Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Authorization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies revised Ben Gamla application over sectarian concerns; selects First Liberty for possible litigation
Summary
The board voted to deny the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s revised authorization application because staff found remaining religious elements inconsistent with the statutory nonsectarian requirement and court precedent; recognizing anticipated litigation, the board voted to pursue outside counsel and selected First Liberty.
The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted on Feb. 9 to deny the revised application for initial authorization submitted by the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation and to engage outside counsel after staff reported that the revised application still contained religious elements inconsistent with state law.
Agency staff said the applicant submitted a revised application on Feb. 27, 2026, and staff review found nine of ten previously identified concerns addressed. Staff reported that the lone unresolved item was the religious character of parts of the application, which the agency said conflicts with the statutory requirement that charter schools be nonsectarian. Staff referenced Oklahoma Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming that public charter schools must be nonsectarian.
During discussion board members also referenced discrepancies between the applicant’s earlier letter of intent and the revised application regarding projected enrollment and noted community feedback. Staff and board members disagreed on whether enrollment-number differences were material; the record shows the board focused the formal denial on the persisting secular/nonsectarian issue and the applicable court mandamus.
A motion to deny the revised application was made and the chair announced the motion carried. Agency staff noted Ben Gamla has indicated plans to litigate the denial.
Because litigation was anticipated, the board discussed contracting outside counsel under the relevant procurement statute for anticipated litigation. Board members who had met with outside firms described two pro bono options — Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and First Liberty. After debate about local familiarity, prior relationships and perception risks, the board moved to appoint First Liberty as outside counsel to represent the board in potential litigation arising from the denial of Ben Gamla’s application.
Board members said the selection is subject to contract negotiations and approval by the Attorney General’s office for outside-counsel retention. The board’s announcement included a statement that First Liberty will be engaged to prepare filings and to coordinate representation if the applicant proceeds to litigation.
What happens next: The applicant has signaled it intends to litigate; the board will finalize an engagement agreement with First Liberty and seek any required approvals from the Attorney General’s office.
