Was a Louisiana school board's special-meeting vote invalid because it broke the board's reconsideration rules?

Plain-English summary

The Franklin Parish School Board changed a school desegregation plan at an April 1998 special meeting after its attorney reported that the U.S. Department of Justice would not accept the plan without three sentences the board had deleted. The meeting notice said only that the board would "consider Justice Department information." A requester asked whether the notice and the vote met the board's rules.

The 1998 attorney general opinion found that the board did not follow its own reconsideration rule. Its policy required a two-thirds vote of the membership to revisit a matter within 30 days; no such procedural vote appeared in the minutes, and the 6-4 vote to restore the sentences was short of two-thirds. The notice also did not satisfy the advance-notice rule in the version of Robert's Rules the board had adopted. The office nevertheless said a breach of the board's internal rules was a matter for the board, not a basis for a court to invalidate the action by itself.

The opinion treated a possible Open Meetings Law notice violation separately. Under the law it quoted, an action violating the notice provision was voidable through a suit commenced within 60 days. The office concluded that, if no suit had been filed within 60 days of the April 8 action, the vote was valid even if the statutory notice rule had been violated.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

School board members at the time

The opinion found that the April 8 vote did not comply with the board's own reconsideration procedure. It left enforcement of that internal rule to the board.

People reviewing the special meeting at the time

The opinion distinguished internal parliamentary rules from the state's meeting-notice statute. It said any suit to void an action for violating La. R.S. 42:7 had to begin within the 60-day period then provided by La. R.S. 42:9.

Common questions

Q: Did the 6-4 vote satisfy the board's two-thirds reconsideration rule?
A: No. The opinion said the board needed a two-thirds vote of its membership to reconsider within 30 days, and the minutes showed no qualifying procedural vote.

Q: Did the notice to "consider Justice Department information" meet the board's Robert's Rules requirement?
A: The office said it did not give the previous notice required to amend an adopted motion by simple majority under those rules.

Q: Did breaking the board's own rules automatically make the vote illegal?
A: No. The opinion said violations of internal operating rules were for the board to resolve unless an external constitutional or statutory command was violated.

Q: What if the notice also violated the Open Meetings Law?
A: Under the 1998 law discussed in the opinion, the action was voidable through a suit filed within 60 days. The office said the April 8 action was valid if no such suit was filed in that period.

Background and statutory framework

La. R.S. 17:81 let school boards make rules for their own governance consistent with law. Franklin Parish had adopted Robert's Rules for reconsideration, with a two-thirds requirement for taking up a matter within 30 days. The opinion separated the board's failure to follow that internal rule from the possible statutory notice issue under La. R.S. 42:7. It cited Brown v. Hansen and State v. Gray on internal-rule disputes, then applied La. R.S. 42:9's 60-day period for a suit to void an Open Meetings Law action.

Citations and references

• La. R.S. 17:81 (school board rulemaking authority)
• La. R.S. 42:7 (meeting-notice issue discussed in the opinion)
• La. R.S. 42:9 (60-day suit period as discussed in 1998)
• Brown v. Hansen, 973 F.2d 1118 (3d Cir. 1992)
• State v. Gray, 221 La. 868, 60 So.2d 466 (1952)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/98-0232

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

One American Place
301 Ma=n Street, Su=te 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 94005
C~V,L D,WS,ON
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
BATON ROUGE
FAX. (504) 342-2090

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
A’~rORN EY GENERAL 0C’[0B~.R 071998

OPINION NUMBER 98-232

Syllabus

73-A Notice Requirements
Honorable David P. Doughty 94 Schools & School Districts - Administration, Government & Officers

Assistant District Attorney RS. 17:81; 42:7; 42:9 Fifth Judicial District
Adoption of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised with regard to reconsideration
Post Office Box 857
of actions, constitutes rules of procedure for school board. School board may
establish rules for its own governance. Violations of internal rules of school board Rayville, Louisiana 71269 is a nonjustifiable controversy. Act=ons in violation of nobce requirements of Open Meetings Law are voidable only if suit challenging same is commenced within 60 days of the action.
Dear Mr. Doughty:

You requested the opinion of this office regarding the legality of action taken by the Franklin Parish School Board (the "School Board") at a special meeting on April 8, 1998 to alter a resolution passed on March 30. 1998 which contained a proposed plan to be submitted to the United States Department of Justice in an effort to resolve school desegregation issues. Your request has been assigned to me for a response.

