Two Kentucky school districts, Lincoln and Livingston, find themselves in open meetings hot water following investigations conducted by the local school board and the Office of Education Accountability, respectively.

On June 20, the Lincoln County Board of Education affirmed the Lincoln County Middle School Site Based Decision Making Council's decision to use the Summit Learning Platform at the Lincoln County Middle School following an appeal of that decision.

https://www.lincoln.kyschools.us/userfiles/10746/my%20files/board%20dec…

However, the board noted, "due to concerns raised in this appeal" that the council "may not have fully complied with the Open Meetings Act," the matter was referred back to the council.

The board based its conclusion on "evidence showing that the letter denying the original appeal was dated April 12, 2019, a special called meeting of the SBDM not occurring prior to April 12, 2019, and the SBDM meeting in which the appeal was discussed was held on April 16, 2019, after the written response was dated."

The council either conducted an illegal secret meeting of a quorum of it members or an illegal series of secret less than quorum meetings, to discuss and take final action on the appeal (in contravention of KRS 61.810(1) or (2)), by letter dated April 12, before the council publicly discussed it at an open meeting on April 16.

The open meetings violation could be inferred from the chronology of events.

On June 20, WPSD Local 6 reported that the Office of Education Accountability completed its investigation of the Livingston County School District on June 10.

In a 37 page report OEA found, among other things, that the Livingston County Board of Education did not violate the open meetings law by conducting four special meetings at the board's office.

Despite evidence that the board's usual practice was to conduct meetings on a rotating basis at each of the district's four schools, and despite evidence that, given the limited space in the board's office, attendees "would be unable to comfortably fit inside the board office for a meeting," OEA found no violation of the open meetings law (KRS 61.820(1) and KRS 61.840) based on the fact that there was "nothing to indicate that persons wishing to attend or participate were unable to do so."

While I question that result (potential attendees might have been discouraged from attending based on the location of the meetings and the knowledge that they would not "comfortably fit" in the board's office), I agree with OEA's finding that the board violated the open meetings law (KRS 61.823(3)) by deviating from its March 6, 2018, special meeting agenda to discuss a non-agenda item.

The agenda indicated that the board would conduct a "closed session to discuss KRS 61.810(1)(c)." At the meeting, the motion was made to discuss proposed or pending litigation per KRS 61.810(1)(c) and school safety per KRS 61.810(1)(m).

Since the open meetings law limits discussions at special meetings to agenda items, OEA found that the board violated the open meetings law in discussing school safety.

I would take the analysis one step further and suggest that the special meeting agenda and motion to conduct the closed session were deficient insofar as they failed to provide adequate notice to the public of the public business to be discussed.

The agenda item for the closed session, as well as the motion, should have been framed with greater specificity to enable the public to assess the propriety of the closed session. For example: "Closed session to discuss pending litigation regarding breach of contract by XYZ Data Services."

The "work session" special meeting agenda item was far too open-ended to provide adequate notice to the public about the public business to be discussed.

In an open meetings appeal to the attorney general, it would almost certainly be found deficient.

"Failure to comply with the strict letter of the [open meetings] law in conducting meetings," the courts have observed, "violates the public good," and "statutes enacted for the public benefit [, like the open meetings statute,] must be interpreted most favorably to the public."