I've read the May 6 Glasgow Daily Times/Glasgow Electric Plant Board open meetings decision and must admit that I am still mystified by the conclusion the attorney general reached in that decision.

Please note that the link below may not include the footnotes to that open meetings decision, but I find nothing particularly enlightening in those footnotes .

They reference:

1. An February 2 email from one plant board member, but indicating that it was submitted on behalf of three members, requesting that items be placed on the February 19 meeting agenda including items relating to the superintendent's and board attorney's "termination and replacement."

2. A February 13 email distributed by the same plant board member to the other members relating to cancellation of bond sales pending replacement of the superintendent.

3. A March 29 letter from the board's attorney identifying the board members at the time of the alleged violations.

4. An "inference" drawn by the Daily Times from the February 13 email that suggests the other members were invited to share their thoughts about cancellation of bonds pending replacement of the superintendent.

5. A statement that the AG lacks authority to address the remedies to the alleged violations which the Daily Times was required to propose in its complaint.

6. A rejection of the argument that the subsequent public vote to retain the superintendent is evidence that a quorum of the members did not previously reached a consensus on the issue.

7. Citation to a 2018 Jefferson CitCourt case declaring that members of a public agency are not individually liable for open meetings violations. It is the public agency that violated the open meetings law.

8. An analysis of the AG's advisory opinion function and why, historically, the AG has refused to issue as Issue advisory opinions on open meetings disputes.

What I struggle to find in the nine page open meetings decision is the board's "evidence" refuting the Daily Times' allegation that a series of less than quorum meetings took place to discuss the superintendent's/attorney's removal.

What was it that the board presented to the AG to convince him that the "only unrefuted evidence presented on appeal does not conclusively establish that all of the necessary elements are present as required to find that the board violated" the open meetings law by conducting a single secret meeting attended by a quorum — or a series of less than quorum meetings where the members attending one or more meetings collectively constituting a quorum — to discuss removal of the superintendent/attorney?

The board might have, for example, submitted affidavits from the members denying that they engaged in a single secret meeting, or serial meetings, to discuss the superintendent's/attorney's removal.

It did not.

A response prepared by outside counsel on behalf of the member (Froedge) alleged to have instigated the illegal meetings is referenced in the decision. That response suggests that if the meetings occurred, they were permissible under the rule that permits discussions between members to educate the members on specific issues. This is the flimsiest of defenses and one that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

No response was issued by the board as a whole — enough, in my view, to justify a decision against the board.

The decision lays out general principles of law relating to open meetings, but fails to apply them to the allegations of the complaint. Only one sentence in the decision may explain the outcome, "In light of Mr. Froedge's conflicting statement and the denial of Mr. Biggers that he participated in any discussion of public business with Mr. Froedge, . . . The Attorney General is unable to find" a violation. The statement appears in the concluding paragraph of the decision.

I can not locate any statement to this effect from Biggers anywhere else in the decision. It is the single dispositive defense the board raises. Where and when did Biggers make the statement?

If, In fact, Biggers made the statement, the outcome is correct as there is no evidence that a quorum met in a single secret meeting, or a series of less than quorum meetings attended by members collectively constituting a quorum to discuss removal of the superintendent/attorney. Only two of five members would then be implicated in the discussions — not a quorum.

But this defense is given virtually no attention. And I can find no "evidence" in the nine page decision to support the defense.

Other than Froedge, no one on the board refuted the Daily Times' allegations. Those allegations were contradicted by several earlier public statements made by Froedge.

All this having been said, I remain unconvinced that the AG reached the correct result in this open meetings appeal.

This is important since it appears to give a green light to nonpublic discussions of public business by members of a public agency collectively constituting a quorum.