TARPLEY are 864.

The last three digits of the social security number for SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY are 320. C. Respondent CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES (hereafter referred as “C-FB ISD Board of Trustees”), may be served with process by serving on LYNN CHAFFIN, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as President of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following address: Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, TX 75201. Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery. D. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving

on NANCY CLINE, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as Vice President of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following address: 16801 Westgrove Drive, Addison, TX 75001. Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery. E. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving

on FRANK SHOR, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in his capacity as Secretary of CFB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following address: 1620 E Beltline Rd, Carrollton, TX 75006. Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery. F. Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served with process by serving

on NANCY WATTEN, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in her capacity as Assistant Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, and may be served with process at the following
Page 2 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

address: 2744 Bay Meadow Ct., Farmers Branch, TX 75234. Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery. G. Respondent, C-FB ISD on behalf of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, may be served

with process by serving on BOBBY BURNS, an Individual who is a resident of Texas, in his capacity as Superintendent of C-FB ISD, and may be served with process at the following address: 1445 N. Perry Road, Carrollton, TX 75006. Service of said Respondent as described above can be effected by personal delivery. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE A. B. residents. C. Venue in DALLAS County is proper in this cause under Section 15.002(a)(3) of The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court. This court has jurisdiction over the parties because Respondents are Texas

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this county is the county of the principal office of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, Respondent herein. Furthermore, because venue is proper with respect to Respondent C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, venue for this action with respect to all Respondents is proper under 15.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. D. Section 551.142 of the Open Meetings Act confers jurisdiction on this, the

District Court, over actions seeking mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse violations or threatened violations under the Texas Open Meetings Act (referred to as “TOMA” or “the Act”)—thereby waiving sovereign immunity to this type of lawsuit and its request for attorney fees. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. (Vernon 2004).
Page 3 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

E.

This, the District Court, also has jurisdiction under Article 5, section 8 of the

Texas Constitution, and may issue declarations under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann., §§ 37.001 et seq. (Vernon 1997). IV. STANDING Texas Government Code § 551.142(a) provides, “An interested person, including a member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (Vernon 2004). The standing conferred by Texas Government Code § 551.142 is broader than taxpayer standing, and its citizens do not need to prove an interest different from the general public “because the interest protected in the Open Meetings Act is in the interest of the general public.” Hays County Water Planning P’ship v. Hays County, 41 S.W.3d 174, 177-8 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. Denied). An individual entitled to seek a writ of mandamus or injunction may also seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Cox Enters., 679 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.. App.—Texarkana 1984) (recognizing news media’s right to bring declaratory judgment action to determine if the board had violated TOMA); See also City of Fort Worth v. Groves, 746 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. App— Fort Worth 1998, no writ) (resident of Arlington had standing to bring suit for declaratory judgment and injunction against the city for a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act). A taxpayer living within the School district has standing to file a suit under §551.142. Salazar v. Gallardo, 57 S.W.3d 629 (Tex App—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Finally, members of the
Page 4 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

public have the right to seek relief by mandamus to correct an abuse of discretion and/or to compel the performance of a ministerial duty by public officials Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 Petitioner, SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY, is a resident living within the tax district for the Carrollton-Famers Branch Independent School District (hereafter called “C-FB ISD”; she is a retired C-FB ISD teacher; she began to work in the C-FB ISD in 1969; and she is a former City of Carrollton City Council member. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY strongly believes that the CFB ISD Board of Trustees’ actions result in harm to the children of the district for which she cares so much about. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY has standing to file this suit. V. SUMMARY The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has a pattern and practice of violating the notice and open meeting provisions of the TOMA, as evidenced by the fact that C-FB ISD has continued to violate the TOMA prior to this suit. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY seeks a declaratory judgment under the UDJA that C-FB ISD has violated the TOMA through its past actions. SHIRLEY DEMUS TARPLEY seeks injunctive relief to prevent C-FB ISD from continuing to violate the TOMA through these actions. VI. SUMMARY OF PEOPLE DISCUSSED IN THE FACTS AND THE FACTS 1. Summary of People Discussed in the Statement of Fact

Mr. Robert Luna, Esq.—Purported Attorney for Respondent, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees and Lynn Chaffin, in Cause No. 09-07085 filed in the 95th District Court of Dallas County, Texas and Attorney for Appellant, C-FB ISD Board of Trustees and Lynn Chaffin, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas Division case assigned Cause No. 05-09-01166-CV Ms. Lynn Chaffin—President for C-FB ISD Board of Trustees.
Page 5 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Ms. Nancy Cline—Vice President of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Mr. Frank Shor—Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Ms. Nancy Watten—Assistant Secretary of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Mr. James Goode—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Ms. Karin Webb—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Mr. Richard Fleming—member of C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Dr. Bobby Burns—Superintendent of C-FB ISD Ms. Georgeanne Warnock-Principal of R.L. Turner High School, Carrollton TX Mr. Mark Gommesen—a concerned resident living in the C-FB ISD with a child attending a CFB ISD school. 2. Statement of the Facts C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is appointed by the voters residing in its school district to conduct business, develop policy, and make decisions on behalf of the school district regarding the local education system for the benefit of the children and the community at large residing in that school district. On June 25,, 2009 at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District (“C-FB ISD”), where a quorum of board members were present and seated. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they would reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections under which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s exact words were, “Anything else, alright,

Page 6 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

we do have items for closed session, it is 9:38, I am going to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 and we will come back at 9:45 in closed session.” Ms. Chaffin then adjourned the meeting. On June 25, 2009, at a Regular Board Meeting of the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District (“C-FB ISD ”), where are quorum of board members were present and seated, the board reconvened from executive session after the failure of a vote to call a special election James Goode stated as follows: “I believe we have one other item based upon closed session, and that is that I would like to make a motion that we approve all the matters that we discussed in close session that we need to take future action on.” Nancy Watten seconded the Motion. Lynn Chaffin called the Motion and the Motion was passed. Three items were discussed in closed session. There is no designation as to which item or items—one of the three, two of the three, or all of them—were actually designated as items (quoting James Goode) that “that we [the board] need to take future action on.” On August 13, 2009 at Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, where are quorum of board members were present and seated, the presiding officer asked for any comments from board members. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they would reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections under which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s statement was, “Um Item Number, Number 6, comments from board members regarding posted agenda items. Board members? Hearing none seeing none, item number 7 closed meeting as authorized under the Texas Government Code including but not limited to, to uh, §551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or
Page 7 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation.We will now leave closed session and go into or leave open session and go into closed session for items a, b and c. We are adjourned from open session at 11:32. You guys get to leave; lucky you.” The Agenda for the closed session states: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 0907085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney) C. Report From Attorney” The August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting and agenda item for the closed session only states “Report from Attorney.” There was no designation as to what the attorney was reporting on. This deviates from the school districts prior practices of at least designating the case or topic for discussion when acting in close session. The C-FB ISD conducted the meeting, where a quorum of board members were present and seated, and received a report from an unidentified attorney in closed sessions. Because the report was made in closed session, the public still does not have an understanding as to which attorney communicated the report and the public still does not have a clear understanding as to the subject of such report by an unidentified attorney . On August 27, 2009 the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees sat in quorum and conducted an opened and closed meeting. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees discussed the Fleming case in

closed session. August 27th 2009, Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting
Page 8 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

and agenda items do not list any mention of the 95th District Court Case Number 09-07085. There was no supplemental agenda item placed on the agenda such that this information could be discussed. However, in a subsequent Freedom of Information Request by Mr. Mark Gommesen, Mr. Gommesen received documentation which reveals that board member Karin Webb posed a question as to why such litigation was not on the agenda with a reply by Mr. Mark Hyatt. Mr. Hyatt stated, “At this time there is no apparent action that is required. Any new information related to the lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item.” The Board discussed the Fleming Case at this meeting; however, no such item was listed on the Agenda. Most importantly, it should be noted that the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ attorney was not seen at the school board meeting or through the windows during the closed session. At the August 27 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, where the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin asked for comments from board members, following that section of the agenda, Chaffin stated, “We will close the regular board meeting and we will go into closed meeting as authorized by Texas Government Code to Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation. So I will declare this regular meeting to be closed at 10:06 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exception the meeting was allowing the board to close the meeting.

