Attorney General's Opinion 1991 #005

ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT GENERALLY: VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

Act's notice of meeting requirements met when public body notifies correspondent that town council meets at same time and place on certain day every month and gives notice of any special meetings. Date, time and place of reconvened meeting may be announced at regularly scheduled meeting; further written notice not required.

August 5, 1991

The Honorable R. Beasley Jones
Member, House of Delegates

1991 5

You ask several questions concerning The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the "Act"), §§ 2.1-340 through 2.1-346.1 of the Code of Virginia. You first ask whether a public body, asked to provide notice on a continual basis of meetings held by that body, has complied with the Act by responding that the body meets "on the second Tuesday of every month." You also ask whether, when notice has properly been given for a public meeting, additional notice must be given if the meeting is recessed and then reconvened on another date.

I. Facts

You state that a news correspondent for a radio station requested that the local town council notify him of all council meetings. The mayor responded by letter that the council meets on the second Tuesday of each month, and that the correspondent would be notified of any special meetings. You also state that the correspondent contends that the Act requires notification "on a continual basis" and the one letter mailed to the correspondent, described above, does not satisfy that requirement.

You further state that the council recessed a regularly scheduled meeting on April 9, 1991, and reconvened the meeting on April 23, 1991. No written notice was given to the correspondent of the reconvened meeting, although the mayor announced in open session at the conclusion of the April 9, 1991, meeting that the council would reconvene on April 23, 1991.

II. Applicable Statute

Section 2.1-343 of the Act concerns public meetings and provides, in part:

Notice including the time, date and place of each meeting shall be furnished to any citizen of this Commonwealth who requests such information. . . .

Requests to be notified on a continual basis shall be made at least once a year in writing and include name, address, zip code and organization of the requester. Notice, reasonable under the circumstance, of special or emergency meetings shall be given contemporaneously with the notice provided members of the public body conducting the meeting.

III. Public Bodies Required to Give Notice of Meeting Dates; Adequate Notice Given in Facts Presented

As discussed above, § 2.1-343 of the Act requires that notice be given of the "time, date and place of each meeting" of a public body to any citizen requesting that information, and also that "[r]equests to be notified on a continual basis shall be made at least once a year in writing and include name, address, zip code and organization of the requester."

The purpose of the Act is to ensure "the people of this Commonwealth . . . free entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business of the people is being conducted." Section 2.1-340.1. In the facts you present, the correspondent asked to be notified of council meetings. The mayor notified the correspondent that regular council meetings are held on the second Tuesday of each month and that further notice would be provided of any special council meeting.

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that absurd results in construing statutes are to be avoided. McFadden v. McNorton, 193 Va. 455, 461, 69 S.E.2d 445, 449 (1952); 86-87 Va. AG 307, 308. Nothing in the Act requires a public body to repeat identical regular meeting notices when the correspondent could merely mark his calendar to attend the meetings on the same day, at the same time and place each month. It is my opinion, therefore, that the requirements of the Act are met in the facts you present when the public body notified the correspondent that the body meets at the same time and place "on the second Tuesday of every month," and notifies the requester of any special meetings.1 To require a public body to notify a requester prior to each regularly scheduled meeting would impose a substantial administrative burden upon public bodies that is not required by the Act.

IV. Date and Time of Reconvened Meeting May Be Announced at Regularly Scheduled Meeting;Further Written Notice Not Required

A prior Opinion of this Office concerns facts substantively similar to those you present and concludes that

[w]here the public has been given notice as required by law in regard to a public hearing, I am of the opinion that the hearing may be continued for conclusion to a date, time and place certain in the future, provided that the governmental body in question announces to the public at the public hearing the need to recess and reconvene the public hearing. Unless otherwise required by law, re-advertising the continued public hearing by newspaper publication is not necessary and, in many cases, would not be practical if the public hearing were recessed or adjourned from day to day as permitted, for example, by § 15.1-162 of the Code in local budget hearings.

72-73 Va. AG 489, 489-90.

Based on the above, it is my opinion that when notice has properly been given for a public meeting, the requirements of the Act are satisfied if the public body announces at that meeting the date, time and place when the meeting will be reconvened. The continuance of a meeting by a public body, however, should not be employed as a ruse to avoid the notice requirements of the Act.

_______________________

FOOTNOTES

1. I am aware that a prior Opinion of this Office concludes that former § 2.1-343 "permits an individual to request the unit of government that he be notified on a continuous basis of the time and place of each meeting of said governmental body." See 72-73 Va. AG 494, 495. There is no indication in this prior Opinion that the regular meeting notice provided by the mayor in your inquiry was given. Likewise, there is no indication that regular, rather than special, meetings were the subject of the prior Opinion.