i f i c t h a t , at the time expect o f t h e e x c h a n g e , t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g members t o come b e f o r e t h e b o d y , c o m m i t t e e , o r s u b c o m m i t t e e a t a later date." and matters third Keenum's e - m a i l message s a t i s f i e s t h e elements, but not 7 the second element. first The 2100766 "deliberation" component Keenum's e - m a i l message of a "meeting" i s m i s s i n g because was a u n i l a t e r a l declaration of h i s i d e a s o r o p i n i o n s , n o t " [ a ] n exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n o r i d e a s among" a quorum o f b o a r d members c o n c e r n i n g a s p e c i f i c matter t h a t t h e members e x p e c t e d t o be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e b o a r d f o r a decision. § 36-25A-2(1) and - 2 ( 6 ) a . 3 . I n Wood v . B a t t l e G r o u n d S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , 10 7 Wash. App. 550, 27 P.3d 1208 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , f o u r members o f a f i v e - m e m b e r s c h o o l b o a r d met a t t h e home o f one o f t h e members t o d i s c u s s t h e new superintendent Wood, both members, and h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f whom were, "overpaid, unqualified." according assistant, t o one underperforming, of and Jennifer the board otherwise 107 Wash. App. a t 556, 27 P.3d a t 1213. The f o u r b o a r d members l a t e r e x c h a n g e d e - m a i l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e as a follow-up to their t e r m i n a t e d Wood's four board discussion. employment. members, Wood alleging The board eventually sued the board claims of defamation and t h e and a v i o l a t i o n o f W a s h i n g t o n ' s Open P u b l i c M e e t i n g s A c t ("OPMA"). The t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m and e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Wood on t h e OPMA c l a i m . 8 2100766 The Washington Court o f Appeals s t a t e d t h a t , t o enforce the p r o v i s i o n s a o f t h e OPMA, a p l a i n t i f f 'member' o f a g o v e r n i n g body that body (3) where must show "(1) (2) a t t e n d e d ' a c t i o n ' was t a k e n that a 'meeting' o f i n violation of the OPMA, a n d (4) t h a t t h e member h a d 'knowledge' t h a t t h e m e e t i n g v i o l a t e d t h e OPMA." The OPMA d e f i n e s 107 Wash. App. a t 558, 27 P.3d a t 1214. " a c t i o n " as "'the t r a n s a c t i o n o f the official b u s i n e s s o f a p u b l i c a g e n c y b y a g o v e r n i n g body i n c l u d i n g b u t not limited discussions, actions.'" to receipt of public considerations, reviews, evaluations, that " t h e exchange (emphasis added). of e-mails does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y facts and f i n a l constitute a t 564, 27 P.3d a t 1217. The c o u r t a receipt of e-mail a 'meeting.'" The c o u r t (quoting can c o n s t i t u t e ' m e e t i n g ' " b u t t h a t " t h e mere u s e o r p a s s i v e App. deliberations, 107 Wash. App. a t 559, 27 P.3d a t 1214 Wash. Rev. Code § 4 2 . 3 0 . 0 2 0 ( 3 ) ) concluded testimony, explained 107 Wash. that the o f t h e c a s e d e m o n s t r a t e d more t h a n t h e b o a r d members' passive receipt of information by e-mail: "Wood h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a prima facie case o f 'meeting' by e - m a i l s . The ... e - m a i l d i s c u s s i o n s i n v o l v e d a quorum o f t h e f i v e - m e m b e r B o a r d . F o r i n s t a n c e , on November 30, [ b o a r d p r e s i d e n t ] Sharp s e n t an e - m a i l t o a l l B o a r d members a n d a n o t h e r e - m a i l t o t h r e e o f t h e members; on December 1, S h a r p 9 2100766 a g a i n e - m a i l e d a l l t h e B o a r d members, a t t a c h i n g a r e s p o n s e he h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m [ b o a r d member] S t r i k e r a b o u t a m a t t e r t h e y h a d d i s c u s s e d ; n e x t , on December 3, [ b o a r d member] K i m e - m a i l e d S h a r p a n d c o p i e d t h r e e o t h e r B o a r d members i n r e s p o n s e t o S h a r p ' s e a r l i e r e-mail; a n d on December 5, S h a r p again e - m a i l e d a l l B o a r d members." 107 Wash. App. a t 5 6 5 , 27 P.3d a t 1217-18. the " d e l i b e r a t i o n " component o f a " m e e t i n g , " t h e Washington C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t " t h e a c t i v e exchange of information and o p i n i o n s receipt i n these e-mails, of information, d e l i b e r a t e and/or a s o p p o s e d t o t h e mere p a s s i v e suggests collective threshold requirement of e s t a b l i s h i n g favor material e-mail o f Wood, h o l d i n g t h e OPMA. knowledge that were g e n u i n e P.2d 496, 5 0 3 , 20 C a l . R p t r . such exchanges violated implies 2d 330, 337 (1993) "collective 10 See 5 C a l . 