Dewey v. Redevelopment Agency

Staff members of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Reno (the agency) (defendant) held briefings with the agency’s public officials regarding responses to the agency’s request for proposals for a controversial demolition project. The first briefing was attended by representatives from the agency’s staff and two agency public officials. The second meeting was attended by representatives from the agency’s staff and three agency public officials. Nevada’s open-meetings law required that all meetings of a public body be open to the public. The open-meetings law defined a meeting as the gathering of the members of a public body at which a quorum was present to deliberate or take action on public business. A quorum of the agency’s public officials consisted of four of the agency’s board members. A short time after the staff briefings, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the agency’s board, the public officials met to review the responses to the request for proposals and discuss its options for demolition. The public meeting lasted approximately six hours and included presentations by agency staff, public testimony, and board-member discussion. At the end of the meeting, the board members voted in favor of the demolition. Jon Dewey and other historical preservationists (collectively, the historical preservationists) (plaintiffs) sued the agency, alleging that the serial staff briefings allowed board members to constructively create a meeting that was closed to the public in violation of the open-meetings law. The historical preservationists further argued that this illegal meeting voided the agency’s approval of the demolition. At trial, agency staff and board members testified that the purpose of the briefings was to provide informational updates and that no deliberations occurred. The trial court held in favor of the historical preservationists and determined that the agency violated the open-meetings law. Consequently, the trial court enjoined the agency from holding informal serial briefings in the future. However, the trial court did not void the agency’s vote in favor of the demolition, finding that the six-hour public meeting on the issue effectively cured the violation. The agency filed an appeal with regard to the judgment of violation, and the historical preservationists filed a cross-appeal with regard to the trial court’s failure to invalidate the council’s vote.