The issue, as I understand it, is whether the notice of the special meeting sufficiently identified the matters to be addressed at the meeting or whether there were sufficient votes among the School Board to raise the matter at the meeting.

Of primary concern are the rules of parliamentary procedure applicable to the School Board. La. R.S. 17:81, which sets forth the general powers of school boards, provides in pertinent part:

Each city or parish school board is authorized to make such rules and regulations for its own government, not inconsistent with law or with the regulations of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, as it may deem proper.

You indicate that the School Board has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised for reconsideration of actions, with the exception that a matter shall not be brought up for reconsideration within a thirty (30) day period except by a two-thirds vote of the School Board.

At its regular meeting on March 30, 1998, the School Board adopted a plan of action to be submitted to the Justice Department. That plan had been proposed by the Superintendent of Schools. In adopting the Superintendent’s plan, the School Board specifically deleted three sentences. After learning from its attorney that the Justice Department would not accept the plan without the inclusion of the three sentences

Page 2

Honorable David P. Doughty
Assistant District Attorney
Opinion Number 98-232
Page -2-

deleted at the March 30 meeting, the president of the School Board called a special meeting to be held on April 8, 1998 to "consider Justice Department information." At the special meeting, attended by 10 of the School Board’s 11 members, the president announced that the purpose of the meeting was "to reconsider the deletion of sentences in item 6 of the proposal being presented to the Department of Justice."

As this was a reconsideration of the action taken at the March 30 meeting of the School Board, the School Board’s policy required a two-thirds vote of its membership to bring the matter up. The minutes of the special meeting do not reflect that any such vote was taken. Furthermore, the 6 to 4 vote to reinsert the previously deleted sentences, even if it could be considered a tacit vote to take up the matter for reconsideration within 30 days of the original action, was insufficient because it did not meet the two-thirds vote of the membership requirement.

Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised requires previous notice be given if a motion to amend something previously adopted is to be adopted by a simple majority vote. With regard to the contents of the required notice, Robert’s states:

A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced - indicating its exact content as described below - must be included in the call of the meeting...at which the motion will be brought up...

The notice of the special meeting "to consider Justice Department information" did not satisfy the notice requirement set forth above. However, the failure of a legislative body to follow its own internal operating rules does not present a justifiable controversy, barring the violation of some external constitutional or statutory command. See, Brown v. Hansen, 973 F.2d 1118 (3d Cir. 1992) and State v. Gray, 221 La. 868, 60 So.2d 466 (1952). The violation of the School Board’s internal rules of self-governance is a matter that must be resolved by that body.

As a question of state law, the sufficiency of the notice of the special meeting arises in connection with the Open Meetings Law, La. R.S. 42:4.1, et seq. The question of the sufficiency of the notice, or whether there was a sufficient vote to take up a matter not on the agenda, under La. R.S. 42:7 is moot. Any action taken in violation of that statute is merely voidable, and suit to void the action must be commenced within 60 days of the action. La. R.S. 42:9.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that while the action taken by the School Board at the April 8 meeting did not conform to the School Board’s rules of self-governance, that action is not illegal. Furthermore, if that action violated La. R.S. 42:7, the action is valid, if no suit to void it was commenced within 60 days of April 8, 1998.

Page 3

Honorable David P. Doughty
Assistant District Attorney
Opinion Number 98-232
Page -3-

We trust this opinion provides you with the necessary information to satisfy your query. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

RPI/RAK/dra