ÿWPCô ¨‡«&Û&•ÏÔB5GÞÕŽ©Å õ[ ž¤¨=àïÓú„yÍ.N¿!qݧOB_-0øH½ ÃKMýeÖÖcßµ ‘²!Ö NeòeRù™š1"»\‚DnË‚¡>¦Þ@ÿÇ}‡•ÿF9 X@¬‡@ï‹ý\³ðSV²4T&÷§,4Üœ%ßœt_ŒÄoZ^Ùºn=~MØ)`ƒŒ$±:tj–7tvyÑ%Õ²Wa‡ä°à`½]µÝJÒÐS(ZñÅñ§4Dö7Œ;aÖËí_”Prß=òÆ'mýÞ%'xâZ\“IrÖ¿¬†ÅŒ s†qzi'd·îVéH»ÑS¥”Í™ZÞr:ŸõÎêüéLß kIài²(i^‡Êv߸ˆVÒÒJ¹dàòdßS8¨8Žç³öÿŽ=õÞ60žmbùr²Hµ,lú2ü2ˆ…ÝÌ]’i=Ùy›~z†^<˜˜õßì¢`‰ÚbS¢ú™X­á®µ¬ üXÈ,"–«,g63àq)}ö˜1Ð]]ònºÉ|¯»17PBUq¹ú=º”ea‡Ìž;2°ÛÅT&öFÓs7ö* »‹#C›Ÿ;5Hz4ÔŒŒ+²[¶Þ¿õo½-b_yõi¦¿ˆ‘#…UBF %ˆ Ž n­ž 04K 4 B“ w@Õ U> uS # È NÓ Õ m× 0Dî 2TPÞ¤u‚Þ÷TÕU:)cU: D3»»» 0Dîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîîî B22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 AOOÆžž 0Dd D/¨ B×<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|x¾«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Óýhµ&Ó  ÓShelbyMcMURRAYMcMinn ¨©Eª«D¬U­D®D¯D°Ó€¼<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular kòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àThe€Town€of€Englewood€argues€that€the€Englewood€CitizensÐ `  Ðgroup€lacks€standing;€however,€because€we€find€that€no€conflictÏof€interest€exists€under€either€statute,€we€need€not€decideÏwhether€€the€Englewood€Citizenððs€group€has€standing.̘HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLÐÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ô€XÁ_XXXÔÔ€î7ÛîXXÁ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€I‹îî7ÛÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€25,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÑôI‹ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó JòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àOur€determination€of€adequate€public€notice€is€given€only€inÐ `  Ðrespect€to€T.C.A.€8-44-103(b)€for€special€meetings€under€theÏSunshine€Act€and€not€for€regularly€scheduled€meetings€underÏT.C.A.€8-44-103(a).€€Ì ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àIn€so€holding,€we€recognize€the€minimum€requirements€forÐ `  Ðpublic€posting€of€notice.€€Certainly,€the€community€members€wouldÏbenefit€if€the€special€meetings€notices€were€advertisedÏconsistently€in€the€local€paper€or€through€some€other€widelyÏavailable€medium€such€as€electronic€mail,€the€world-wide€web,€orÏa€community€access€telephone€line.€€Ì kòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àThe€Town€of€Englewood€argues€that€the€Englewood€CitizensÐ `  Ðgroup€lacks€standing;€however,€because€we€find€that€no€conflictÏof€interest€exists€under€either€statute,€we€need€not€decideÏwhether€€the€Englewood€Citizenððs€group€has€standing.Ì ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àIn€so€holding,€we€recognize€the€minimum€requirements€forÐ `  Ðpublic€posting€of€notice.€€Certainly,€the€community€members€wouldÏbenefit€if€the€special€meetings€notices€were€advertisedÏconsistently€in€the€local€paper€or€through€some€other€widelyÏavailable€medium€such€as€electronic€mail,€the€world-wide€web,€orÏa€community€access€telephone€line.€€Ì JòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓà  àOur€determination€of€adequate€public€notice€is€given€only€inÐ `  Ðrespect€to€T.C.A.€8-44-103(b)€for€special€meetings€under€theÏSunshine€Act€and€not€for€regularly€scheduled€meetings€underÏT.C.A.€8-44-103(a).€€Ì,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€XÁ_XXXÔÔ€î7ÛîXXÁ_ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€I‹îî7ÛÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€24,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÑôI‹ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular>>>>'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ°ñ›ñ°ñÔ_ÔÑ` °ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€‚XXdÈXXdð7ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  Ññ¼ññ°ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ef  tt0"H` ¨Ørßñ°ññ¼ññ¼ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@Ef  tt0"H` ¨Ørßñ¼ññ°ñ›ñ°ñà@LLìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€à@@$ìàˆÐ `  Ðà@$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌENGLEWOOD€CITIZENS€FORà@°°*ìàà@@°°*ìà)ˆà  àMcMINN€COUNTYà  àÐ Øx ÐALTERNATE€B,€et€al.