Is Mountain Home School District Violating the Law?

Part 1 - Closed Meetings

Mountain Home School Board members and administration are complaining about the Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and for confirmation of board discussions. I’m not sure they understand the Freedom of Information Act or the unintended message sent to the public by their loud protesting.

The Freedom of Information Act of 1967 is an Arkansas law passed to protect citizens from secrecy in government and to ensure that elected officials are conducting public business in the open.  It is called “the people’s law” because it is meant to protect the people’s right to know.  So why are public officials so offended by people exercising their right to access this information? It only becomes offensive if elected officials have something to hide about how they are conducting the people’s business.

Evidence is mounting that the Mountain Home School Board and Superintendent have violated the law in several ways and have adopted a practice of conducting public business behind closed doors, which violates not only the spirit, but the intent of the law.

The FOIA has two components. The first addresses public records such as documents, communications, texts, recordings, etc. These are public property and are available by request under the law. There are only a few exemptions for records that cannot be released, and these are limited primarily to private personnel records that include social security numbers, medical records, disciplinary action, etc. Salary and benefits for public employees is a public record and must be disclosed to the public.

The second component of FOIA is the “open meetings” component. The law requires all meetings of elected governing bodies to be conducted in public view, with public notice, and all discussions of the issues, information, and how the governing body arrives at their final decision must occur under public scrutiny. The people have a legal right to know what information is being considered and how the governing body arrives at its decision.  This cannot be done behind closed doors. The only exemption to the open meetings requirement are specifically listed in the law which permits closed executive sessions only for the purpose of considering employment, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or resignation of any public officer or employee (page 15 of the FOIA handbook.)

The school board and the superintendent have attempted to subvert the open meetings mandate through monthly one-on-one meetings. Every month, Superintendent Long meets with each board member individually to discuss board business and the board members often make decisions on how they will vote before they have an open board meeting. Superintendent Long shares each board member’s decision with the other board members, so they come to a consensus before they have any public discussion.  Emails from two separate board members have confirmed they meet privately to engage in board business and they use “insider knowledge” to make their decisions. Insider knowledge implies secret information, withheld from the public, being used to one’s own advantage. 

In an email to Mark Howson on March 3, 2023, board member Jason Schmeski writes,

“Dr. Long meets individually with me – and every other board member – at least once per month (sometimes more if necessary) to discuss school business prior to Board meetings. During several of these meetings, Dr. Long discussed possible partnership funds with me, including the amount we were approved for (although not yet to be awarded) relating to the high school construction project... In the eight years I have worked with Dr. Long, I have appreciated his transparency and willingness to visit individually about complicated school issues – including those related to funding.” This full email can be viewed here.

In a March 28, 2023, email response to my request that the school board answer specific questions about the State’s findings and partnership determination, Board President Dan Smakal, responded,

“As Board President, I speak for the board as a whole; however, we are under no obligation to answer your slanted, agenda-driven questions in the manner you asked them.  I have read some of the editorials you’ve produced on your MH Watchdogs page. Having insider knowledge of the topics you are discussing, I can see the way you have twisted the information you have received through FOIA requests to fit your narrative.” This full email can be viewed here. The list of questions submitted to the board, which are still unanswered, can be viewed here.  

The board members have individual private meetings with the superintendent to discuss board business. The board members have “insider knowledge” that has not been shared with the public. The board makes decisions that are not consistent with the public’s knowledge, because the public is not being informed. There are many gaps in information and knowledge that are not being shared with the public. 

But are these actions illegal?

The answer lies in Attorney General Opinion #2000-111. This opinion was written in response to the following question,

“Does the Freedom of Information Act permit North Little Rock school board members to meet individually with the Superintendent in private to discuss a specific question of policy currently before the board in order to arrive at a decision on the policy prior to the public meeting?

The Attorney General of Arkansas summarized his opinion in this response,

“The wording of your question suggests, however, that the individual discussions in this instance serve as a vehicle for arriving at a board policy prior to the public meeting. I believe this is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the FOIA……. I believe by analogy that a series of individual, private discussions between the superintendent and members of the school board, if held for the purpose of polling the members and thereby arriving at a board policy, violates the FOIA.”

This school board has arrived at many critical decisions without discussing them in a public board meeting.  Their formal board meetings rarely ever have any dissention. Late last year, I reviewed all school board minutes for the previous three years. Meeting after meeting, with multiple votes each meeting, the vote was “unanimous.” No dissention. No contrary opinion. All in favor. The public should be witnessing discussions of differing opinions, disagreement, and respectful debate on every major decision the board faces.  But we are not.

A recent example of violations of the FOIA Open Meetings involved the district’s receipt of the State Division’s determination regarding a partnership on the high school. The district received the state’s initial determination on August 29, 2022, and its final determination on October 14, 2022, both letters were delivered AFTER the last millage election failed on August 9, 2022. The Division’s determination was that they would only partner on building a 37,440 square foot building, with demolition of the Big Top, which included total partnership funding of about $3 million dollars. The State said they would not partner with the district’s request to demolish 111,429 sq. ft. of building space, because over 31,000 sq. ft. is good structure and would be a waste of taxpayer money. The Division also determined the school is already over-built, student enrollment is declining, and the decline is projected to continue.  

The board has never engaged in a discussion of any of this very important information in any board meeting.  I have reviewed the minutes and listened to every board meeting from August through the February 16^th vote to hold another election, and none of the information from the State’s determination was ever discussed or shared with the public. There are a lot of secrets being kept from the people.

The board continues to insist they were fully informed of all the Division’s findings when they made the decision in February 2023 to pursue a second election for the same exact project.

This leaves the school board in quite a predicament between conflicting possibilities.

One, by insisting they were fully informed of these findings by the State, received by the District between August 29th and October 14th of 2022, they are confirming they were informed in secret and made board decisions in private, which are both violations of the law.

Or

Two, they must admit that they were, in fact, not informed of the State’s determination by Superintendent Long, which means they were misled and acted without knowing or understanding all the details and facts of the project. This conclusion would require the immediate termination of Superintendent Long by the school board for violations of the Code of Ethics for Arkansas Educators, Standards 2, 3, and 4, and for violations of his obligations and responsibilities to the board, the district, and the public for not keeping the board fully informed of all pertinent information needed for them to make an appropriate decision.

Did the board violate the law by discussing critical information through secret meetings outside of the public’s eye, or did Jake Long not inform the board at all on the details?  This board has a decision to make about which axe will fall.

I just hope they choose the side of truth, whatever that may be.  Truth has been so hard to find in all of this. It has taken hours upon hours of research, reading, interviewing, and trying to untangle what has occurred. This simply should not be. Truth should be wide open and easy for all to see. There should be no secrets, no omissions, no deceit, and no gaping holes in the story. The lack of integrity and transparency within this school district should make our entire community pause and reconsider whether they have earned the trust and confidence to continue with any level of influence and responsibility over our kids and their future.

MK

---

Part 2 of this series is coming soon.  A good review of the history and intent behind the Arkansas Freedom of Information is available here. You can also request a Freedom of Information Handbook and search Arkansas Attorney General Opinions on FOIA on  the Attorney General’s website here.