School board attorney walks members through open‑meetings, records and new Wisconsin laws

Tess O'Brien, an attorney from Renne Lewis & Lacy, spent the bulk of the board's education session reviewing the legal duties and limits for school board members and summarizing several recent legal developments affecting districts.

O'Brien opened by stressing the oath of office and the duty to act impartially on behalf of every student in the district. She walked members through practical governance limits — the president cannot act unilaterally to direct the superintendent, committees do not replace board action and the board must act collectively when issuing policy or direction.

She focused at length on the open meetings law and modern pitfalls that can create violations. O'Brien described so‑called "walking forums" and "negative quorum" scenarios that can convert informal communications into an unlawful meeting, and she cautioned members about electronic exchanges: "Do not reply all when she sends — don't reply all," she said, warning that distributed email or text chains can be treated as board deliberations. She noted that consequences for knowingly violating the open meetings law may include voiding of actions and individual forfeitures under state law.

On public records and confidential material, O'Brien reminded members that records concerning district business — whether kept on personal email, phones or social media — may be subject to disclosure. "If you don't want to see communication up on an electronic screen in a courtroom or a hearing room ... don't write it," she said, urging caution about written messages and social‑media posts that could be discoverable.

O'Brien reviewed closed‑session procedure and limits: boards must announce the statutory basis for going into closed session, take a motion, record a roll call vote, and keep discussions confined to the noticed subjects. She also said votes may be taken in closed session when the agenda contains notice that action may be taken while the meeting is closed.

She summarized recent case law and statutory changes that school leaders should track. Highlights included court guidance on when interviews of students become custodial for Miranda purposes; the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 guidance on public officials' social‑media accounts and when a government actor's account becomes a public forum; and state legislative actions from 2025 that require or clarify district obligations. Those state items mentioned include a requirement to adopt a policy restricting personal wireless device use by students during instructional time, a parental‑notification requirement for credible reports of alleged sexual misconduct by staff, a mandated employee‑student communications policy, and a new criminal statute creating a grooming offense.

O'Brien noted federal and accessibility timelines as well: deadlines for WCAG accessibility for websites and streamed content were discussed, with phased compliance dates for different sizes of entities. She recommended districts coordinate IT and communications staff to meet timeline and captioning requirements.

Board members asked clarifying questions about walking forums, records retention, and the extent to which staff and volunteers should be covered by district communication policies. O'Brien suggested specific policy and training steps: adopt clear social‑media guidance, define acceptable staff‑student contact methods, and ensure public‑records practices and closed‑session notices are consistently used.

The training concluded with O'Brien offering to return for follow‑up and to help the district translate legislative changes into policy language; she closed by reminding members that staying out of writing and documenting deliberations clearly reduces legal risk.