à  àà h àà À à€€)à  à03A01„9803„CH„00098Ð  @ Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆÌà  àPlaintiffs„Appellantsà À àà@°°*ìà)ˆÐ 0Ð  Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆÌà@°°*ìà)ˆà  àHON.€EARL€H.€HENLEY,Ð À`  Ðà  àv.à@°°*ìà)ˆà  àCHANCELLORÐ ˆ(  Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆÌà@°°*ìà)ˆÌTHE€TOWN€OF€ENGLEWOOD,€et€al.à@°°*ìà)ˆà  àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;Ð à€  Ðà@°°*ìà)ˆà  àREVERSED€IN€PART;Ð ¨H  Ðà  àDefendants„Appelleesà@°°*ìà)à@@ìì*ìàˆà  àand€REMANDEDÐ p ÐÌÌÌÌÌJOHN€W.€CLEVELAND€OF€SWEETWATER€FOR€APPELLANTSÌÌJON€G.€ROACH€OF€KNOXVILLE€FOR€APPELLEESÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌÔ‡ X‚XXXÔÌà@àà$ìàòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóˆÐ ˜!8 ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à€€à  àà p àà È à€€Ô#†X‚XX X‚+#ÔGoddard,€P.J.€Ð €% $ ÐÌÌÌÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens€for€Alternate€B€appeal€theÏdecision€of€the€McMinn€County€Chancery€Court€to€dismiss€theirÏcomplaint€against€the€Town€of€Englewood,€itððs€mayor,€Ed€Simpson,Ïand€three€of€its€commissioners,€Amos€Brock,€Robert€Middleton,€andÏElizabeth€Raper.€€The€Englewood€Citizens€group€sought€toÏchallenge€the€town€commissionððs€selection€of€a€route€for€aÏhighway€construction€project.€€€ÌÌà  àà ` àAt€a€special€meeting€on€December€12,€1996,€the€Board€ofÏCommissioners€for€the€Town€of€Englewood€agreed€to€endorseÏAlternate€A€in€a€letter€that€would€be€sent€by€the€commissionersÏto€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation.€€The€townÏcommission€chose€the€existing€route€through€Englewood€for€aÐ (<È2Ag Ðconstruction€project€to€widen€U.S.€411€from€a€two€lane€road€intoÏa€four€lane€road.€€A€second€choice€for€the€improvement€of€U.S.Ï411€is€a€route€which€would€bypass€the€town€completely;€this€routeÏis€known€as€Alternate€B,€and€is€proposed€as€the€better€route€byÏthe€Englewood€Citizens€for€Alternate€B.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àTwo€votes€were€taken€on€the€motion€to€send€the€letterÏendorsing€Alternate€A.€€Because€Commissioners€Raper€and€MiddletonÏown€property€along€Alternate€A,€the€mayor€believed€theirÏownership€could€cause€a€conflict€of€interest€for€theÏcommissioners€if€they€were€to€receive€money€from€the€state€forÏtheir€property€in€order€to€improve€U.S.€411.€€In€both€votes,€theÏcommission€approved€Alternate€A€with€Commissioners€Raper€andÏMiddleton€œabstainñ¨ñingñ¨ñ›€in€the€second€vote.€€€€ÌÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€vote,€the€Englewood€Citizens€group€filed€suitÏagainst€the€town€and€its€commissioners€for€declaratory€andÏinjunctive€relief€contending:€1)€the€town€violated€the€TennesseeÏOpen€Meetings€Act€with€its€December€12,€1996,€meeting;€2)€theÏmayor€and€certain€town€commissioners€have€an€impermissibleÏconflict€of€interest€in€the€selection€of€the€route€for€a€stateÏhighway;€and€3)€the€selection€of€that€route€by€the€townÏcommissioners€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€and€against€the€publicÏinterest.€€€ÌÌà  àà ` àOn€December€29,€1997,€the€Chancery€Court€dismissed€theÏEnglewood€Citizensðð€first€cause€of€action€with€respect€to€theÏviolation€of€the€Tennessee€Open€Meetings€Act.