The Complainant alleged that the Board violated the OMA in connection with its June 26, 2019 emergency meeting when (1) the meeting minutes did not sufficiently state why the meeting was necessary; (2) its vote to appoint a new Interim President was outside the scope of the emergency purpose for the meeting; (3) it improperly convened into executive session during the emergency meeting to discuss the job performance of an individual when that individual requested the discussion be held in open session; and (4) some Board members convened a rolling quorum via email to facilitate the emergency meeting. Based on the undisputed evidence, we found that the Board's statement recorded in the minutes regarding the reasons for the emergency meeting was permissible. We further determined that the Board's discussion and vote to appoint a new Interim President at the emergency meeting came within the ambit of the issue that necessitated the emergency meeting. We declined to address the merits of Complainant's allegation regarding not holding the executive session discussion in open session because it was undisputed that Complainant was not the person being discussed and we therefore concluded Complainant was not "aggrieved" with regard to this allegation. Finally, we did not find evidence that a "meeting" of a quorum of the Board occurred outside the public purview. We accordingly found no violations.
