The situation described in this article is very troubling from an open meetings perspective.

In 2008, the Pikeville Independent Schools' superintendent was awarded a $1 million life insurance policy at a cost to the public of $154,000. The policy may have been an inducement to stay to the superintendent, who was apparently being courted by other school districts.

But there is no record of any public vote in the minutes of the board's meetings from that period approving the policy. And there was/is no legal basis for conducting a closed session discussion to award additional benefits to a sitting superintendent.

The suggestion that the board voted but the vote did not appear in the meeting minutes defies logic.

KRS 61.835 clearly states that "the minutes of action taken at every meeting of any such public agency, setting forth an accurate record of votes and action taken at such meetings, shall be promptly recorded."

If the Pikeville Independent Schools Board of Education took action on awarding the policy in open session, that action would surely be recorded in the board's meeting minutes.The minutes of a public meeting must be retained permanently under state regulations governing management and retention of public school records. The board's inability to produce minutes that reflect the vote suggest additional open meetings, open records, and records management issues.

Additionally, although public agencies can conduct closed session discussions that might lead to the "appointment, discipline, or dismissal of an individual employee," the award of a life insurance policy to a sitting superintendent does not fall under that exception. Still worse, closed session "final action" as a result of ostensibly illegal discussions is entirely impermissible under the open meetings law and suggests another avenue for legal challenge.

In the referenced Kentucky Supreme Court case, Carter v. Smith (2012), the Court recognized that appointment, discipline, or dismissal, "are the only personnel matters a public agency may discuss in closed session. Discussions of any other matters are expressly excluded." The Court criticized the agency in that case, also a school board, for "expanding the intended scope of the personnel exception and improperly concealing matters otherwise appropriate for public view."

And, yes, the Supreme Court went on to say that the board of education could not subsequently "ratify actions taken in an improper closed session." "It is inconceivable," the Court reasoned, "that the General Assembly intended to allow a public agency to conduct its business behind closed doors, regardless of whether an exception authorized the closed session, and then protect its private dealings by taking a quick vote in open session and claiming the secret actions valid by ratification."

The Supreme Court voided the contract that resulted from the board's violation of the open meetings law in Carter v. Smith.

The facts in this case, as described by the Herald Leader, indicate numerous open meetings violations. Investigators, officials, and perhaps the courts will be left to sort out the legal ramifications.

Note: This post has been corrected to reflect that the school system that is the subject of the Herald Leader report is not the Pike County Board of Education and its superintendent but is instead the Pikeville Independent Schools Board of Education and its superintendent.