The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled on November 13, 2026, regarding a case involving HD Media Company, LLC, which operates the Charleston Gazette-Mail, and the West Virginia University Board of Governors. The court's decision affects how public bodies conduct meetings and the transparency required under the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act (WVOGPA). The ruling clarifies when public bodies can enter executive sessions and what topics can be discussed privately.

HD Media filed a complaint against the Board, alleging that it violated the WVOGPA by holding executive sessions to discuss various topics without proper justification. The case reached the West Virginia Supreme Court after the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling that granted summary judgment in favor of the Board for most topics discussed in executive sessions.

The dispute began when HD Media claimed that the Board improperly entered executive sessions during meetings in 2020 to discuss issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, social justice, university budgets, and other topics. HD Media sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the Board from continuing what it deemed non-compliant practices regarding open meetings.

In its ruling, the court affirmed some of the previous decisions while reversing others. Specifically, the court agreed that discussions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and university budgets fell under exceptions to the WVOGPA. However, it found that discussions regarding social justice issues did not meet the criteria for executive session discussions under the law.

Justice Kirkpatrick delivered the opinion of the court, stating, "The Board violated the WVOGPA when it entered into an executive session to discuss these social justice issues." The court's decision emphasized that public agencies must adhere strictly to the exceptions outlined in the WVOGPA when deciding to hold closed meetings.

The court's ruling has significant implications for public transparency in West Virginia. It reinforces the idea that public bodies must provide clear justification for entering executive sessions and ensures that discussions about critical social issues remain open to public scrutiny. This case highlights the importance of accountability in government actions and the necessity for public agencies to operate transparently.

Moving forward, the ruling sets a precedent for how public bodies in West Virginia should interpret the WVOGPA. It clarifies that while certain topics may warrant closed discussions, others, especially those related to social justice, must remain public. This decision could influence future cases involving public meeting laws and the obligations of public agencies to their constituents.

The court's decision also opens the door for HD Media to seek attorney fees related to the litigation, as the case was remanded for consideration of such fees due to the violation of the WVOGPA regarding social justice discussions. This aspect of the ruling may encourage other organizations to hold public bodies accountable for transparency violations.

As for next steps, the Board may consider its options regarding compliance with the ruling. There is potential for further legal challenges or adjustments in how they conduct meetings to ensure adherence to the court's interpretation of the WVOGPA. The case underscores the ongoing dialogue about public access to government proceedings and the balance between necessary confidentiality and the public's right to know.