N.C. court: City council should have released land information sooner

By The Associated Press

08.10.02

Printer-friendly page

RALEIGH, N.C. — The Burlington city council should have released details about a proposed land purchase before going into closed session, the state Court of Appeals ruled on Aug. 6.

State law allows public bodies to debate behind closed doors the terms of buying property. But it doesn't apply to details immaterial in the negotiations to buy the tract, the court said in a unanimous opinion.

An attorney representing a newspaper seeking the information called it a significant victory for citizens and the news media seeking basic information about property local governments want to buy or sell. The state Open Meetings law doesn't require all land details to be kept secret, said John Bussian of Raleigh, who represented The Alamance News.

The ruling gives "clear direction to those lawyers in the public sector who may have been misled about what they are required to tell the public when they are buying (land) for a public agency," Bussian said.

The three-judge panel ruled that the Burlington city council was wrong to keep hidden the property's location, owners and proposed use. The tract was the only property the city was looking at to buy for a public park.

"Our holding adequately protects the interests of the public body in maintaining (a) bargaining position while also protecting the public's interest in open government," Judge John Martin wrote in the opinion.

The council met in November 2000 for a regularly scheduled work session and voted to go into closed session to discuss some lawsuits and the land acquisition. The council refused to give a reporter for The Alamance News details about the acquisition before going behind closed doors.

Later that month, the board also declined to provide the minutes of the closed session. State law allows withholding those minutes "so long as public inspection would frustrate the purposed of a closed session."

The newspaper sued, and although the council released all of the details two weeks later in authorizing the purchase, the case continued.

A Superior Court judge ultimately sided with the newspaper, determining that the council should have disclosed the property location and potential use before deliberating in closed session. But withholding the owners' names and holding the minutes of the closed session was lawful, the court said. The city and the newspaper appealed.

In this case, the council had the option of purchasing a single tract of land from the Ingle family for a park. The offering price — set at no more than $1,275,000 — and tax implications for the seller were the only issues that needed to be negotiated, Martin wrote.

"The council neither had to consider reasons to choose among multiple properties nor discuss different possible uses for the tract under consideration," he wrote.

The court also said the council should have provided the owner's name and those portions of the minutes of the closed session that made no mention of the negotiated terms.

Martin wrote that there could be situations where an owner's identity or the land location could be kept hidden when the city is negotiating with competing owners. Bussian said those situations would be very rare.

Burlington's city attorney didn't return a phone call seeking comment. Judges Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Albert Thomas concurred with Martin's opinion.