€€The€EnglewoodÏCitizens€group€claimed€that€the€notice€given€by€the€mayor€and€theÏcommissioners€was€inadequate,€and,€therefore,€in€violation€ofÏâ âT.C.A.€8-44-103.€€The€Chancellor€thought€œdifferently,›€ruling€thatÐ @8à.< Ðthe€notice€provided€by€the€town€was€reasonable€under€theÏcircumstances.€€Ìâ âÌà  àà ` àThe€town€recorder€testified€at€trial€that€notice€forÏthe€Thursday,€December€12,€meeting€was€posted€on€Tuesday,ÏDecember€10,€at€the€local€post€office,€city€hall,€and€ValleyÏBank.€€Additionally,€the€city€recorder€stated€that€she€faxed€aÏcopy€of€the€notice€to€the€Daily€Post€Athenian€newspaper€forÏpublication.€€Nothing€in€the€record,€however,€indicates€that€theÏnotice€actually€ran€in€the€paper.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€Chancery€Court€dismissed€the€Englewood€CitizensððÏsecond€and€third€causes€of€action€on€February€5,€1998.€€The€CourtÏruled€that€there€was€not€a€conflict€of€interest€sufficient€enoughÏto€keep€the€commission€from€making€its€determination.€€As€for€theÏthird€cause€of€action,€the€Chancery€Court€felt€it€was€withoutÏauthority€to€challenge€the€town€commissionððs€act€because€it€was€aÏlegislative€process.€€As€the€Court€stated:€ð ðThatððs€-€although€IÐ  :À04 Ðhave€no€authority€whatsoever€in€saying€which€is€the€best€route€toÏtake.€€Thatððs€for€the€city€commission€to€make€for€themselves.€ÏThatððs€a€governmental€process€that€a€court€doesnððt€-€aÏlegislative€process€that€a€court€cannot€interfere€with.ðð€€ÏNevertheless,€the€Chancery€Court€went€on€to€find€that€theÏselection€of€the€existing€route€for€the€improvements€wasÏreasonable€because€that€is€where€the€road€is€now€located.ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens€group€filed€their€notice€ofÏappeal€on€February€26,€1998,€€raising€three€issues€on€appeal:€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °œX?ÓÓÓ1)€whether€the€Town€of€Englewood,€its€mayor€andÏcommissioners€violated€and€continue€to€violate€the€openÏmeetings€law€by€refusing€to€give€adequate€public€noticeÏof€their€meetings;ÌÌ2)€whether€the€Town€of€Englewood,€its€mayor€andÏcommissioners€violated€the€conflict€of€interestÏstatutes,€T.C.A.€6-54-107(b)€and€12-4-101(b)€by€theirÏinterest€in€real€property€indirectly€involved€inÏcontracts€necessary€to€their€official€action;€andÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?Ó3)€whether€the€Chancellor€erred€in€dismissing€the€thirdÏcount€of€the€appellantsðð€complaint€without€providingÏappellants€an€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌThe€Town€of€Englewood€added€two€issues€of€its€own€for€thisÏappeal:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?Ó1)€whether€the€plaintiff€has€standing€to€bring€anÏaction€under€or€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€6-54-107€or€T.C.A.Ï12-4-101;€andÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?Ó2)€whether€there€exists€a€justiciable€controversyÏentitling€plaintiffs€to€seek€relief€pursuant€to€theÏdeclaratory€judgment€act€T.C.A.€29-14-101€et€seq.€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌÌÌà  àà ` àI.€à ¸ àOpen€Meetings€ActÐ p5,/ ÐÌÓÓà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens€group€contends€that€the€noticeÏgiven€by€the€Town€of€Englewood€for€the€December€12,€1996,€meetingÐ 09Ð/3 Ðwas€inadequate€and€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€Open€MeetingsÏAct.€€The€Open€Meetings€Act€is€commonly€referred€to€as€theÏSunshine€Law€and€codifies€the€General€Assemblyððs€belief€thatÏpublic€business€should€not€be€conducted€in€secret.€T.C.A.Ï8-44-101.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThis€appeal€relies€on€one€specific€section€of€the€actÏthat€reads:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?