Page 9 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

At the September 10, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated as follows: “Okay in that case we are going to adjourn the open meeting and go into closed session as authorized by the Texas Government Code §551. Um, So I will adjourn this meeting at 8:57 and we will reconvene in 10 minutes.” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exceptions to the Open Meetings Act allowed them to close the open meeting. At the September 24, 2009 Special Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated “Um that said we will move on to our agenda item, our first agenda item for tonight is a closed meeting to hear a third level grievance, so we are going to have to ask you all to leave. We are so sorry, but I am going to go ahead and close this open session and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exceptions to the Open Meetings Act allowed them to close the session. At the October 8, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin stated, “Agenda item 4 which will be closed meeting as authorized under the Texas Governement Code including but not limited to, §551.071 .071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation. So we will go, we will adjourn from open session at 9:06 and we will reconvene in closed session.”
Page 10 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were provided for the meeting to be properly closed. Reconvening from closed meeting, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin disclosed that the board was in closed session for Real Property (or §551.072) by stating, “Alright, I will reconvene this meeting of the Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Board of Trustees in open session at 9:35PM on October the 8th. And Board members we've just been discussing item 5, (pause) 4 a. all matters related to Real Property is there anything, any action that needs to be taken at this time? Hearing none seeing none. Board Members we are going to adjourn public session at 9:36 and we will go back into closed session in 5 minutes." Again, Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were provided for the meeting to be properly closed. At the November 12, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FB ISD, the notice and agenda read, “Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. CFB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD.” At the point where Lynn Chaffin stated, “Item 3 Comments from Board Members … Hearing none and seeing none, we are going to take a brief recess and we will reconvene at 8:45 in closed session for agenda item number 4 which is a closed session.” The C-FB ISD Board of Trustee sat in quorum and conducted a meeting. At no point did Ms. Chaffin publically state the specific sections allowing the board to go into closed session. During this closed session, the Board discussed the investigation of R. L. Turner High School. No mention of an investigation of a high school, or more specifically R.L. Turner High School was mentioned anywhere on the agenda. The investigation at R. L. Turner High School is not in
Page 11 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

any way related to Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD. Coincidently, Mark Gommesen received an email from Nancy Watten regarding a Public Information Act request regarding an unknown investigation and Nancy Watten confirmed the investigation pertained to Lance Campbell, a former principal of R.L. Turner. At least, one of the board members left the closed meeting after the board began to discuss this topic due to fear of a possible open meetings violation. After the closed session on November 12, 2009, the board reconvened in open session. Lynn Chaffin asked if there were any items discussed in closed session requiring action. No members of the board responded. Lynn Chaffin then stated, “Hearing none and seeing none, I would like to make a statement to the public. The board had received an allegation of issues of impropriety and the board took those allegations very seriously. We initiated an investigation with an external firm. No violations of law were identified. No violations of policy were identified that rose to the level of a reportable ethical complaint. However, as a result of this investigation, the board has extensively reviewed its policies. And those policies are being reviewed at all of our campuses to ensure that we have a consistency of application of those policies. So we appreciate the public for, uhm, having reported those, those issues and those concerns and brought them to our attention.” At no time, has the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees publically voted to take action to initiate an investigation. Additionally, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has not provided the public with enough information to determine the scope and topic of investigation. Lynn Chaffin by her own statement indicates that the investigation was brought to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ attention by the public; however, all discussions and action were taken in closed session. Lynn Chaffin, by her own statement, indicated there was some “wrong” committed but according to
Page 12 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

her standards it did rise to an ethical violation—the public has never been informed as to what the violation is or consists of—therefore, how the public cannot measure honesty and integrity of the system. Taxpayer funds paid for the investigation, no public action or agenda has ever been published on this investigation authorizing the Board of Trustees to take action to initiation the investigation and hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. The public, at this time, does not know the person or persons hired to conduct such investigation. Since there has been no action to start an investigation or hire counsel to conduct an investigation, there is no proof that any investigation has actually been conducted. If this investigation in any way relates the R.L Turner, then the subject of the investigation was initiated to explore purported profound improprieties—the extent of which can be determined through, live testimony, discovery and any in camera1 reviews of certified closed session minutes or recordings. VII. STATEMENT OF LAW 1. Duties and Authority of the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees Texas Education Code § 11.051 regarding governance of an independent school district and the number of trustees that may be elected reads as follows: “(a) An independent school district is governed by a board of trustees who, as a body corporate, shall: (1) oversee the management of the district; and (2) ensure that the superintendent implements and monitors plans, procedures, programs, and systems to achieve appropriate, clearly defined, and desired results in the major areas of district operations. (a)(1) Unless authorized by the board, a member
                                                                                                                         
1

Petitioner files contemporaneously with the Petition a Motion to Tender Documents for In Camera Inspection

Page 13 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

of the board may not, individually, act on behalf of the board.” Tex. Educ. Code §11.051 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees internal policy says board members as individuals shall not exercise authority over the District, its property, or its employees. See C-FB ISD Board of Trustee Policy BBE(Local). Except for appropriate duties and functions of the Board President, an individual member may act on behalf of the Board only with the express authorization of the Board. Id. Without such authorization, no individual member may commit the Board on any issue. Id. Also, because the Board is a body corporate, members can perform no valid act

except as a body at meetings properly convened and conducted by a board sitting in quorum. Toyah ISD v. Pecos-Barstow ISD, 466 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio, 1971, no writ); Buchele v. Woods, 528 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler, 1975, no writ) .

Texas Education Code § 11.1511(a) describes the specific powers and duties of a school board, and reads as follows: “(a) In addition to powers and duties under Section 11.151 or other law, the board of trustees of an independent school district has the powers and duties provided by Subsection (b).” Texas Educ. Code § 11.1511 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009).

