Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, a Wyoming corporation v. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming

Citations: 2016 WY 125; 386 P.3d 329; 45 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1151; 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 139Docket: S-16-0103

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court; December 22, 2016; Wyoming; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case involving Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. and the City of Cheyenne, concerning the Employee Investment Study Implementation Team (EIS Team) created by the City Council. The EIS Team was established to explore ways to implement staffing and compensation recommendations from a study conducted by Mercer Group, Inc. The newspaper sought to have the EIS Team's meetings declared public under the Wyoming Public Meetings Act, but the district court ruled in favor of the City, stating that the EIS Team was not an "agency" subject to the Act. The appellate court affirmed this ruling. 

Key details include the creation of the EIS Team through Resolution No. 5508, which outlined its membership and purpose. The team included various City officials and employees tasked with considering the recommendations from the Mercer Study, with a final implementation plan due to the Governing Body by January 1, 2014, for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget. The court's decision clarifies that the EIS Team does not meet the criteria of an agency under the Wyoming Public Meetings Act.

Upon completion of the Mercer Study, the City Council of Cheyenne, Wyoming, passed Resolution No. 5535, acknowledging receipt of the study and referring it to the Employee Investment Study Implementation Team (EIS Team) for consideration of its recommendations. The resolution mandates the EIS Team to develop a plan for implementing the study's recommendations, due by February 1, 2014. The City conceded that any changes to employee classification and compensation would necessitate an ordinance, which requires public meetings, readings over three days, and a minimum of ten days between introduction and final passage.

Prior to the EIS Team's first meeting, the Tribune-Eagle filed a petition for a declaratory judgment, asserting that the EIS Team must adhere to the Wyoming Public Meetings Act, which mandates open meetings. The City admitted its stance that the EIS Team is not subject to this Act and agreed to postpone meetings until the legal issue was resolved. The City subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the EIS Team does not qualify as an "agency" under the Act. The district court allowed further discovery, during which the Tribune-Eagle deposed city officials, despite the City's objections to the speculative nature of the questions.

Ultimately, the district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the EIS Team was not an "agency" as per the Act, thereby exempting it from open meeting requirements. The Tribune-Eagle filed a timely notice of appeal.

Summary judgment is a valid resolution for a declaratory judgment action when no genuine issues of material fact exist, allowing the moving party to obtain judgment as a matter of law, as established by W.R.C.P. 56(c). The review of a summary judgment grant involves a de novo examination of legal questions, with no deference to the district court, and can be affirmed on any legal basis evident in the record.

The document centers on determining whether the EIS Team qualifies as an "agency" under the Wyoming Public Meetings Act, necessitating a statutory interpretation of legislative intent. Statutory interpretation requires adherence to the purpose and policy behind the enactment, with provisions construed in harmony to give effect to every word. The legislature is presumed to have acted thoughtfully, intending new laws to integrate with existing statutes. Clear language in a statute does not require further interpretation, and the ordinary meaning of unambiguous language should be applied.

The Act aims to ensure government transparency, with its preamble emphasizing the need for open and accountable governance. It mandates that all agency meetings are public, except where stated otherwise, and any actions taken outside of a publicly convened meeting, with proper notice, are deemed null and void.

The Act aims to promote an open and accountable government, aligning with the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA), which favors disclosure over secrecy and is interpreted liberally with narrow applicability of exceptions. The legislature acknowledged the need for a balance between transparency and operational efficiency, exemplified by the exclusion of routine administrative activities from the Act’s meeting notice requirements. The Act defines “agency” to include various governmental bodies created by the state constitution or statutes. A determination must be made whether the EIS Team qualifies as an “authority, bureau, board, commission, committee, or subagency” of the City, with the analysis based on relevant resolutions and statutes rather than deposition testimony. The Tribune-Eagle contends that the EIS Team is a “committee,” while the City argues it is merely an advisory group. The reference to the EIS Team as a “committee” in Resolution No. 5508, along with its role in addressing recommendations from a study, supports the conclusion that the EIS Team qualifies as a “committee” under the Act, as determined by the district court.

The EIS Team was created by resolution from the City, which is generally used for matters of a temporary or special nature, as opposed to ordinances that establish permanent rules. The Tribune-Eagle contests this method, suggesting it was a tactic to avoid public scrutiny. However, the court finds the resolution was appropriate for the EIS Team's temporary charge. The City argues that any committee created by a governing body must comply with the Act, but the legislature clearly defined an "agency" as a committee created by the Wyoming constitution, statute, or ordinance, intentionally omitting "resolution." Thus, the court will not read additional requirements into the statute. The Tribune-Eagle also claims that the committee is indirectly created pursuant to a statutory provision regarding employee salaries. The court rejects this broader interpretation of "pursuant to," asserting it should mean 'in conformity with' specific instructions. Unlike the housing authority in Gronberg, which was established under explicit statutory directives, the EIS Team lacks such specific requirements. Consequently, it was not created in accordance with Wyoming law and is not subject to the open meeting provisions of the Act.

Concerns exist regarding the potential for an agency to improperly delegate authority to subunits or individual members, possibly circumventing the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Case law, including IDS Properties, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach and Wood v. Marston, establishes that public bodies cannot evade the Sunshine Law through delegation or the use of alter egos. The statute is designed to prevent such evasive measures. However, there is no evidence of such behavior in this instance. The EIS Team was established through a resolution, not an ordinance, and included members from various stakeholder groups, including some city council members. Its mandate involved recommending alternatives for the City Council to consider in public meetings. The EIS Team is characterized as special and temporary. Consequently, since the EIS was not formed under Wyoming constitution, statute, or ordinance, it is not subject to the Act. The ruling is affirmed.