ÓNOTICE€OF€SPECIAL€MEETINGS.€€€Any€such€governmentalÏbody€which€holds€a€meeting€not€previously€scheduled€byÏstatute,€ordinance,€or€resolution,€or€for€which€noticeÏis€not€already€provided€by€law,€shall€give€adequateÏpublic€notice€of€such€meeting.€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌÓÓT.C.A.€8-44-103(b).€€While€this€section€clearly€requires€adequateÏnotice,€the€General€Assembly€did€not€provide€a€definition€of€whatÏadequate€notice€means.€€The€Supreme€Court,€however,€has€addressedÏthis€issue€in€òòMemphis€Publ'g€Co.€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€513€S.W.2dÐ  #@ Ð511€(Tenn.1974).€€In€that€case,€the€Court€wrote:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?ÓWe€think€it€is€impossible€to€formulate€a€general€ruleÏin€regard€to€what€the€phrase€"adequate€public€notice"Ïmeans.€€However,€we€agree€with€the€Chancellor€thatÏadequate€public€notice€means€adequate€public€noticeÏunder€the€circumstances,€or€such€notice€based€on€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€as€would€fairly€informÏthe€public.ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓòòÌMemphis€Publ'g€Coóó.,€513€S.W.2d€at€513;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòKinser€v.€Town€ofÐ Ð/p&) ÐOliver€Springsóó,€880€S.W.2d€681€(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).€€Our€task,Ð °1P(+ Ðtherefore,€is€to€determine€if€the€notice€provided€by€the€Town€ofÏEnglewood€fairly€informed€the€public€under€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€ÌÐ 09Ð/3 Ðà  àà ` àIn€order€to€qualify€as€adequate€public€notice€underÏT.C.A.€8-44-103(b),€this€Court€finds€that€the€notice€given€by€theÏTown€of€Englewood€must€satisfy€a€three-prong€test.€€First,€theÏnotice€must€be€posted€in€a€location€where€a€member€of€theÏcommunity€could€become€aware€of€such€notice.€€Second,€theÏcontents€of€the€notice€must€reasonably€describe€the€purpose€ofÏthe€meeting€or€the€action€proposed€to€be€taken.€€And,€third,€theÏnotice€must€be€posted€at€a€time€sufficiently€in€advance€of€theÏactual€meeting€in€order€to€give€citizens€both€an€opportunity€toÏbecome€aware€of€and€to€attend€the€meeting.€€Without€meeting€allÏthree€of€these€requirements,€we€fail€to€see€how€the€Town€ofÏEnglewood€could€provide€adequate€public€notice€for€the€purposesÏof€a€special€meeting.Ô‡ô ôXX¶HÔòòñ¥ñ׃×ñ¥ññ¥ñ׃×ñ¥ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝò…òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¶HX,ô Š*#Ôóó€€Ð à€ ÐÌ1.à  àPosting€LocationÐ  #@ Ðà  àà ` àThe€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€the€Town€ofÏEnglewood€posted€notice€of€the€meeting€in€three€locations:€cityÏhall,€the€post€office,€and€Valley€Bank.€€Under€the€circumstancesÏpresented€in€this€case,€we€find€that€these€three€locations€wereÏadequate€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€because€theyÏafforded€the€members€of€the€community€an€opportunity€to€see€theÏnotice.€€ÌÐ  2@), Ðà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizenððs€group€complains€in€their€briefÏthat€the€notice€is€inadequate€because€it€is€not€conspicuous,€andÏthe€three€public€locations€chosen€are€not€accessible€at€all€hoursÏover€the€weekend.€€Additionally,€they€argue€that€severalÏcommunity€members€were€unaware€of€the€posted€notices.€€We€find,Ïhowever,€that€for€purposes€of€this€prong€of€the€adequate€noticeÏinquiry,€the€town€can€provide€adequate€notice€simply€by€choosingÏreasonable€public€locations€and€posting€notices€at€those€publicÏlocations€on€a€consistent€basis.€€It€would€be€illogical€to€findÏthat€city€hall€and€the€post€office€were€not€proper€locations€toÏpost€notice€regarding€town€business.