Texas Education Code § 11.1511(b)(5) reads, “the board shall… adopt a policy to establish a district- and campus-level planning and decision-making process as required under Section 11.251.” § 11.1511 Texas Government Code § 551.001 subsection (3)(E) indicates that a school board is a governmental body to which the Act will apply.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.001 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). The board of trustees may act only by majority

Page 14 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

vote of the members present at a meeting, held in compliance with the Texas Open Meets Act (referred to as “TOMA” or “the Act” located in Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, at which a quorum of the board is present and voting. (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). 2. History and General Definition of the Texas Open Meeting Act Even prior to the passage of the TOMA, Texas Government Code §§551.001 et seq., a collegial entity, with power shared equally between colleagues, could only act as an entity at a properly noticed meeting, not through its individual members. Webster v. Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co., 166 S.W. 2d 75 (Tex. 1942). This principle is still good law 60 years later. See Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet denied); see also Austin Neighborhoods Council, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of City of Austin, 644 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.App.-Austin 1982, writ refused n.r.e.). With the passage of the TOMA, came the “Golden Rule” of the Act: all "meetings" held by "governmental bodies" must be open to the public unless an executive [or closed] session is expressly permitted. §551.002. A “meeting” is defined under the TOMA as all "deliberations" between a quorum of members of a governmental body or between a quorum and any other person.. §551.001(4). A "deliberation" is a verbal exchange between a governmental body or a quorum and any other person concerning an issue within the governmental body's jurisdiction or any public business. Tex. Gov’t Code §551.001(2). Texas Government Code § 551.103(a) requires a governmental body to keep either a certified agenda or make a tape recording of the proceedings of each closed meeting, except for when the governmental entity is participating in a
Page 15 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.002

private consultation permitted under Texas Government Code § 551.071 when the governmental body is consulting with the governmental body’s attorney. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551.103 & 551.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). There are numerous Texas Attorney General Opinions regarding TOMA. The U.S. Supreme Court, has stated that even though most Attorney General opinions are considered advisory on the courts, they are entitled to careful consideration. Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176,179-81 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied). (citing Harris County Comm'rs Court v. Moore, 420 U.S. 77, 95 S.Ct. 870, 43 L.Ed.2d 32 (1975); Commissioners Court of El Paso County v. El Paso County Sheriff's Deputies Ass'n, 620 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.---El Paso 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 3. Notice Requirement of the TOMA The Texas Government Code § 551.041 reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.041 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). That means a

governmental body must give the public notice of the subjects that will be discussed and considered in an open meeting or a closed session. Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd ofTrs. Of Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. 1986); Porth v. Morgan, 622 S.W. 2d 470 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e). When the notice specifically discloses the subject to be considered at the upcoming meeting, the statute's notice requirement is met. See Cox Enter., 706 S.W.2d at 959.
Page 16 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

The only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions—this is done by way of publishing an agenda. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist, 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.); Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. After explaining that notice under the Act "should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting", the court held that describing agenda items as “litigation” when the suit was related to a desegregation lawsuit and “personnel” when it pertained to the selection of a new superintendent, "did not provide full and adequate notice, particularly because the subject slated for discussion was one of special interest to the public." Cox Enters., Inc. at 959. No judicial decision or attorney general opinion states that a

governmental body must indicate in the notice whether a subject will be discussed in open or closed session. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 6. However, if the notices posted for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects for public deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from this practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of the notice. Id. In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Id. at 958. (quoting Lower
Page 17 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Colorado River Authority v. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex.1975).

The

Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has complied with TOMA— rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Id. at 960. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own policy posted on its website is as follows: “Agendas for all meetings shall be sufficiently specific to inform the public of the subjects to be deliberated at the meeting, setting out any special or unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which the public has a particular interest. Deliberations or actions pertaining to the Superintendent and principals are of particular public interest, and notice of those subjects must be worded with such clarity that the public will understand what the Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986); Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops. M-494 (1969), H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See C-FB ISD Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal). “The terms “employee briefing” or “staff briefing” do not give adequate notice of the subject matter to be presented to the Board by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-169 (2000).” Id. “The subject of a report or update by District staff or a member of the Board must be set out in the notice in a manner that informs a reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. GA-668
Page 18 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(2008).” Id. 4. Meeting Must be Open to the Public Unless the Topic Falls Under an Exception “Every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public, except as provided by this chapter”. § 551.002. Only certain deliberations may be held in closed sessions. In Cox, decided by the Supreme Court of Texas, the court held, “The Texas Open Meetings Act requires every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body to be open to the public, with certain narrowly-drawn exceptions. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958. The Supreme Court of Texas in Cox states, “The Act's purposes cannot be circumvented by mere reference to one of the section 2 exceptions. Id. The advance notice given under section 3A(a) should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting.” Id. at 959. Finally the Supreme Court of Texas in Cox held, “The Act's exceptions, however, do not extend to any "final action, decision, or vote." Id. The reference to the section 2 exception has been codified into the current Texas Government Code and is described in detail under subchapter D of §551 of the Texas Government Code. Texas Gov’t Code § 551.101 states the requirements for holding a closed session. It provides: If a closed meeting is allowed under this chapter, a governmental body may not conduct the closed meeting unless a quorum of the governmental body first convenes in an open meeting for which notice has been given as provided by this chapter and during which the presiding officer publicly: (1) announces that a closed meeting will be held; and (2) identifies the section or sections of this chapter under which the closed meeting is held. Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.101 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). A careful and plain reading of the TOMA
Page 19 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

reveals that if a closed meeting is authorized (i.e. an exception applies), the governing body must comply with the procedural steps enumerated in TOMA. Martinez v. State, 879 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). On the other hand, if one of the exceptions does not apply, then the

closed meeting violates the Act regardless of whether the governing body complied with the procedural steps. Id. The policy behind the TOMA is that the public should be aware of which members of a governing body are present in a closed meeting and whether a quorum exists.” Id. Additionally, the presiding officer must identify the section or sections that authorize the closed session for the following reasons: 1) to cause the governmental body to assess the applicability of the exceptions before deciding to close the meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal position as relying upon the exceptions specified; and 3) to inform those present of the exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to object intelligently. Lone Star Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Tex. Racing Comm’n, 863 S.W.2d 742, 747 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied). However, when judging the sufficiency of the presiding officer’s announcement in light of whether it effectuated or hindered the purposes of §551.101, the Lone Star Court found that the presiding officer’s reference to the content of a section, rather than to the section number, sufficiently identified the exception. Id. at 747. 5. Exceptions to the Requirement of Publicly Held Meetings The “Consultation with Attorney” exception is located in the Texas Government Code at §551.071. Section 551.071 reads, “A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation with its attorney except: (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation; or (B) a settlement offer; or (2) on a matter in which
Page 20 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter. Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.071 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). This provision allows the attorney to perform his duty to counsel his client while upholding notions of attorney-client privilege and the attorney’s duty to preserve client confidences. Tex Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0506 (2002) at 4; JC-0233 (2000) at 3; JM-238 (1984) (as modified by Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC 0506 (2002)); H-816 (1976); M-1261 (1972). It allows the governmental body to seek the attorney’s advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation or settlement offers. Lone Star Greyhound Park, Inc., 863 S.W.2d at 748. However, “General Discussions of policy, unrelated legal matters, is not permitted under the language of [this exception] merely because an attorney is present” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-100 (1983) at 2. In Cox, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “…a school board is not expected to disclose its litigation strategy, but it cannot totally conceal that a pending desegregation lawsuit will be discussed” and the Texas Attorney General John Cornyn opined that even though the school board discussed the lawsuit in executive session, the school board could not escape publishing adequate notice as required by the TOMA. See Cox Enters., Inc. at 959.; Tex. Atty Gen. Op No. JC-0057 (1999). “Since a governing body can consult privately with its attorney, logic dictates that the information discussed at that meeting should be protected by the attorneyclient privilege.” Markowski v. City of Marlin, 940 S.W.2d 720, 727 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997,

