School Law Final – Winter 2016
School Law Final:Public Meetings Law
Senario #1: The Board Reprimand
A majority of board members wanted to reprimand one of their members for speaking out in the community in opposition to a previous board action. The board member in question was writing letters to the local newspaper criticizing the board’s action and signing them as a member of the board. This board member called a community meeting in an effort to garner support for this member’s position.
A number of personal contacts were made by the board chair, the superintendent, and individual board members asking the member to refrain from these activities, all to no avail. The board scheduled an executive session authorized under ORS 192.660(1)(b); Discipline of Public Officers or Employees, during which the board majority had planned to administer a verbal reprimand to the board member stating that the recent activities were divisive not only to the board but to students, staff and the community at large.
Once the executive session was convened the board member in question requested that this session be held in the open, to which the member is entitled as prescribed in statute. At this point the board member left the executive session and returned to the public meeting venue. The regaining members of the board stayed in the executive session for approximately 45 minutes before reconvening in open session.
Please answer the following questions about Case Study #1:
1-aWas the board’s action of calling for an executive session legal? Best Practice? Explain citing laws.
Answer:
1-bWas it appropriate or legal for the board to remain in the executive session after the member requested an open session? Explain citing laws.
Answer:
1-cAre there sufficient grounds to file a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC)?Explain citing laws.
Answer:
Senario #2: The Basketball Coach Controversy
The district has received a number of complaints from parents regarding the basketball coach, Derry Driven.The parents are demanding that Derry be removed from the head coach position.Various board members received copies of the complaints that had been addressed to the Superintendent.At the end of a regular January board meeting agenda, Mr. Driven was not in the audience so the board chair asked the Superintendent about the status of the complaints.
The Superintendent said that he had investigated the complaints and was ready to give a recommendation to the board.The recommendation was to retain Derry as the head basketball coach.Ima Parent, in the audience, was one of the parents who made the complaint about the basketball coach.She demanded to be heard on the issue, but the board chair determined that they were not ready, so he denied her request.The board then adjourned into executive session under ORS 192.660(1)(b) to discuss the Superintendent’s recommendation, commenting that he did not know whether or not the board would come back into open session.After about an hour and since the hour was late, the board adjourned the meeting without coming back into open session.
At the next regular session of the board, in February, an executive session under ORS 192.660(1)(b) was placed on the agenda, prior to the start of the regular meeting,to continue the discussion on the complaints and the administrative recommendation.During the regular meeting, the board chair, seeing Mr. Driven and Ms. Parent in the audience,announced that the board would accept the administration’s recommendation.No further action was taken at the meeting.
At the March board meeting, the board considered in open session the coaching contracts for numerous coaches, including that of Mr. Driven.The board voted in open session to approve the contract of Mr. Driven.
Please answer the following questions about Case Study #2:
2-aWas the board chair’s action in denying Ms. Parent’s request to address the board before their January executive session legal?Best Practice? Explain citing laws.
Answer:
2-bWas the board’s action calling for an executive session at the January board meeting legal?Best Practice?What about the February executive session? Explain citing laws.
Answer:
2-cMs. Parent filed a complaint with OGEC alleging that the board violated the public meetings law because they did not vote in a public session at either the January or February meetings regarding the complaints against Derry Driven.The allegation was that by not acting on the complaints in the January and February meetings, the board, in effect, upheld the administrative decision thereby circumventing the requirement for boards to make a final action in open session.How do you think OGEC would rule? Explain citing laws.
Answer:
Please send finished Law final to Lisa and Keith Hollenbeck