€€The€Citizens€group€must€notÏforget€the€practical€point€that€notice€must€be€posted€œsomewhere.ñ©ñÔ‡ô ôXX¶HÔòòñ©ññ¥ñ›ñ¥ññ©ññ¥ñ׃×ñ¥ññ©ññ¥ñ׃×ñ¥ññ©ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ©ñœñ©ñÔ#†X¶HXôô M0#Ôóó€ñ©ñ›ÌÌ2.à  àContents€of€the€Notice€Ð À!` Ðà  àà ` àIn€order€for€the€notice€given€by€the€town€to€meet€theÏsecond€prong€of€the€adequate€notice€inquiry,€the€contents€of€theÏnotice€must€reasonably€describe€the€purpose€of€the€meeting€or€theÏaction€proposed€to€be€taken.€€In€this€instance,€the€contents€ofÏthe€Town€of€Englewoodððs€notice€read:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?Ó1.à ` àLetter€to€State€concerning€HWY€411Ð - #& ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓà  à2.à ` àPolice€Salary€Supplement€payÐ ð-$' Ðà  à3.à ` àCity€Recorder.Ð à.€%( ÐÌÓÓWe€find€that€under€the€circumstances€presented€the€content€ofÏthis€notice€was€so€lacking€that€a€person€of€reasonableÏintelligence€would€not€adequately€be€informed€by€the€crypticÏstatement€ð ðLetter€to€State€concerning€HWY€411.ðð€€Instead,€a€moreÏâ âsubstantive€pronouncement€stating€that€the€commission€wouldÐ @8à.2 Ðreconsider€which€alternative€to€endorse€for€Highway€411€shouldÏhave€been€given.€€€Ìâ âÌà  àà ` àWe€are€not€the€first€appellate€court€in€this€state€toÏaddress€the€issue€of€the€content€of€the€notice€given.€€TheÏWestern€Section€of€this€Court€was€faced€with€a€claim€ofÏinadequate€notice€under€the€Sunshine€Act€brought€against€theÏParis€Special€School€District.€€òòNeese€v.€Paris€Special€Sch.Ð €  ÐDist.óó,€813€S.W.2d€432€(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).€€The€facts€of€that€caseÐ ` Ðdealt€with€the€PSSD€adopting€a€plan€of€clustering€an€entire€gradeÏfor€three€school€districts€into€one€school.€€There€was€intenseÏpublic€controversy€over€whether€or€not€to€accept€the€plan.€€AÏspecial€meeting€was€held€in€order€for€the€PSSD€to€deliberate€theÏissue€of€clustering,€but€the€public€notice€given€for€the€meetingÏfailed€to€mention€that€clustering€would€be€discussed€extensively.€ÏIn€ruling€on€the€issue,€the€Court€wrote:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?ÓWe€believe,€however,€that€under€these€circumstances,Ïthe€public€had€a€right€to€be€informed€that€the€issue€ofÏclustering€would€be€extensively€discussed€at€theÏKen-Lake€meeting.€€If€the€major€issues€discussed€at€theÏmeeting€were€actually€those€stated€in€the€newspaperÏarticle€quoted€above,€perhaps€there€would€be€noÏinterest€in€traveling€to€Kentucky€for€a€two-dayÏmeeting.€€On€the€other€hand,€if€the€general€public€wasÏaware€that€the€major€issue€was€not€as€reported€in€theÏnewspaper,€but€rather€was€the€issue€of€clustering,Ïthere€would€likely€be€more€interest€in€attending.€ÏCertainly€ð ðadequate€public€notice€under€theÏcircumstancesðð€is€not€met€by€[a]€misleading€notice.€€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌÓÓòòNeeseóó,€813€S.W.2d€at€435-36.Ð €4 +. ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€agree€with€the€Western€Section€that€the€generalÏpublic€must€be€made€aware€of€the€issues€to€be€deliberated€at€theÐ  :À04 Ðspecial€meeting€through€notice€designed€to€inform€the€publicÏabout€those€issues.€€The€notice€given€by€the€Town€of€Englewood€isÏinadequate€under€the€circumstances€because€it€does€not€reasonablyÏdescribe€the€purpose€of€the€meeting€or€the€action€to€be€takenÏwith€respect€to€the€letter€to€the€state.€€The€notice€is€bereft€ofÏany€explanation€of€what€that€letter€would€consist€of€or€the€factÏthat€the€town€commissioners€had€decided€to€reconsider€the€issueÏof€Highway€411's€path.€€A€misleading€notice€is€not€adequateÏpublic€notice€under€these€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòNeeseóó,€813€S.W.2dÐ ` Ðat€436.