County BOE suit delayed again

Richard Truitt originally filed a complaint against the BOE on Sept. 7, 2017, alleging a violation of the state’s open meetings act related to an executive committee meeting Aug. 31, 2017.

According to the complaint, Jason Vance, director of schools, used the meeting “as a means to poll school board members and obtain input from school board members concerning an issue of public concern that was to be considered at a future school board meeting with the intention of reducing or eliminating discussion and deliberations.”

On Oct. 18, 2017, BOE attorney Chris McCarty filed documents asking the complaint be dismissed, stating the executive committee meeting did not constitute a violation of the act.

Six days later, Linda Noe, attorney for Truitt, made a request that all documents related to the Aug. 31 meeting be turned over.

Then on Jan. 3, 2018, the BOE made a motion for summary judgment in the case, arguing that even if the BOE had violated the open meetings act Aug. 31, a meeting Sept. 14, 2017, had “cured” any wrongdoing.

“The public was afforded several opportunities to be heard and to ask questions about each of the topics that had been discussed (at) the Aug. 31 gathering,” a memo filed in support of summary judgment said.

McCarty points to the case of Neese v. Paris Special School District from 1990 as basis for dismissing the case.

According to the Neese case, the Paris Special School District BOE met privately during a retreat in Kentucky to make a decision on a policy related to “clustering” that was then voted on in public.

The court of appeals in West Tennessee ruled in favor of the Paris BOE in that case, finding that the board “legally enacted the concept of clustering at a regularly scheduled meeting upon proper notice on March 21, 1989, in full compliance with all requirements of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act.”

“Basically the person, Mr. Truitt, made the complaint that there were violations. Because he even made the complaint, we went ahead and discussed all those things again,” McCarty said in March 2018. “… It was a very long meeting and all those things were discussed. I went to that meeting, and Mr. Truitt was given the floor at that meeting to discuss all of the things he has mentioned in the complaint.”

Also filed Jan. 3, 2018, was a request for a protective order that would prevent Truitt or his counsel “from conducting burdensome and expensive discovery/depositions.”

On Feb. 23, Noe filed documents in support of discovery, which included statements from witnesses of both meetings and text messages sent from Vance to board members.

A March 27 ruling by Circuit Court Judge Michael Pemberton granted and denied parts of those motions from both sides.

Truitt and his counsel were permitted to conduct discovery on limited issues of whether the Sept. 14, 2017, workshop and “cure” meeting were properly noticed.

An affidavit of Pat Hunter, as well as a photograph submitted as evidence, allege “a conflict between the posted times of the LCBOE workshops and meeting on the ‘window at the LCBOE central office’ and the time the workshop and meeting actually was held” Sept. 14, 2017.

McCarty on May 2 filed a motion to set aside the order from Pemberton that was “procured by fraud,” and asked for sanctions against Noe.

The motion states Truitt and Noe submitted “false and misleading testimony in bad faith solely for the purpose of delaying this court’s ruling upon the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment,” adding that “the facts the board cited in support of its motion for summary judgment are undisputed and do not require discovery.”

Noe filed a response to the May 2 motion Aug. 6 that states “neither plaintiff nor his attorney nor Ms. Hunter presented false or misleading testimony to the court” and goes on to express again the need for discovery related to the September 2017 meeting.

On Oct. 29, McCarty again filed a motion to set aside the order from Pemberton, alleging the affidavit from Hunter and a photo submitted showing the meeting time at the BOE central office led the court to believe there had been confusion about when the cure meeting took place.

The filing claims the photo did not show additional documents posted on the door and that a public notice posted in the News-Herald regarding the time of the meeting was not provided.

On Nov. 16, McCarty filed a notice of deposition for both Hunter and Truitt. A response from Noe on Nov. 19 motioned to quash the notice for Truitt and for an order of protection stating that Truitt was currently residing with his daughter in Kentucky and was not in good health.

McCarty responded Nov. 20 with a request to stay all discovery as a result of Noe’s Nov. 19 motion. The motion suggests that Truitt declined an offer to conduct the deposition over the phone and suggested Truitt “would like to take discovery depositions without also being subject to questioning himself.”

“If the plaintiff is truly in poor health, the defendants would simply move to stay discovery,” the motion reads.

On Dec. 19, Truitt’s counsel also motioned for summary judgment in the case. A memo in support of the motion states that during the Aug. 31, 2017, meeting “deliberations occurred on board policies and other matters of public business without notice to the public and without the keeping of minutes.”

“I have no problem with them coming back and curing, which allows them to go ahead and adopt … those policies,” Noe said in a previous interview. “But we’re saying that just enables them to go ahead with those policies. It doesn’t mean they didn’t violate the law.”

Noe filed a memo Jan. 7 in opposition of the BOE’s request for summary judgment. On Jan. 15, the BOE filed a reply in defense of the request and also filed a motion for sanctions against Noe.

“Plaintiff counsel’s conduct warrants the imposition of severe sanctions under Rule 56.08, Rule 11 and this court’s inherent authority,” the motion reads. “... To hold otherwise would be to condone the manufacturing, filing and reliance on deliberately misleading evidence without consequence.”

A Jan. 18 reply from Noe said the motion for sanctions was “without merit and should be denied,” stating that the cited rules do not apply and the evidence provided was not fraudulent.

During the hearing scheduled for Feb. 13, the court will hear competing motions for summary judgment as well as the motion for sanctions against Noe.