Meeting to discuss Keller ISD split must allow public input, open meetings lawyers say
READ MORE
Keller ISD controversy
Read our reporting on the possible plan to split Keller ISD into two districts.
Expand All
The Keller school board’s meeting to discuss a possible split of the district cannot be conducted without some participation from the public, according to an attorney specializing in the Texas Open Meetings Act.
School board President Charles Randklev announced on social media on Thursday, Jan. 9, that the board would meet in an executive session for legal analysis on a proposal to detach part of the district and create a new one.
Randlkelv did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Board Secretary Joni Shaw Smith, who posted to social media on Thursday that she was “blindsided” by the proposal, told the Star-Telegram she supports a more transparent process.
“My goal is to continue to conduct any conversation regarding this topic in public,” she said in an email. “I believe it would be a mistake to move forward with any plan, and especially a resolution, without not only continued discussion among the board as a whole and with district input, but also without robust public involvement.”
The board was set to discuss the split in a special meeting open to the public on Jan. 16, according to a scheduled live stream on the district’s YouTube page that has since been taken down.
The executive session and agenda have not been posted on the district’s website, but any meeting to discuss the matter must include a chance for the public to weigh in on the proposal, according to Bill Aleshire, an Austin-based attorney with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
“They have to meet in public before they can discuss it in executive session and they have to state what provision of the Open Meetings Act allows them to discuss that in secret,” Aleshire said, adding that the law requires public comment at an open meeting.
The Open Meetings Act states that a “governmental body shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an item on an agenda for an open meeting of the body to address the body regarding the item at the meeting before or during the body’s consideration of the item.”
The executive session can only cover legal advice from an attorney, not the pros and cons of splitting the district, Aleshire said.
“Legal advice from their lawyer isn’t the same thing as whether it’s a great idea or a bad idea to split the district,” he said.
The board must also be specific about what legal issue they will discuss in the meeting, according to Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment lawyer who sits on the board of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
“Legal analysis about what? About the legality of it?” Larsen said. “You can have your lawyer in there, but what are the legal issues? Because there doesn’t seem to have been any discussion of any legal issues until there became a legitimate public interest in this.”
Both attorneys agreed that this issue holds significant public interest, which demands a more transparent process.
The district still has time to publish an official notice of the meeting at the district’s administrative offices and its website. The notice must be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting and include the agenda the board plans to discuss. Randklev’s Facebook post does not constitute official notice of the meeting as stipulated by the Open Meetings Act.
While he saw no such offense as of yet, Aleshire said not adhering to the notification process stipulated by law would constitute a crime.
“Anyone who participates in calling or participates in the illegal meeting commits a criminal offense,” he said. “It’s serious business.”
A governing body must also cite which statute of the Open Meetings Act they are using to justify a closed meeting. Section 551.071 of the law allows for a closed meeting to get legal advice.
“They are restrained to discuss in executive session only the attorney’s advice and not the merits of the issue itself,” he said. “That would be a crime.”
Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said anyone participating in a closed meeting has the right to tell the public if they see anything like this in an executive session.
“They have a First Amendment right of free speech to come out and talk to you or anybody else about what happened in that closed session,” she said.
Trustee Heather Washington declined to comment on the decision to close the meeting off to the public. The other trustees did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
This story was originally published January 10, 2025 at 1:45 PM.