€€We€hold€that€with€respect€to€the€content€of€the€noticeÏprovided€by€the€town,€adequate€notice€was€not€provided€to€theÏcommunity€members€of€Englewood.€€ÌÌ3.à  à€Time€of€the€Posting.Ð À!` Ðà  àà ` àIn€order€to€meet€the€third€prong€of€the€adequate€publicÏnotice€inquiry,€the€notice€must€be€posted€at€a€time€sufficientlyÏin€advance€of€the€actual€meeting€in€order€to€give€citizens€bothÏan€opportunity€to€become€aware€of€and€to€attend€the€meeting.€ÏNotice€which€is€not€posted€sufficiently€in€advance€of€the€specialÏmeeting€is€nothing€more€than€a€mere€gesture.€€Notice€that€is€aÏmere€gesture€is€no€notice€at€all.€€òòU.S.€Life€Title€Ins.€Co.€v.Ð à.€%( ÐDepartment€of€Commerce€and€Ins.óó,€770€S.W.2d€537,€541Ð À0`'* Ð(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).€€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€Town€of€Englewood€contends€that€two€days€advanceÏposting€is€all€that€is€required€to€meet€the€adequate€noticeÏrequirement€of€T.C.A.€8-44-103(b).€€The€town€urges€this€Court€toÐ  :À04 Ðbelieve€that€it€is€reasonable€under€the€circumstances€to€limitÏnotice€for€special€meetings€to€two€days€because€the€legislatureÏhas€not€defined€how€many€days€constitute€adequate€notice.€€As€theÏtown€argues€in€its€brief:€the€ð ðGeneral€Assembly€must€be€presumedÏto€be€satisfied€with€the€flexible€provision€of€ððadequate€publicÏnotice.ððððÌÌà  àà ` àCertainly,€some€flexibility€is€inherent€in€a€statuteÏwritten€in€as€general€a€fashion€as€the€one€before€this€Court.€ÏYet,€flexibility€is€not€the€standard€of€review€for€deciding€thisÏissue.€€Instead,€it€is€the€pronouncement€of€the€Supreme€CourtÏthat€adequate€public€notice€must€be€based€on€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€as€would€fairly€inform€the€public.€òòMemphis€Publ'gÐ à€ ÐCo.óó,€513€S.W.2d€at€513.€€We€fail€to€see€how€two€days€notice€isÐ À!` Ðsufficient€enough€to€fairly€inform€the€public€under€theseÏcircumstances.€€€ÌÌœñªñà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens€group€presents€a€compellingÏargument€for€a€greater€period€of€advance€notice.€€In€their€brief,Ïthe€Englewood€Citizens€cite€a€variety€of€T.C.A.€sections€thatÏprovide€notice€periods€of€a€minimum€of€five€days€up€to€a€maximumÏof€sixty€days.€€While€it€is€true€that€the€sections€cited€do€notÏcontrol€our€determination€or€even€relate€to€municipal€government,Ïthey€do€provide€a€rough€guide€for€deciding€how€much€notice€isÏrequired€to€fairly€inform€the€community€members€under€theÏcircumstances.€€We€find,€therefore,€that€the€Town€of€EnglewoodÏmust€provide€five€business€days€notice€in€advance€of€specialÐ  :À04 Ðmeetings€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€8-44-103(b)€in€order€to€provideÏadequate€public€notice€to€the€citizens€of€Englewood.€€€Ìñªñ›œñ«ñÌñ«ñ›à  àà ` àBased€on€the€inadequate€content€of€the€notice€providedÏand€the€lack€of€a€sufficient€time€for€the€posting€to€be€observedÏby€the€community€members,€we€hold,€therefore,€that€the€Town€ofÏEnglewood€did€not€provide€adequate€public€notice€pursuant€toÏT.C.A.€8-44-103(b).€The€December€12,€1996,€meeting€was€inÏviolation€of€the€Sunshine€Act€of€this€State€and€any€action€takenÏby€the€town€commission€at€that€meeting€was€invalid.òòÐ €4 +. ÐÌâ âóóà  àà ` àII.à ¸ àConflict€of€InterestÐ @8à.2 Ðà  àà ` àThe€second€issue€raised€by€the€Englewood€Citizens€groupÏâ âis€whether€the€Town€of€Englewood,€its€mayor,€and€commissionersÏviolated€the€conflict€of€interest€statutes,€T.C.A.€6-54-107(b)Ïand€12-4-101(b)€by€their€interest€in€real€property€indirectlyÏinvolved€in€contracts€necessary€to€their€official€action.