Board member seeks review of texts and solicitor communications; committee leaders advise following Sunshine Law procedures and solicitor counsel

(Note: this article covers governance matters raised in committee discussion and does not allege wrongdoing.)

Council Rock School District Director Anne Horner asked the policy committee to place a motion on the board agenda requiring the collection and review of text messages, emails and other chat communications among board members and solicitors during board meetings in 2024. Horner said constituents had raised concerns about deliberations occurring outside of public meetings and asked for transparency consistent with legal precedent she cited (Smith v. Richmond was named in the committee discussion).

The request prompted an extended discussion about process and legal limits. Several board members and the district solicitor (referenced in committee discussion) explained distinctions between private attorney-client communications and communications intended to substitute for public deliberations. Board member Michael Tate described counsel he had received explaining that a board member who seeks legal advice about a matter may obtain attorney-client privilege for that consultation; by contrast, if a board member asks a solicitor how the board should act on a matter, that advice may belong to the district and be shared with the full board.

Members debated procedural mechanics: whether a board member may introduce a motion at a meeting without prior notice on the published agenda and whether the Sunshine Law's advance-notice rules apply to motions that would create substantive official action. Some board members cited past instances (for example a turf decision recalled during discussion) where agenda items were added and acted on at a meeting; others urged adherence to the Sunshine Law and recommended consulting the solicitor.

The committee did not adopt Horner—s requested disclosure motion in committee. Board leadership and the solicitor agreed that Horner may put the motion on the next board agenda consistent with the Sunshine Law and parliamentary procedure; several members recommended resolving legal questions in a future executive session or by asking the solicitor for written advice and then discussing procedure at the next full board meeting. A plan for an executive-session briefing and further solicitor input was discussed.

Ending: The committee did not compel disclosure at the policy meeting. Members agreed to consult the solicitor and to allow Horner to pursue a motion at a future board meeting under Sunshine Act rules; the committee also discussed pursuing an executive-session legal briefing to clarify attorney-client privilege and permissible communications among board members and counsel.