pet. denied). However, the party asserting the privilege has the burden of proving that the
Page 21 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

attorney-client privilege applies. Id. (citing Peeples v. Hon. Fourth Supreme Judicial Dist., 701 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. 1985) (in the discovery context). “Sometimes the only way to prove the privilege is through an in-camera inspection of the privileged documents or other materials.” Id. at 727) (citing Weisel Enter., Inc. v. Curry, 718 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1986); Kavanaugh v. Perkins, 838 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex.App.---Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding). In Ramos, the City of Farmers Branch claimed it properly closed the session regarding an new ordinance and that if it discussed anything outside of the attorney client privilege then it was merely to state opinions. Ramos 235 S.W.3d at 468. The Court agreed that opinions may be discussed in closed session. Id. However, the Court also stated, “Ramos alleged that the City, in closed meetings, ‘drafted, deliberated, negotiated, debated, and agreed upon” the provisions of the ordinance and then "negotiated, modified and revised" the ordinance to "secure the votes" of appellants. Further, Ramos alleged that the public vote was no more than a rubberstamp of the "agreement reached in secret." These allegations, if true, suggest appellants acted outside the lawful bounds of an executive session and would constitute more than an expression of opinion.” Id. Other Exceptions cited by the Board include: “DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY; CLOSED MEETING. A governmental body may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body in negotiations with a third person.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). “PERSONNEL MATTERS; CLOSED MEETING. (a) This chapter does not require a governmental body to conduct an open meeting: (1) to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a
Page 22 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

public officer or employee; or (2) to hear a complaint or charge against an officer or employee. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the officer or employee who is the subject of the deliberation or hearing requests a public hearing.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.074 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). “DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS; CLOSED MEETING. This chapter does not require a governmental body to conduct an open meeting to deliberate: (1) the deployment, or specific occasions for implementation, of security personnel or devices; or (2) a security audit.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). “SCHOOL CHILDREN; SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES; DISCIPLINARY MATTER OR COMPLAINT. (a) This chapter does not require a school board to conduct an open meeting to deliberate in a case: (1) involving discipline of a public school child; or (2) in which a complaint or charge is brought against an employee of the school district by another employee and the complaint or charge directly results in a need for a hearing. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply if an open hearing is requested in writing by a parent or guardian of the child or by the employee against whom the complaint or charge is brought.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). “SCHOOL BOARD: PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT. (a) This chapter does not require a school board to conduct an open meeting to deliberate a matter regarding a public school student if personally identifiable information about the student will necessarily be revealed by the deliberation. (b) Directory information about a public school student is considered to be personally identifiable information about the student for purposes of Subsection (a) only if a parent or guardian of the student, or the student if the student has attained 18 years of age, has informed the school board, the school district, or a school in the school district that the directory information should not be released without prior consent. In this subsection, "directory information" has the meaning assigned by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g), as amended. (c) Subsection (a) does not apply if an open meeting about the matter
Page 23 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

is requested in writing by a parent or guardian of the student or by the student if the student has attained 18 years of age.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). “INVESTIGATION; EXCLUSION OF WITNESS FROM HEARING. A governmental body that is investigating a matter may exclude a witness from a hearing during the examination of another witness in the investigation.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.072 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). 6. Final Actions and Explanation of Compliance with Notice Provisions of TOMA Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action, decision, or vote on a matter deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be made in an open meeting that is held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.102 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). A governmental body can only take steps to put into action a governmental decision only after a “final action, decision, or vote” in open session is voted upon at a time when a majority of the board is present—constituting a quorum and such item has been adequately described in the Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.013(b) (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009); and § 551.041. This act of

taking “a final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this Petition. One of the key requirements to “final actions” is compliance with the notice provision. The notice under the Act is located in the Texas Government Code § 551.041 and reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” § 551.041 . The only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed
Page 24 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

sessions—this is done by way of publishing an agenda. Once the board publishes an agenda, it may not deviate from that agenda for to do so would result in a violation of TOMA—this is a violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc.. at 958. (quoting Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. See Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. Again, the Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Cox Enters., Inc., 706
Page 25 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

S.W.2d at 960. Unfortunately, examples of adequate notice of “final actions” are scant according to Texas case law. However, here are a few snippets of cases addressing such issues. “Respondent violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when it altered the Transportation Plan from the form it [sic] was approved and voted on in public on May 16, 2000. Any changes made to the Transportation Plan ... were not made with the public being able to observe how its government was conducting public business. As such, Respondent violated ... Tex. Gov't Code § 551.002, § 551.021, § 551.022, 551.041, § 551.043, and/or § 551.102." Hays County v. Hays County Water Planning P'ship, 69 S.W.3d 253 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.). “First, the City Council voted to table the approval of Weatherford's second rezoning application before it went into closed session and then simply voted again to table the application after the closed session. Further, the action taken by the City Council before and after the closed session was essentially the action Weatherford requested; namely, that the Council not consider his second rezoning application. Finally, even if opinions were expressed by the Council members in the closed session, such expression is not prohibited, as long as the final decision or vote was made in an open session. Weatherford v. City of San Marcos, 157 S.W.3d 473, 483 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. denied). If a notice specifically discloses the subject to be considered, TOMA's requirements are met and the governmental body can take final action, decide, or vote on a matter. City of San Angelo v. Tex. Nat'l Resource Conservation Comm'n, 92 S.W.3d 624, 629 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.). “Our citizens are entitled to more than a result. They are entitled not only to know what government decides but to observe how and why every decision is reached." Ramos, at 470. (quoting Acker v. Tex. Water Comm'n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990). As a reminder to the Court, Petitioner highlights C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own policy related to notice posted on its own website and is as follows:
Page 26 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

“Agendas for all meetings shall be sufficiently specific to inform the public of the subjects to be deliberated at the meeting, setting out any special or unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which the public has a particular interest. Deliberations or actions pertaining to the Superintendent and principals are of particular public interest, and notice of those subjects must be worded with such clarity that the public will understand what the Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 959; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops. M-494 (1969), H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See C-FB ISD Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal). “The terms “employee briefing” or “staff briefing” do not give adequate notice of the subject matter to be presented to the Board by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. No. JC-169 (2000).” Id. “The subject of a report or update by District staff or a member of the Board must be set out in the notice in a manner that informs a reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. No. GA668(2008).” Id. 7. Enforcement of TOMA Texas Government Code § 551.142(a) provides, “An interested person, including a member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.142 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 2009). Additionally, Texas Government Code § 551.142(b) provides, “The court may assess costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees incurred by a Petitioner or Respondent who substantially prevails in an action under Subsection (a). § 551.142. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the governmental body had a reasonable basis in law.” § 551.142.
Page 27 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

8.

