When can public bodies close meetings under Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act? Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Commission Explained

In Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Commission, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a crucial question about when government bodies can legally close public meetings under the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. The case arose when Salt Lake County Commission closed part of a public meeting to discuss strategy regarding an annexation petition pending before the county boundary commission.

Background and Facts
During a March 1998 staff meeting, the Salt Lake County Commission voted to close the meeting to discuss whether to oppose Riverton City’s annexation petition. The county attorney’s office explained the procedural circumstances, outlined three possible courses of action, and recommended a strategy. The commission then voted to appear before the boundary commission and send a letter identifying technical problems with the petition. Kearns-Tribune Corporation sued, claiming the closure violated the Open and Public Meetings Act.

Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the litigation exception in Utah Code Section 52-4-5(1)(a)(iii) applies to annexation proceedings. This exception permits closed meetings for “strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.” The parties disputed whether county boundary commission proceedings constitute “litigation” and whether the county conducted a proper “strategy session.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that boundary commission proceedings constitute quasi-judicial litigation for purposes of the Act. The court reasoned that while boundary commissions perform both legislative and adjudicative functions, their role in resolving annexation disputes between adverse parties is fundamentally judicial. The proceedings include representation, evidence, witnesses, and appeals to district court, making them sufficiently litigation-like to trigger the exception.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that the litigation exception extends beyond traditional court proceedings to include quasi-judicial administrative proceedings. Public bodies can close meetings to discuss strategy for proceedings before administrative tribunals that resolve disputes between adverse parties, apply law to facts, and are subject to judicial review. However, the exception must be narrowly construed to preserve the Act’s fundamental purpose of government transparency.