The Uinta County School District No. 1 board meetings are out of hand. 

Not only have the last four lasted more than three and a half hours each, but the executive sessions regularly last an hour or longer. What is more concerning than the length, though, is that the board may have acted illegally in executive session. 

The board recently withdrew into an hour-long executive session, before which board chair Cassie Torres announced that the board would adjourn directly from the meeting. 

However, at the end of that executive session, the remaining trustees responded to a school administrator’s request for support by asking Torres to put together a board resolution. That resolution ultimately sparked argument on the board and pushback from some community members. 

Board clerk Jami Brackin said the decision to write a resolution came after the executive session, not from within it, but Tammy Walker said she had heard both from Superintendent Ryan Thomas and from board attorney Geoffrey Phillips that the resolution came from the executive session. Brackin also said there might not have been a quorum at the time. 

There are two points here to consider here. The first is that the board effectively dismissed the audience before withdrawing, having assured everyone that no more public business would be discussed. Should the board be held to that statement and their agenda? Or is that an unnecessary encumbrance? 

Yet isn’t the board’s business public by nature? 

The second issue is that, if there was no quorum, enacting board business as a board — especially for a board resolution that would be acted on at the next meeting — is questionable. It might be different were a few trustees simply bringing a concern to discussion at the next meeting. Yet, if there was not a quorum, could a board resolution truly be decided upon as an action item for the next meeting? Every other legally binding item, save those expressly reserved for executive session, usually takes quite a lot of open discussion — sometimes weeks. 

And if it was actually discussed in executive session itself, that opens an entirely new can of worms. 

As a public entity, the school board is held by law to nine specific justifications for closing a meeting to the public. There are no open-ended reasons such as “any other just and necessary reason determined by [fill in the blank].” The nine reasons applying to school boards are as follows (paraphrased from the 2006 Wyoming School Boards Association “Open Public Meetings,” which tailors Wyoming State Statute 16-4-405 to school board situations):

• To meet with law enforcement about security threats

• To consider hiring or firing of a public officer, professional or employee or to hear complaints or charges against such; the person involved has the right to request a public hearing (the board may deliberate on its decision in executive session after the hearing) 

• To discuss litigation or proposed litigation involving the board

• On matters of national security

• To consider real estate purchases if publicly discussing that would likely increase the price

• To consider accepting anonymous gifts, donations or requests

• To consider or receive confidential information (determined by law)

• To consider employment wages, salaries, benefits and terms during negotiations

• To consider student discipline 

Why the narrow specifications? 

Well, Wyoming law’s operating assumption is that public entities are by definition conducting public business. Stakeholders have the right, with very few exceptions, to know the process of their elected officials’ decisions and not just the end results. 

Was there discussion about a resolution during or after that executive session? Undoubtedly. However, not all trustees were present and few (if any) members of the public were still there when the board came out, due to Torres’ declaration that the board would adjourn immediately afterward. 

Furthermore, there was argument amongst the trustees as to why some trustees weren’t there, particularly Walker. Brackin said Walker had recused herself from that executive session; Walker, however, told the Herald she was actively excluded that day — that is, told to leave — and that she had recused herself from an earlier executive session on a different day (although it was not a different topic). 

Because of her objections to the board’s process in designing, assigning and approving the resolution, she repeatedly voted against it on May 9. (The action item for the resolution was moved after the executive session on that day.) Part of Walker’s concern was that some of the resolution’s claims were not yet backed with evidence. The resolution was passed the same day the board approved a climate survey that will provide more data.

The length and frequency of those executive sessions also makes us wonder whether the conversation truly is limited only to the topics announced. It’s possible, given the length of regular public discussions; however, we believe there is a very real question about whether all of the executive sessions are legal.

It is especially interesting that this situation is taking place in a board highly concentrated with legal experts. A lawyer, a paralegal and a sheriff’s deputy are all trustees, and the paralegal is also employed by the school district’s attorney.

Executive sessions are notorious precisely because they are kept so fully out of the public eye, and there is good reason that some other newspapers in Wyoming call them “secret sessions.” 

To protect the public, no action may be taken in executive session, and trustees have the right — and responsibility — to object if executive sessions stray. Failure to do so brings liability for a $750 fine (although inappropriately discussing executive session content can incur a $1,000 fine).

All things considered, we as a newspaper hope the UCSD No. 1 board of trustees will carefully and sparingly use executive sessions to conduct discussions. A lot of good work has certainly been done in improving school district communications in the last year, but continued long meetings behind closed doors do the district no favors as it tries to strengthen relationships both within and without the district. Secrecy often just fans the flames of controversy and resentment.

We as a newspaper serve the same community the board is serving, and we feel it’s important that public officials and boards err on the side of caution when closing their doors to the public. Sunshine laws are designed to protect the public’s right to know; keeping constituents in the dark should not be taken lightly.