Consequences of TOMA Violation According to State Law “Compliance with the Open Meetings Act is mandatory, and actions taken by a

governmental body in violation of the Act are subject to judicial invalidation.” City of Bells v. Greater Texoma Util. Auth., 744 S.W.2d. 636, 640 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no writ). See Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646.; Garcia v. City of Kingsville, 641 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex.App.---Corpus Christi 1982, no writ). The Court of Appeals in Dallas stated, “Although the trial court, in its amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluded that GTUA had substantially complied with the Act with respect to any meetings relevant to the bond issues in question (including the meeting which authorized this suit), we need not decide whether the trial court was correct because substantial compliance is not sufficient.” City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d. at 640. “Literal compliance is required under the Act.” Id.; See Smith County v. Thorton, 726 S.W.2d 2, 2--3 (Tex.1986). The Dallas Court of Appeals preceded to instruct the District court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the case—procedurally speaking the Petitioner in the case was the party who violated the open meeting act and the Petitioner’s action were invalidated. City of, 744 S.W.2d. at 640. VIII. LEGAL ARGUMENT Petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested herein and clearly demands that right. The Respondent had a clear legal duty to perform the act which is the subject of relief herein, and the Respondent has refused to perform a ministerial act that the Respondent is required to perform. There is no other adequate remedy at law available, whether through

appeal to the Board itself or otherwise, to rectify the improper action or omission complained of
Page 28 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

herein. In fact such appeals have been made to the Board itself by the public but such appeals have been largely ignored. 1. The Texas Opens Meeting Act Applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees The TOMA applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees. The Texas Education Code § 11.1511(b)(5) which reads, “the board shall… adopt a policy to establish a district- and campuslevel planning and decision-making process as required under Section 11.2512.” § 11.1511. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is the entity whereby its members are appointed by vote of the people and given the authority to act on behalf of the school district to initiate policy, make decisions, and direct and steer the school district into the future. Furthermore, the Texas

Government Code § 551.001(3)(E) indicates that a school board is a governmental body to which the Texas Open Meetings Act (also referred to as “TOMA” or the “Act”) will apply.” §551.001. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is a governmental body; therefore, the TOMA applies to the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees. 2. Alleged TOMA Violations at Certain C-FB ISD Board Meetings The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has violated the TOMA on several occasions. TOMA requires meetings of governmental bodies to be publicly held when exercising governmental authority where all discussions are open to the public subject to a few exceptions that allow deliberations and discussions to take place in closed sessions. Regardless of whether a

particular item is discussed in an open or closed sessions--before the governmental authority can take any action-2

the “decided action” must be finalized and voted on in an open (public)

                                                                                                                         
Texas Education Code § 11.251 provides a comprehensive definition of “Planning and Decision Making” as applied to school districts.

Page 29 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

session. TOMA also requires advance notice for each meeting, and TOMA provides for civil and criminal enforcement when a governmental body violates the Act. Implicit in the requirement for advance notice is the requirement for clarity so that the public can identify what is being discussed and what is being acted upon. The Board of Trustees may not discuss any item or subject not listed on the Agenda in an open or closed meeting; except to say that such item should be scheduled for discussion at a later time when it can properly be listed on the agenda. A. Final Action Too Vague for Public Understanding

The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA on June 25, 2009 when the board passed a motion to take action which failed to designate which items on the agenda where being voted on at that time thereby denying the public the ability to determine what agenda discussion items resulted in a decided action. Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action, decision, or vote on a matter deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be made in an open meeting that is held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” § 551.102. A governmental body can only take steps to put into action a governmental decision only after a “final action, decision, or vote” in open session is voted upon at a time when a majority of the board is present—constituting a quorum and such item has been adequately described in the Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); § 311.013(b); and § 551.041. This act

of taking “a final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this Petition. One of the key requirements to “final actions” is compliance with the notice provision. The notice under the Act is located in the Texas Government Code § 551.041 and reads, “[a]
Page 30 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” § 551.041 . The only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions—this is done by way of publishing an agenda. Once the board publishes an agenda, it may not deviate from that agenda for to do so would result in a violation of TOMA—this is a violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; § 551.142. In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc.. at 958. (quoting Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. See Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. Again, the Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has
Page 31 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 960. In the case at bar, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, voted June 25, 2009, the board reconvened from executive session James Goode stated in the form of a Motion as follows: “I believe we have one other item based upon closed session, and that is that I would like to make a motion that we approve all the matters that we discussed in close session that we need to take future action on.” Nancy Watten seconded the Motion. Lynn Chaffin called the Motion and the Motion was passed. Three items were discussed in closed session. There is no designation as to which action or actions—one of the three, two of the three, or all of them—were actually designated as items (quoting James Goode) that “that we [the board] need to take future action on.” The public was not alerted to the topics up for consideration at the time the “final action” vote was made. An agenda was posted but the board did not designate which items on the Agenda were being considered for action. The Board gave less than full disclosure of its actions because the public has no idea which agenda items discussed in closed session resulted in decided actions. The public does not have knowledge of the inner workings of the C-FB ISD Board Trustees. Because the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees identified items to be discussed in closed session and we know that the board decided to take some action but the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees failed to indicate which items, based on the agenda, it had decided to take action on when pursing a its Motion after reconvening in public session, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees did not comply with TOMA which requires all final action that complies with the notice
Page 32 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

provisions of the TOMA—this is because the public cannot identify which agenda items were approved for final. Any closed session actions taken by the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees, as approved at the June 25, 2009 Board Meeting could and should be judicially invalidated. Texas law reads, “Compliance with the Open Meetings Act is mandatory, and actions taken by a governmental body in violation of the Act are subject to judicial invalidation.” City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d. at 640. See Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646; Garcia, 641 S.W.2d at 341. Because the public cannot determine what actions were taken, the Petitioner cannot specifically state what actions should be judicially invalidated. Petitioner will file a Motion to Tender Documents for In Camera Inspection—included in that Motion is a request to view all minutes corresponding to this closed session. After such time as the in camera review, the Petitioner can supplement her petition to designate which items she requests judicial invalidation. For an example of judicial invalidation see the decision by The Court of Appeals in Dallas which stated, “…substantial compliance [with TOMA] is not sufficient” and because the Petitioner in that case filed to comply with TOMA the court dismissed the petitioner’s case. City of Bells, 744 S.W.2d. at 640. B. Inadequate Agenda Notification of Discussion Held in Closed Session

The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ Agenda for the board meeting held on August 13, 2009 violated the Notice requirement of the TOMA because the Agenda Item “C” stated “Report from Attorney” but the agenda failed to designate which case this report pertained. Once again, as Petitioner has stated before, the only way that the general public can monitor its
Page 33 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions. The Texas Government Code § 551.041 reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” §

551.041. That means a governmental body must give the public notice of the subjects that will be discussed and considered in an open meeting or a closed session. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958; Porth, 622 S.W.2d at 470. When the notice specifically discloses the subject to be considered at the upcoming meeting, the statute's notice requirement is met. See Cox Enter., 706 S.W.2d at 959. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist, 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. After explaining that notice under the Act "should specifically disclose the subjects to be considered at the upcoming meeting", the court held that describing agenda items as “litigation” when the suit was related to a desegregation lawsuit and “personnel” when it pertained to the selection of a new superintendent, "did not provide full and adequate notice, particularly because the subject slated for discussion was one of special interest to the public." Cox Enters., Inc. at 959. No judicial decision or attorney general

opinion states that a governmental body must indicate in the notice whether a subject will be discussed in open or closed session. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 6. However, if the notices posted for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects
Page 34 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