€€InÏorder€to€resolve€this€issue,€we€will€assume€that€the€EnglewoodÏCitizens€group€does€have€standing€to€bring€an€action€under€orÏpursuant€to€T.C.A.€6-54-107(b)€or€T.C.A.€12-4-101(b).Ô‡ô ôXX¶HÔòòñ¥ñ׃×ñ¥ññ¥ñ׃ ×ñ¥ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝò…òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó…óÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X¶HX,ô O#Ôóó€€Ð €  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€General€Assembly€crafted€both€conflict€of€interestÏstatutes€very€carefully€by€choosing€specific€language€to€describeÏan€impermissible€conflict€of€interest.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏ6-54-107(b)€reads:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?ÓNo€officer€in€a€municipality€shall€be€indirectlyÏinterested€in€any€contract€to€which€the€municipality€isÏa€party€unless€the€officer€publicly€acknowledges€suchÏofficer's€interest.€€"Indirectly€interested"€means€anyÏcontract€in€which€the€officer€is€interested€but€notÏdirectly€so,€but€includes€contracts€where€the€officerÏis€directly€interested€but€is€the€sole€supplier€ofÏgoods€or€services€in€a€municipality.ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌA€conflict€of€interest€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€6-54-107(b)€only€arisesÏunder€the€statute€when€a€contract€is€at€hand.€€The€contractÏinterest€need€not€be€direct,€but€the€commissioner€or€municipalÏofficer€must€at€least€have€an€indirect€interest€in€some€contractÏbetween€the€municipality€and€another€person€or€entity.€€Ð  2@), Їà  àà ` àLikewise,€T.C.A.€12-4-101(b)€also€requires€the€cityÏofficial€to€be€at€least€indirectly€interested€in€some€contractÏbetween€the€municipality€and€another.€€The€statute€reads:€ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓ?+ °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ °X?ÓIt€is€unlawful€for€any€officer,€committeeperson,Ïdirector,€or€other€person€whose€duty€it€is€to€vote€for,Ïlet€out,€overlook,€or€in€any€manner€to€superintend€anyÏwork€or€any€contract€in€which€any€municipalÏcorporation,€county,€state,€development€district,Ïutility€district,€human€resource€agency,€or€otherÏpolitical€subdivision€created€by€statute€shall€or€mayÏbe€interested,€to€be€indirectly€interested€in€any€suchÏcontract€unless€the€officer€publicly€acknowledges€suchÏofficer's€interest.€€"Indirectly€interested"€means€anyÏcontract€in€which€the€officer€is€interested€but€notÏdirectly€so,€but€includes€contracts€where€the€officerÏis€directly€interested€but€is€the€sole€supplier€ofÏgoods€or€services€in€a€municipality€or€county.ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓÓB.°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°ŒXBÓÌà  àà ` àUnder€the€facts€presented€for€our€review,€we€do€notÏfind€any€evidence€whatsoever€that€indicates€there€is€a€contractÏbetween€the€commissioners€of€the€Town€of€Englewood,€or€anÏindirect€interest€in€a€contract€between€the€commissioners€and€theÏTown€of€Englewood.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòTown€of€Smyrna€v.€Ridleyóó,€730Ð €%  ÐS.W.2d€318€(Tenn.1987).€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens€group€argues€that€becauseÏCommissioners€Raper€and€Middleton€own€property€along€Alternate€A,Ïthey€will€indirectly€benefit€by€the€construction€project.€ÏHowever€true€this€may€be,€their€benefit€does€not€rise€to€theÏlevel€of€an€indirect€interest€in€a€contract€with€the€Town€ofÏEnglewood.€€Both€statutes€specifically€require€a€contractÏinterest€to€exist€in€order€for€a€conflict€of€interest€to€arise.€ÏWe€hold,€therefore,€that€the€Chancellor€was€correct€in€dismissingÏthe€Englewood€Citizens€groupððs€conflict€of€interest€claim€becauseÐ  :À04 Ðno€contract€interest€is€at€stake€in€the€selection€of€Alternate€AÏfor€the€highway€construction€project.