4 t h 3 6 3 , 376, 853 "Brown A c t , " C a l i f o r n i a ' s o p e n - m e e t i n g s a meeting under issues of 107 Wash. App. a t 555-56, 27 P.3d a t 1217-18. R o b e r t s v. C i t y o f P a l m d a l e , that a "meeting" t h e b o a r d members h a d e x c h a n g e d also the 107 Wash. App. r e v e r s e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t that there f a c t as t o w h e t h e r messages w i t h intent to H a v i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Wood h a d met t h e OPMA, t h e c o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s in a t o discuss Board business." A t 566, 27 P.3d a t 1218. the With respect t o action (construing law, and h o l d i n g ... n o t ... t h e 2100766 passive r e c e i p t by i n d i v i d u a l s Metropolitan Ct. App. weighing .... m a i l " ) ; Johnston G o v ' t o f N a s h v i l l e , 320 S.W.3d 299, 312 2009) metropolitan of their (stating that e-mail c o u n c i l members, i n w h i c h exchanges "members v. (Tenn. between are c l e a r l y a r g u m e n t s f o r a n d a g a i n s t [a p r o p o s e d z o n i n g measure] [ a n d w h i c h were] c o p i e d t o a l l C o u n c i l members, the type o f debate and r e c i p r o c a l attempts w o u l d be e x p e c t e d presence at persuasion that t o take place a t a C o u n c i l meeting, i n the of the p u b l i c concluding mirror and t h e C o u n c i l that the e-mails as a w h o l e , " a n d were " ' e l e c t r o n i c communication ... u s e d t o ... d e l i b e r a t e p u b l i c b u s i n e s s i n c i r c u m v e n t i o n o f the spirit or requirements' of [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 8 - 4 4 - 1 0 2 ( c ) F. O'Connor & M i c h a e l Application of the Open (2002)"). Meetings A c t . See g e n e r a l l y J o h n J . B a r a t z , Some A s s e m b l y R e q u i r e d : State Open Meeting C o r r e s p o n d e n c e , 12 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 719 Laws to The Email (2004). II. The in t r i a l court acted w i t h i n the l i m i t s of i t s d i s c r e t i o n denying L a m b e r t ' s l a t e amendment t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . " ' [ U ] n d u e d e l a y i n f i l i n g an amendment, when i t could have been filed earlier based on t h e information a v a i l a b l e or discoverable, i s i n i t s e l f g r o u n d f o r d e n y i n g an amendment.' Puckett, Taul & Underwood, I n c . v. S c h r e i b e r C o r p . , 551 So. 2d 979, 11 2100766 984 ( A l a . 1989) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . ' [ I ] f the court determines ... t h a t a p a r t y h a s h a d s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t a t e a c l a i m ... b u t h a s f a i l e d t o do s o , l e a v e t o amend may be p r o p e r l y denied.' W a l k e r v. T r a u g h b e r , 351 So. 2d 917, 922 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977) ( q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n S t a l l i n g s v. A n g e l i c a U n i f o r m Co., 388 So.2d [942,] 947 [ ( A l a . 1980) ] . " Todd v. K e l l e y , 783 So. 2d 3 1 , 36-37 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . Conclusion Keenum's e - m a i l the message t o t h e o t h e r only Lambert hearing. evidence at the T h a t c o m m u n i c a t i o n was a u n i l a t e r a l Keenum's i d e a s the presented b o a r d members members or opinions expected concerning t o be preliminary expression a s p e c i f i c matter presented was of that t o the Board for a d e c i s i o n -- n o t " [ a ] n e x c h a n g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n o r i d e a s among" a quorum o f b o a r d members, § 3 6 - 2 5 A - 2 ( 1 ) , a n d n o t , a " m e e t i n g " as c o n t e m p l a t e d b y § 3 6 - 2 5 A - 2 ( 6 ) a . 3 . Lambert failed t o meet h i s i n i t i a l preliminary hearing. burden therefore, Accordingly, of proof at the In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l court d i dnot a c t o u t s i d e the l i m i t s of i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s a l l o w i n g Lambert's untimely The amendment t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . judgment o f t h e L i m e s t o n e C i r c u i t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . 12 2100766 Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t without 13 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.