for public deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from this practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of the notice. Id. In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Id. at 958. (quoting Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Id. at 960. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ own policy posted on its website is as follows: “Agendas for all meetings shall be sufficiently specific to inform the public of the subjects to be deliberated at the meeting, setting out any special or unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which the public has a particular interest. Deliberations or actions pertaining to the Superintendent and principals are of particular public interest, and notice of those subjects must be worded with such clarity that the public will understand what the Board proposes to discuss or accomplish. Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986); Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Atty. Gen. Ops. M-494 (1969), H-419 (1974), H-662 (1975), H-1045 (1977).” See C-FB ISD
Page 35 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Board of Trustee Policy BE (Legal). “The terms “employee briefing” or “staff briefing” do not give adequate notice of the subject matter to be presented to the Board by employees or staff members. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-169 (2000).” Id. “The subject of a report or update by District staff or a member of the Board must be set out in the notice in a manner that informs a reader about the subjects to be addressed. Atty. Gen. Op. GA-668 (2008).” Id. The August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting and Agenda Item “C” for the closed session only states “Report from Attorney”. There is no designation as to which case, incident, or investigation on which the attorney is reporting. This deviates from the school districts prior practices of at least designating the case or topic for discussion when acting in close session. The law states that a deviation in notice can result in a violation. The statement “Report from Attorney” deviates from the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees practice of at least designating the case or matter being discuss. There was no announcement by the Board of Trustees to the public at any time giving further clarifying subject of the report from its attorney3. To date, the public still does not have an understanding as to what was discussed during this closed session; therefore, the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees’ Agenda for the board meeting held on August 13, 2009 violated the Notice requirement of the TOMA. The law states that the TOMA is mandatory and to be construed in favor of open government. Furthermore, Texas Law states that a school board cannot rely on the attorney client privilege to discuss policy. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No JM-100. The Petitioner suspects that the C                                                                                                                          
3

It should be noted that if the Board of Trustees had clarified the agenda in an open meeting—this would have violated the TOMA by discussing something not on the Agenda.

Page 36 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

FB ISD Board of Trustees was discussing an investigation which the board has determined that situation to be a policy issue but that the board intentionally disguised the purpose of the report under the concealment of attorney client privileged. However, because the public cannot

determine the subject of the report the board; it is unclear whether there is a clear violation of TOMA for lack of adequate notice or whether there is a clear violation of TOMA for lack of adequate notice and an intentional act to disguise a report under the guise of attorney client privilege to cover discussions that are related solely to policy. Worst case scenario is that the CFB ISD Board of Trustees is hiding something so egregious and damaging that the Board has resorted to misinformation as a way to hide the truth from the public—this is something the public would have a strong interest in knowing. Because the public has not been adequately informed, it is suspected but not clearly known at this time that the Board of Trustees was receiving a report from counsel regarding an investigation ultimately announced to the public on November 12, 2009. However, there has never been a public announcement, action, or agenda related to an investigation on August 13, 2009 or any other day, prior to November 12, 2009. The Board of Trustees has not taken action to initiation any investigation and not taken any public action to hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. The public, at this time, does not know the person or persons hired to conduct such investigation. Since there has been no action to start an investigation or hire counsel to conduct an investigation, there is no proof that any investigation has actually been conducted. If this investigation in any way relates the R.L Turner, then the subject of the investigation was initiated to explore purported profound improprieties—the extent of which can be determined
Page 37 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

through, live testimony, discovery and any in camera reviews of certified closed session minutes or recordings. Petitioner will shortly a Motion to Tender Documents for In Camera Inspection After such time, as the in camera inspection Petitioner can supplement her petition to more accurately address this issue. It stands to reason that if the board has improperly used the attorney client privilege to disguise discussions of policy; Texas law states that the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees has the burden to prove the attorney client privilege applies. A closer review of all claims of attorney client privilege related to the agenda items discussed in this petition may need to be reviewed by this Court to determine if such privilege truly applies. C. Discussion of an Item Not on the Agenda

The C-FB ISD Board of Trustee violated the TOMA by holding discussion about an the Fleming case when such item was not listed on the agenda. The Texas Government Code § 551.041 provides that “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body” whether such item is to be discussed in opened or closed session. 622 S.W.2d at 470.. As Petitioner has stated before, the only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions—this also applies to final actions taken by the Board . Courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. See Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are
Page 38 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

§551,041; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958; Porth,

mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. On August 27 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, the notice of meeting and agenda items do not mention the discussion of the 95th District Court Case Number 0907085 styled Fleming v. C-FB ISD in closed or open session. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees discussed the Fleming case in closed session. The Agenda for the closed session states as follows: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property- Action””. No supplemental agenda item was placed on the agenda such that this information could be spoken about. In a subsequent Freedom of Information Request by Mr.

Mark Gommesen, Mr. Gommesen received documentation whereby board member Karin Webb posed a question as to why such litigation was not on the agenda with a reply by Mr. Mark Hyatt. Mr. Hyatt stated, “At this time there is no apparent action that is required. Any new information related to the lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item.” The November 12th, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, notice of meeting and agenda item for the closed session states: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property – Action Exec. Summary Real Property Closed Session 11-1 B. Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD Exec. Summary Henslee Report Closed Session ” There is no designation anywhere on the agenda that an investigation would be discussed either in open session or in closed session. The investigation would not and is not related to
Page 39 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD. Testimony from the school board can and will prove this. In fact, Nancy Watten admitted to Mark Gommesen that the investigation was related to a former principal from R.L. Turner named Lance Campbell. Texas is law is very clear. Any item discussed in open or closed session must be listed on the agenda. The C-FB ISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA because the board discussed the Fleming case on August 27, 2009 when such item was not on the agenda and the Board discussed an investigation on November 12, 2009 when such item was on not the Agenda because Texas law requires full disclosure of all items to be discussed at a Board Meeting— whether in open or closed session. D. Never Voted to Initiate an Investigation Through an Outside Firm and Never Voted to Accept Investigation Report The Board of Trustees has violated the TOMA by starting an investigation without providing notice to the public and taking any “final action” to hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. Texas Government Code § 551.102 reads, “[a] final action, decision, or vote on a matter deliberated in a closed meeting under this chapter may only be made in an open meeting that is held in compliance with the notice provisions of this chapter.” § 551.102. A

governmental body can only take steps to put into action a governmental decision only after a “final action, decision, or vote” in open session is voted upon at a time when a majority of the board is present—constituting a quorum and such item has been adequately described in the Agenda for such meeting. § 551.001(6); § 311.013(b); and § 551.041. This act of taking “a

final action, decision, or vote” will be referred to as “final action” throughout this Petition. One of the key requirements to “final actions” is compliance with the notice provision.
Page 40 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

The notice under the Act is located in the Texas Government Code § 551.041 and reads, “[a] governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” § 551.041. The only way that the general public can monitor its governmental body is by notification of topics to be discussed in both open and closed sessions—this is done by way of publishing an agenda. Once the board publishes an agenda, it may not deviate from that agenda for to do so would result in a violation of TOMA—this is a violation because notice would be rendered ineffective. § 551.041; § 551.142. In Cox, the Texas Supreme Court stated that notice is sufficient as long as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration and that the reader need not be alerted to all the consequences that may flow from such topic up for consideration. Cox Enters., Inc. at 958. (quoting Lower Colorado River Authority, 523 S.W.2d at 646. The Supreme Court proceeds to state that general notice in certain cases is substantial compliance with the notice provision of the Act even though the notice may not be as specific as it could be; but, it cautions that less than full disclosure is not substantial compliance. Id. at 959-960. The courts have ruled that the more important a particular issue is to the community, the more specific the posted notice in the agenda must be. See Id. at 958-59; Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist., 797 S.W.2d at 179-81. Underlying these considerations is the fact that the provisions of the Act "are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government." Ramos, 235 S.W.3d at 467; Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 957. Again, the Supreme Court concludes by saying the TOMA is intended to protect public’s interest through knowledge of the workings of its government and the public should not be
Page 41 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

compelled to resort to the assistance of Courts to receive assurance that a public body has complied with TOMA—rather a public body should act with such apparent willingness to comply with TOMA that the public needs no assistance from the Courts. Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 960. The Board of Trustees has not taken action to initiation any investigation and has not taken any public action to hire an outside firm to conduct the investigation. The public, at this time, does not know the person or persons hired to conduct such investigation. Since there has been no action to start an investigation or hire counsel to conduct an investigation, there is no proof that any investigation has actually been conducted. If this investigation in any way relates to irregularities at R.L. Turner, then the subject of the investigation was initiated to explore purported profound improprieties. The C-FB ISD has violated TOMA by taking action without a “final action” vote on open session. E. Improper Closing of Open Session to go into Closed Session