€€œñ¬ñÌñ¬ñ›œñ¬ñÌñ¬ñ›œñ­ñÌñ­ñ›œñ­ñÐ    Ðñ­ñ›à  à€à ` àIII.€à  àReview€of€the€Town's€DecisionÐ   Ðà  àà ` àThe€Englewood€Citizens'€final€issue€for€appeal€isÏwhether€the€Chancery€Court€erred€by€not€allowing€the€group€to€goÏforward€with€its€claim€that€the€action€of€the€town€commissionersÏin€selecting€Alternate€A€was€arbitrary,€capricious,€and€againstÏthe€public€interest.€€The€Englewood€Citizens€group€brought€theirÏthird€claim€under€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€T.C.A.€29-14-101Ïet€seq.€€The€Town€of€Englewood€counters€this€third€cause€ofÏaction€by€noting€that€as€a€prerequisite€for€maintaining€an€actionÏunder€the€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€the€Englewood€Citizens€groupÏmust€show€that€a€justiciable€controversy€exists.€€Without€aÏjusticiable€controversy,€the€town€contends€that€the€ChanceryÏCourt's€decision€to€dismiss€this€cause€of€action€should€beÏupheld.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àThe€Town€of€Englewood€is€correct€to€note€that€theÏDeclaratory€Judgment€Act€requires€that€a€justiciable€controversyÏmust€exist€in€order€to€pursue€a€claim€under€the€act.€òòOldham€v.Ð à.€%( ÐACLUóó,€910€S.W.2d€431,€433-34€(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).€€Regardless€ofÐ À0`'* Ðwhether€a€justiciable€interest€exists,€however,€it€is€theÏaccepted€law€in€this€state€that€a€trial€court€within€itsÏdiscretion,€may€decline€to€issue€a€declaratory€judgment.€Ï"Numerous€cases€have€stated€that€the€making€or€refusing€of€aÏdeclaratory€judgment€is€discretionary€with€the€trial€court."Ð  :À04 ÐòòOldhamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€435.€€Additionally,€"The€action€of€theÐ `  Ðtrial€court€in€refusing€a€declaration€will€not€be€disturbed€onÏappeal€unless€such€refusal€is€arbitrary."€òòOldhamóó,€910€S.W.2d€atÐ  À Ð435;€òòcitingóó€òòSouthern€Fire€&€Cas.€v.€Cooperóó,€200€Tenn.€283,€292Ð   ÐS.W.2d€177€(1956).€€ÌÌà  àà ` àOn€this€third€issue,€we€find€that€the€ChancellorÏproperly€exercised€his€discretion€by€declining€to€issue€aÏdeclaratory€judgment€on€the€matter€at€hand.€€The€Chancellor'sÏdecision€was€not€arbitrary€and,€in€fact,€showed€extremeÏsensitivity€to€the€decision€making€process€that€is€entrusted€toÏthe€town€commission€and€its€mayor.€€Based€on€our€review€of€thisÏrecord,€we€find€that€the€Chancellor's€decision€was€not€arbitraryÏand€as€to€this€issue€should€be€upheld.€€ÌÌà  àà ` àIV.à ¸ àConclusionÐ €%  Ðà  àà ` àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€the€December€12,€1996,Ïspecial€meeting€of€the€Englewood€Town€Commissioners€was€inÏviolation€of€the€Sunshine€Act€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€TheÏChancellorððs€decision€to€dismiss€that€cause€of€action€isÏreversed,€and€judgment€is€hereby€entered€in€favor€of€theÏEnglewood€Citizens€for€Alternate€B€on€their€first€cause€ofÏaction.€€The€second€and€third€causes€of€action€involving€theÏalleged€conflict€of€interest€and€the€review€of€the€townÏcommission's€decision€were€properly€dismissed,€and€the€ChanceryÏCourt's€decision€with€respect€to€those€two€issues€is€affirmed.€€€€ÌÐ  :À04 Ðñ¤ñà  àñ¤ñà ` àThe€cause€is€remanded€for€such€further€action,€if€any,Ïas€may€be€necessary€and€collection€of€costs€below€which€are,€asÏare€costs€of€appeal,€adjudged€one„half€against€the€Plaintiffs€andÏone„half€against€the€Defendants.ÌÌœñ®ñÌñ®ñ›œñ®ñÌñ®ñ›ÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_______________________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.€ÌÌÌœñ¯ñÌñ¯ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì