Indiana Public Access Counselor rules against Metropolitan School District of Steuben County board

In a Jan. 27 executive session to discuss pending litigation, which is allowed under the Indiana Open Door Law, the MSD board also approved the start of a search for a new superintendent, which is something that should have been done in open session, Britt ruled.

“It is clear the Board forged a path forward on the search for a new superintendent, identifying future stakeholders, and plotting a future executive session; and they did so behind closed doors. This goes well beyond discussion of strategy with respect to pending litigation. This is substantive public business. The Board should have taken action to initiate a search in a public meeting,” Britt’s ruling said.

An Indiana Public Access Counselor’s Office ruling is purely advisory. However, a PAC ruling does allow a plaintiff to collect attorney fees and court costs if a successful suit is brought in court, which Wilson has. In an open door law suit, a court could overturn actions taken by boards, prevent them from holding future illegal meetings and even levy civil fines against board members who participate in illegal meetings.

Following the executive session, Board President Cory Archbold sent an email to administration staff, inviting them to a future meeting to discuss the search for a new superintendent. That search was something the board decided to stake out during the executive session.

“Last week the School Board met in an Executive Session regarding the search for our next Superintendent. Your names came up in our discussions as MSD employees that we would like to be involved in our next Executive Session,” Archbold’s email read in part.

The search for a new superintendent is not an exempted reason to conduct an executive session. Also, final decisions cannot be made outside of an open, public meeting.

The board’s attorney, Mark Scudder, in his response to the complaint said the decision to start a search for a new superintendent was related to the pending litigation over the termination of Wilson’s contract and thus covered under the litigation exemption.

Britt dismissed the board’s attorney’s reasoning.

“The Board president presumably speaks for the entirety of the Board. It is a dubious position that this is simply ‘imprecise’ wording on the part of his message, as the Board suggests,” Britt wrote in his opinion.

In addition, Britt said though not of as great import, the board’s public notice announcing the executive session also didn’t follow state law.