The C-FBISD Board of Trustees violated TOMA when the presiding officer closed the meeting and failed to publically identify the section or sections allowing them to close the meeting. The Texas Government Code §551.101 states that if a closed session is allowed the presiding officer must, “publically (a) announce[s] that a closed meeting will be held; and (b) identifies the section or sections of this chapter under which the closed meeting is held.” §551.101. A careful and plain reading of the TOMA reveals that if a closed meeting is authorized (i.e. an exception applies), the governing body must comply with the procedural steps
Page 42 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

enumerated in TOMA.

Martinez, 879 S.W.2d at 56.

On the other hand, if one of the

exceptions does not apply, then the closed meeting violates the Act regardless of whether the governing body complied with the procedural steps. Id. The policy behind the TOMA is that the public should be aware of which members of a governing body are present in a closed meeting and whether a quorum exists.” Id. Additionally, the presiding officer must identify the section or sections that authorize the closed session for the following reasons: 1) to cause the governmental body to assess the applicability of the exceptions before deciding to close the meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal position as relying upon the exceptions specified; and 3) to inform those present of the exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to object intelligently. Lone Star Greyhound Park, Inc, 863 S.W.2d at 747. However, when judging the sufficiency of the presiding officer’s announcement in light of whether it effectuated or hindered the purposes of §551.101, the Lone Star Court found that the presiding officer’s reference to the content of a section, rather than to the section number, sufficiently identified the exception. Id. at 747. On August 13, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, where are quorum of board members were present and seated, the presiding officer asked for any comments from board members. Then Ms. Chaffin proceeded to adjourn the open meeting and announced they would reconvene in closed session. The presiding officer did not identify the section or sections under which they were closing the meeting. Ms. Chaffin’s statement was, “Um Item Number, Number 6, comments from board members regarding posted agenda items. Board members? Hearing none seeing none, item number 7 closed meeting as authorized under the Texas Government Code including but not limited to, to uh,
Page 43 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

§551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation. We will now leave closed session and go into or leave open session and go into closed session for items a, b and c. We are adjourned from open session at 11:32. You guys get to leave; lucky you.” The Agenda for the closed session states: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease,or Value of Real Property B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney) C. Report From Attorney” The C-FBISD Board of Trustees’ Presiding Officer, Lynn Chaffin, says that the Board will close the session relying on closed meeting “as authorized under the Texas Government Code including but not limited to, to uh, §551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School

Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation.” This statement is confusing.

Furthermore, not all exceptions would apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is making a blanket statement of exceptions without considering whether such exception apply to the items being discussed. This is a violation of TOMA.

Page 44 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

At the August 27 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, where the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin asked for comments from board members, following that section of the agenda, Chaffin stated, “We will close the regular board meeting and we will go into closed meeting as authorized by Texas Government Code to Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation. So I will declare this regular meeting to be closed at 10:06 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.” The Agenda for the closed session states: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property- Action.” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exception the meeting was allowing the board to close the meeting. Petitioner says this because not all exceptions would apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is making a blanket statement of exceptions without considering whether such exception apply to the items being discussed. This is a violation of TOMA. At the September 10, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated as follows: “Okay in that case we are going to adjourn the open meeting and go into closed session as authorized by the Texas Government Code §551. Um, So I will adjourn this meeting at 8:57 and we will reconvene in 10 minutes.” The Agenda for the closed session states:
Page 45 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease,or Value of Real Property - Action B. Hear Level III Grievance Appeal of Ms. Linda Price C. Hear Level III Workers’ Compensation Grievance Appeal of Ms. Linda Price D. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085 ,Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney)” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exceptions to the Open Meetings Act allowed them to close the open meeting. This is a violation of TOMA. At the September 24, 2009 Special Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in quorum, Lynn Chaffin stated “Um that said we will move on to our agenda item, our first agenda item for tonight is a closed meeting to hear a third level grievance, so we are going to have to ask you all to leave. We are so sorry, but I am going to go ahead and close this open session and we will reconvene in 5 minutes in closed session.” The Agenda for the closed session states: “A. Hear Level III Grievance Under Board Policy FNG (LOCAL)” At no time did Ms. Chaffin specify which exceptions to the Open Meetings Act allowed them to close the session. This is a violation of TOMA. At the October 8, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin stated, “Agenda item 4 which will be closed meeting as authorized under the Texas Government Code including but not limited to, §551.071
Page 46 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation. So we will go, we will adjourn from open session at 9:06 and we will reconvene in closed session.” The Agenda for the closed session states: “A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property - Action B. Consider All Matters Related to Cause Number 09-07085, Richard Fleming v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch independent School District and Lynn Chaffin, Presiding Officer, 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Texas Government Code 551.071 – Consultation With Attorney)”

The C-FBISD Board of Trustees’ Presiding Officer, Lynn Chaffin, says that the Board will close the session relying on closed meeting “as authorized under the Texas Government Code including but not limited to §551.071 Consultation with Attorney; 551.072 Real Property; 551.074 Personnel Matters; 551.076 Security Devices; 551.082 School Children/District Employees/Disciplinary Matter or Complaint; 551.0821 - Personally Identifiable Student Information; 551.084 Investigation.” This statement is confusing. Furthermore, not all

exceptions would apply according to the agenda so it appears the C-FB ISD Board of Trustees is making a blanket statement of exceptions without considering whether such exception apply to the items being discussed. This is a violation of TOMA. Reconvening from closed meeting, while the board sat in quorum, Ms. Chaffin disclosed that the board was in closed session for Real Property (or §551.072) by stating,
Page 47 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

“Alright, I will reconvene this meeting of the Carrollton Farmers Branch ISD Board of Trustees in open session at 9:35 PM on October the 8th. And Board members we've just been discussing item 5, (pause) 4 a. all matters related to Real Property is there anything, any action that needs to be taken at this time? Hearing none seeing none. Board Members we are going to adjourn public session at 9:36 and we will go back into closed session in 5 minutes." The law does not allow for a disclosure of what was discussed in closed meeting to be sufficient notification of what exceptions allow a closed meeting. Again this is to 1) to cause the governmental body to assess the applicability of the exceptions before deciding to close the meeting; 2) to fix the governmental body’s legal position as relying upon the exceptions specified; and 3) to inform those present of the exceptions, thereby giving them an opportunity to object intelligently. This does not clear up the prior violation of TOMA. Also, Ms. Chaffin did not disclose which exceptions allowing a closed meeting were provided for the meeting to be properly closed when she again closed the meeting. This is a violation of TOMA. At the November 12, 2009 Regular Board Meeting of C-FBISD, the notice and agenda read, “Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. CFB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD.” At the point where Lynn Chaffin stated, “Item 3 Comments from Board Members … Hearing none and seeing none, we are going to take a brief recess and we will reconvene at 8:45 in closed session for agenda item number 4 which is a closed session.” The Agenda for the closed session states:

Page 48 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

“A. Consider All Matters Related to Purchase, Exchange, Lease, or Value of Real Property - Action B. Counsel Briefing From Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. CFB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD” The C-FBISD Board of Trustee sat in quorum and conducted a meeting. At no point did Ms. Chaffin publically state the specific sections allowing the board to go into closed session. This is a violation of TOMA XI. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION Unless CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, are immediately enjoined and restrained, Respondents will act or discuss any items not listed on the Agenda, will discuss items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, will not follow statutory procedures to open and close a meeting, will act on things that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, and continue to violate TOMA. 1. Elements for Injunctive Relief In light of the above described facts, Petitioner seeks recovery from Respondent. The nature of the lawsuit is to redress and stop continuus TOMA violations. Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of this lawsuit because there is an overwhelming amount of proof of Board member statements and action from videos of Board Meetings and documents provided by Board members. Unless this Honorable Court immediately restrains the Respondent, the Petitioner will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law to give
Page 49 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Petitioner complete, final and equal relief. More specifically, Petitioner will show the court the following: A. The harm to Petitioner is imminent because the Board continues to spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money and the Board continues to violate Open Meetings Act. The ultimate harm is that the public does know what its government is going—this is the essence of a violation of the Open Meetings Act. B. This imminent harm will cause Petitioner irreparable injury in that money will be

sent when such spending may and most likely is inappropriate because the Board has not follow the law to take such action and such action can be voided—thereby wasting tax payer money. C. There is no adequate remedy at law which will give Petitioner complete, final and

equal relief because if the Board is not restrained then the Board will continue to act without properly notifying the public of its actions. The People have the right to know what is going on with its elected officials. 2. Bond Petitioner is willing to post a reasonable temporary restraining order bond and request the court to set such bond; however, the Petitioner has filed this suit under a Pauper’s Oath and does not have the resources to post a bond. She is a concern citizen and retired school teacher. 1. Remedy Petitioner have met Petitioner' burden by establishing each element which must be present before injunctive relief can be granted by this court, therefore Petitioner are entitled to
Page 50 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

the requested temporary restraining order. Petitioner request the court to restrain Respondent from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward. It is essential that the court immediately and temporarily restrain

CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward. It is essential that the court act immediately, prior to giving notice to Respondent and a hearing on the matter because it is not known which attorney might represent the board in this action and the board will not to follow TOMA if it needs to send someone to Court to represent this action. In order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this action, Petitioner request that the Respondent be temporarily enjoined from acting or discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward.
Page 51 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

On

final

trial

on

the

merits,

that

the

Court

permanently

enjoin

CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent herein, from violating the TOMA including: acting or discussing any items not listed on any Agenda for any meeting, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, and from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions from this day forward. XII. DECLARATIONS There exists a genuine controversy between the parties herein that would be terminated by the granting of declaratory judgment A. Declaration that on June 25th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or section numbers allowing a meeting to be properly closed under TOMA. B. Declaration that on June 25th 2009 the motion made by James Goode, “I believe we
have one other item based upon closed session, and that is that I would like to make a motion that we approve all the matters that we discussed in close session that we need to take future action on” is not sufficient notice of what items what final action was to be taken.

C.

Declaration that on August 13th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or section numbers allowing a meeting to be properly closed under TOMA.

D.

Declaration that on August 13th 2009, that “Report from Attorney” as noticed on the agenda for August 13th 2009 was not sufficient notice to meet the notification
Page 52 of 57

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

requirements of the TOMA. E. Declaration that on August 27th 2009, the Board of Trustees intended to violate the TOMA by not adding to the agenda the 95th District Court Case Number 0907085, when Mr. Mark Hyatt disclosed that “Any new information related to the
lawsuit may be presented to the Board under the closed meeting agenda item” without supplementing the agenda.

F.

Declaration that on August 27th 2009, Lynn Chaffin, by declaring all permissible sections did not specify what section or sections were allowing the Board to properly close the meeting.

G.

Declaration that on September 10th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby violating the notice provisions of the TOMA.

H.

Declaration that on September 24th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby violating the notice provisions of the TOMA.

I.

Declaration that on October 8th 2009, by declaring all permissible sections did not specify what section or sections were allowing the Board to properly close the meeting.

J.

Declaration that on October 8th 2009, after reconvening from closed session, and subsequently adjourning to go into closed session, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby
Page 53 of 57

PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

violating the notice provisions of the TOMA. K. Declaration that on November 12th 2009, Lynn Chaffin did not publically cite the section or sections allowing a properly closed meeting thereby violating the notice provisions of the TOMA. L. Declaration that on November 12th 2009, the agenda topic “Counsel Briefing From
Henslee Schwartz, LLP, to Include Oral Report and Update on Legal Matters Regarding Laningham vs. C-FB ISD and Wade vs. C-FB ISD” was not sufficient notification that the board would be discussing an investigation about a principal or a high school.

M.

Declaration that the board has never taken action to initiate an investigation into a principal or a high school.

N.

Declaration that on November 12th 2009, that the public statement was not acceptable action by the board to accept the final report of an investigation into a principal or a high school. XIII. ATTORNEY'S FEES

Pursuant to Section 37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by Petitioner herein, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just. Additionally, Texas Government Code § 551.142(b) provides, “The court may assess costs of litigation and reasonable attorney fees incurred by a Petitioner or Respondent who substantially prevails in an action under Subsection (a). In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the action was brought in good faith and whether the conduct of the
Page 54 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

governmental body had a reasonable basis in law.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (Vernon 2004). XIV. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court issue a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent, to stop the Board from acting or discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, from violating the TOMA from this day forward, and for such other and further relief to which Petitioner may be entitled. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Shirley Demus Tarpley, Petitioner herein, respectfully pray that: A. CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, will be cited to appear and answer herein; B. A temporary restraining order will issue without notice to

CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, restraining Respondents, Respondents' officers, agents, servants, employees, agents, servants, successors and assigns, and attorneys from directly or indirectly acting or discussing any items not listed on the
Page 55 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, and from violating the TOMA from this day forward; C. The Court sets a reasonable bond for the temporary restraining order with

the understanding that this case is filed under a Pauper’s Oath; D. restraining After notice and hearing, a temporary injunction will issue enjoining and CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, Respondents' officers, agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and attorneys from directly or indirectly acting or discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that are not adequately noticed, from not following procedure to open and close a meeting, from not acting on decisions that were not properly voted open as “final actions”, and from violating the TOMA from this day forward; E. After trial on the merits, the Court permanently enjoin

CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and LYNN CHAFFIN, as in her capacity as presiding officer of Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District, Respondents, Respondents' officers, agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and attorneys from directly or indirectly acting or discussing any items not listed on the Agenda, from discussing items on the Agenda that
Page 56 of 57 PETITIONER’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INJUNCTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful