McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County
1996 W. Va. LEXIS 47, 475 S.E.2d 280, 197 W. Va. 188 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A planned, informal gathering of a quorum of a public governing body to gather, review, or discuss information relevant to an issue before the body constitutes a 'meeting' subject to the Open Governmental Proceedings Act (Sunshine Law), requiring it to be open to the public, regardless of formal procedures or intent to violate. Furthermore, for school closure or consolidation plans, 'affected schools' requiring public notice under W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, include both those targeted for closure/consolidation and 'receiving' schools that will experience a direct and substantial impact.
Facts:
- On January 3, 1995, the Board of Education of Fayette County (Board) scheduled a public hearing for February 16, 1995, to present a proposed plan to close Falls View Elementary School and Gauley Bridge High School, and to consolidate Gauley Bridge High School with Valley High School.
- As required by law, notice of the public hearing was published in two local newspapers for four successive weeks prior to the hearing, and copies of the consolidation plan were made available for public inspection at the Board’s office for five successive weeks.
- Between January 4 and February 16, 1995, several newspaper articles discussed the planned closures, and the Board conducted a meeting at Gauley Bridge High School with its local school improvement council to discuss the issues.
- At the public meeting on February 16, 1995, taxpayers Michael McComas, Winifred Andrews, and Mary Blackwell (petitioners) presented extensive materials opposing the Board's closure and consolidation plan.
- Following the public meeting, Board member Jack Flint requested an opportunity to ask questions of the Superintendent regarding the petitioners' materials, and they agreed to meet privately on Sunday, February 19, 1995.
- Mr. Flint informed two other Board members, Ralph L. Parks and Daniel E. Wright, about the meeting, and the Board President, Phillip J. Tissue, also arrived separately; consequently, four of the five Board members (a quorum), along with the Superintendent and two associate superintendents, attended the private, two-hour discussion at the Board's central office.
- During the February 19 meeting, no formal procedures were followed, no votes were taken, and the Board members claimed they did not discuss the questions or voice opinions among themselves, primarily hearing responses from the Superintendent.
- On February 20, 1995, at a scheduled public meeting, the Board proceeded to vote 4-1 in favor of closing Falls View Elementary School and 3-2 in favor of consolidating Gauley Bridge High School, with minimal discussion among Board members prior to the vote.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael McComas, Winifred Andrews, and Mary Blackwell (petitioners/taxpayers) filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Fayette County.
- The Circuit Court of Fayette County held a hearing on March 15, 1995, concerning the petition.
- The Circuit Court of Fayette County, in a final order dated November 9, 1995 (incorporating two prior orders entered on May 15, 1995, and October 5, 1995), granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding that the Board's vote for school closure and consolidation was void due to violations of statutory notice and posting requirements (W.Va.Code, 18-5-13 and 18-5-13a) and the Open Governmental Proceedings Act (Sunshine Law, W.Va.Code, 6-9A-1, et seq.).
- The Board of Education of Fayette County (Board/appellant) appealed the circuit court's order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an informal, private gathering of a quorum of a school board, along with administrative staff, to discuss materials related to a pending decision violate the Open Governmental Proceedings Act (Sunshine Law), even if no formal votes are taken and there is no explicit intent to circumvent the law? 2. Does the statutory term 'affected school' in W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, which mandates public notice for proposed school closures or consolidations, encompass 'receiving schools' that will experience a direct and substantial impact from the plan, or is it limited solely to schools targeted for closure or consolidation?
Opinions:
Majority - CLECKLEY, Justice
Yes, a planned meeting among four-fifths (a quorum) of a school board to gather, review, or discuss information relevant to a pending issue is a public meeting under the Open Governmental Proceedings Act (Sunshine Law), and its private conduct violates the law, regardless of intent or lack of formalities. Yes, 'affected schools' under W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, which mandates public notice for school closures or consolidations, includes both 'giving' and 'receiving' schools that will experience a direct and substantial impact from the proposed action, not just those targeted for closure. The Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, emphasizing that the legislative intent of the Sunshine Law (W.Va.Code, 6-9A-1, et seq.) is to promote public awareness, participation, and accountability, thus requiring an expansive reading. A 'meeting' is defined as a convening of a governing body where a quorum is required, for the purpose of making a decision or deliberating toward a decision. The presence of four of five Board members (a quorum) and key administrators discussing a 'highly topical matter of school business' for two hours, the day before a crucial vote, constituted deliberation. The lack of formal procedures or a specific intent to violate the law does not serve as a defense because the statute requires all meetings to be open, and a good faith defense would frustrate the law's purpose. The Court rejected the argument that only formal meetings are covered, as this would invite avoidance tactics. To determine if an informal gathering constitutes a 'meeting' under the Act, a common-sense approach is needed, focusing on whether allowing privacy would undermine the Law's fundamental purposes. Criteria include: content of discussion, number/percentage of members present, significance of absent members, members' intentions, planning, duration, setting, and potential effects on decision-making. In this case, four-fifths of the board meeting privately with administrators about a controversial consolidation plan, before a public vote with little discussion, deprived the public of vital information and deliberation, leading to the conclusion that the February 19th meeting violated the Sunshine Law. The perfunctory public meeting on February 20th did not cure the serious, albeit unintended, violation, thus voiding the vote was a proper remedy. Regarding 'affected schools,' the Court rejected the Board's narrow interpretation based on Policy 6200, finding the policy inconsistent with the statutory intent to ensure public awareness and participation in school consolidation decisions. The ordinary meaning of 'affect' implies having an impact on something. While not every school is 'affected,' the term should apply to those with a 'direct and substantial relationship' or 'real and measurable impact' from the proposal. The Court found no statutory basis to distinguish between 'giving' and 'receiving' schools for consolidation plans. Consolidating two schools means creating a new entity, causing significant changes to both. Specifically, Valley High School, as a receiving school for a 'massive influx' of students and faculty, would undergo substantial changes to its educational program, making it an 'affected school' requiring notice.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of 'meeting' under open governmental proceedings acts, making it clear that informal, private discussions among a quorum of public body members about substantive issues can violate transparency laws, even without formal votes or intent to evade. It establishes a multi-factor test to determine what constitutes a 'meeting,' focusing on the functional impact on public deliberation rather than just formalities. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that statutory notice requirements for school changes extend broadly to all schools directly and substantially impacted, preventing narrow interpretations that could disenfranchise stakeholders in 'receiving' schools, thereby promoting greater public participation and accountability in governmental decision-making.
