The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently ruled that the Oklahoma Schools Risk Management Trust (OSRMT) willfully violated the Open Meeting Act (OMA) when it failed to properly notify the public about a meeting where it adopted an amended Trust Agreement. This decision affects multiple school districts and highlights the importance of transparency in public meetings.

The case, filed under docket number 123469, centers around OSRMT’s actions during a meeting on June 12, 2019. The ruling underscores the necessity for public entities to adhere to notification requirements to ensure public awareness and participation in governmental processes.

OSRMT provides self-insurance coverage for public schools and school districts in Oklahoma. The organization amended its Trust Agreement in April 2019 to implement new financial contributions from member schools. However, as the organization prepared for a subsequent meeting, it failed to notify the Secretary of State about a change in the meeting date and did not include the vote on the amended Trust Agreement in the posted agenda.

Background

The Oklahoma Schools Risk Management Trust was formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act to offer public schools member-funded self-insurance coverage for property and casualty claims. The Trust Agreement, which governs the relationship between OSRMT and its member schools, was initially amended in April 2019 to include a new nonrefundable reserve contribution from member districts.

After the amendment was approved, OSRMT was required by law to submit the revised agreement to the Attorney General for approval. However, issues arose when the Attorney General's office informed OSRMT on June 7, 2019, that the amended agreement could not be approved due to certain provisions. This notification occurred just days before the scheduled meeting, which was originally set for June 11 but was moved to June 12 due to a scheduling conflict.

OSRMT was aware of the need to vote on a new version of the amended Trust Agreement but failed to amend the agenda posted on June 7 to reflect this new business. Instead, the agenda included a vague item labeled “New Business,” under which the Board voted to adopt the revised agreement during the meeting.

The Ruling

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that OSRMT willfully violated the OMA. The court found that OSRMT did not provide adequate notice to the public regarding the adoption of the amended Trust Agreement, as required by law. The court stated, “The lack of notice in the agenda regarding the consideration of the amended Trust Agreement violated the OMA.”

The ruling emphasized that the OMA requires public bodies to provide clear agendas that inform the public about all business to be transacted at meetings. The court noted that OSRMT had sufficient time to amend the agenda or to defer the vote to a later meeting, yet it chose to proceed without proper notification.

The decision was made by a majority of the justices, with some dissenting opinions. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of transparency and public participation in governmental processes, reinforcing the need for public entities to comply with legal requirements regarding meeting notifications.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for public entities in Oklahoma. It reinforces the necessity for compliance with the Open Meeting Act to ensure that public bodies operate transparently and are held accountable to the public. The decision also serves as a reminder that failure to follow proper procedures can lead to legal consequences and undermine public trust.

Moreover, this ruling affects not only OSRMT but also the numerous school districts involved in the case. With the court affirming that the adoption of the amended Trust Agreement was invalid due to the OMA violation, it raises questions about the financial obligations of the member schools regarding the unpaid reserve contributions. The ruling may prompt further discussions on how to address the financial implications stemming from the court's decision.

What's Next

Following this ruling, OSRMT may face challenges in addressing the financial aspects related to the invalidated Trust Agreement. The decision can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any immediate plans for appeal. This case serves as a crucial reminder for public bodies to adhere strictly to legal requirements in order to maintain public confidence and ensure the integrity of governmental operations.