Board members debate student advisory council policy amid Open Meetings Act concerns

Trustees discussed a newly drafted policy to authorize a student advisory council at their Sept. 9 study session and raised legal concerns after a board member said state guidance indicates a council formed by the board that deliberates on policy could be subject to Tennessee's Open Meetings Act.

The exchange arose during a prior-to-first-reading discussion of a policy draft that would create a student advisory group to provide input on policies and decisions affecting students. Board member Ben Johnson told the panel he had attended the Tennessee School Boards Association’s Summer Law Institute and cited materials saying committees created by a governing body to make recommendations on policy are treated as governing bodies themselves under Tennessee case law.

Johnson referenced court precedent and guidance from the County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS), saying cases such as Doria v. Dark and Johnson v. Metro Government of Nashville hold that a committee formed by a governing body to deliberate on public business is subject to the open-meetings statute even if it only makes recommendations. He told trustees the law would impose requirements including public notice, an agenda posted 48 hours in advance, open public attendance and a public-comment period.

Board members responded in several ways. Trustee Breed said the draft policy emphasizes that the council would provide input, not binding recommendations, and asked legal staff to clarify whether that distinction avoids open-meetings exposure. Trustee Evans and others said they did not want to deny students an advisory role out of fear, but they asked staff to quickly research statutory requirements and examples from other districts because the district’s policy would target high-school students and timing matters for a school-year rollout.

Trustee Hayes noted Public Chapter 359, enacted by the Tennessee legislature, requires districts that operate at least one high school to adopt a policy authorizing a nonvoting student school board member but does not require boards to appoint such a member. Trustees agreed to ask district counsel and the administration to gather guidance — including how other districts structure student input (for example, rotating representatives from different high schools) — and return with recommended language and legal analysis ahead of subsequent readings.

No policy vote occurred at the study session; trustees said they expect additional discussion at upcoming meetings before a first or second reading.