Douglas County found in violation of open meeting law

What Douglas County School District officials call an "honest mistake," the attorney general is calling, "a serious violation of the open meeting law."

The school board failed to properly notify the public that it would be taking a vote on Superintendent Pendery Clark's contract, the Attorney General's Office decided.

In a letter Wednesday, Senior Deputy Attorney General C. Wayne Howle wrote:

"We conclude that a serious violation of the open meeting law occurred at the board's July 6, 2000, meeting when the board took action on an item which was not included on its published agenda."

A special meeting was held on July 6 to review Clark's contract. At that meeting, the board voted to extend her contract for another four years.

The agenda announced the closed review session but did not announce that a decision would be made following the closed meeting.

Pat Corbitt, the superintendent's secretary, was responsible for compiling the agenda. With the Fourth of July weekend, she said, many employees were on vacation and she had to put the agenda together for the special meeting as well as the regular board meeting the following week.

"I was just going in too many directions," she said. "It certainly was not deliberate. I was just so under the gun that week."

The attorney general recommended that the board hold another meeting to vote again on Clark's contract. The original vote was 6-1 to continue Clark's annual salary of $92,611 until 2004 on the condition that Clark be available seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

Veronica Hulsey, who is running for the school board, wrote the Attorney General's Office on Aug. 11 to report the possibility of a violation.

Hulsey said she is pleased with the decision to hold another meeting but wants the public to be involved in the decision.

"I hope that they let the public speak out on the satisfaction of Pendery Clark," Hulsey said. "The district is happy with her, but the teachers and parents are not happy with her performance."

Hulsey originally complained that the meeting was not properly advertised nor were notices sent through the mail to those who had requested them.

The Attorney General's Office found that notification was adequately given and that whether notices were sent through the mail or not could not be proven.

Howle wrote that the board "may have relied upon mistaken advice of counsel" and no legal action will be taken against the board.

However, the letter did warn against future violations: "The board is warned that future non-compliance with the open meeting law may result in legal action against the board by this office."