thedailytimes.com : Your 24/7 news source

Calling into question a closed work session held by the Alcoa City Commission, three Topside residents have sued the commission seeking to nullify the rezoning of a 10-acre plot on East Old Topside Road.

The group claims in the suit that the commission acted illegally in the rezoning process through "spot zoning" and discussed the issue in a secret meeting that was not open to the public -- in violation of the Tennessee Sunshine Law.

The suit was filed Monday in Blount County Circuit Court by Mitch Taylor, Jack Rose and Kenny Rudd on behalf of the Topside Neighborhood Association.

Defendants are the city of Alcoa, Alcoa Board of Commissioners -- which includes Mayor Don Mull, Vice Mayor Clint Abbott, and commissioners Vaughn Belcher, Clayton Bledsoe and George Williams -- ESSA Inc. and Stacy J. Arp.

The issue has been ongoing for several months, starting with a June 10 commission meeting before which members attended a "work session" on the rezoning request. The suit alleges commissioners illegally "deliberated" the issue at the meeting.

Representatives of the city have said (based on transcripts of later commission meetings filed with the lawsuit) the meeting was informational in nature and was not held counter to the law.

When contacted by The Daily Times by phone Tuesday, Abbott said he was not aware of the lawsuit and could not comment. Other representatives of the city could not be reached for comment, and a phone message left for Mull was not immediately returned.

The Tennessee Sunshine Law includes provisions for governmental meetings which state: "Meetings of any governing body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, except as provided by the Constitution of Tennessee."

A meeting is defined by the law as: "The convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter."

First reading rescinded

The rezoning issue, by the city's own admission, was apparently questionable enough to warrant an internal investigation, which prompted Attorney Shelly L. Wilson to advise commission members during a July 8 commission meeting to rescind the approval on first reading and schedule a public hearing and new first reading in August.

"While the city attorney does not feel that there has been any violation of the zoning assignment on this particular resolution, and in an abundance of caution in the spirit of the law we recommend that you begin anew the process of zoning assignment per Resolution 2008-25," Wilson told the commission, according to a transcript of the meeting.

A citizen, Vickie Valentine, went on to quiz Wilson on the workshop in question that took place, according to Wilson, before the June 10 meeting.

"Was that (workshop) in this room?" Valentine asked.

"No," Wilson replied.

"So was it open to the public or not?" Valentine asked.

"No, it was not," Wilson said.

"So there was no notice of it," Valentine said.

"That's correct," Wilson said.

Wilson said during the meeting that all of the commission members were present at the meeting, but that discussion of the rezoning issue was only between the city attorney and members of the city staff.

"Well, the discussion was between the city attorney and the staff members," she said. "The commissioners were not involved in any discussion. There was no vote, no deliberation, no nothing held at that briefing or workshop."

"And you don't consider that a public meeting?" Valentine asked.

"That was not a public meeting," Wilson replied. "We are starting the process over again."

The rezoning in question was later approved on first and second reading -- on Aug. 12 and Sept. 9 respectively -- and the lawsuit filed Monday alleges the votes were simply a "re-do" of the originals and that "there was never any additional questioning or discussion from the board of commissioners on the matter. Every vote thereafter was unanimous with no discussion or deliberation by the board."

The suit claims that the August and September meetings should be declared null and void because "the subsequent actions were not based on new and substantial reconsiderations of the issues involved in this matter and these subsequent meetings were simply a perfunctory crystallization of the board of commissioners' illegal June 10, 2008 meeting."

A response on behalf of the defendants named in the suit had not been filed as of Tuesday.