The Douglas County school board found itself embroiled in another contentious, deeply divided special meeting Friday morning, a gathering started and eventually ended by legal advice from a law firm that one board member said had engaged in “unbelievably inappropriate behavior.”

Board president Mike Peterson called the meeting so the board could discuss a resolution that, if approved, would’ve given him sole decision-making authority moving forward in a lawsuit filed against the board and its four leaders over how those four privately discussed ousting the district’s former superintendent. On Wednesday, a District Court judge had ordered the board and its four leaders to follow open-meeting laws and not make decisions through private conversations, and the district’s lawyers had warned that they had a small window to appeal that decision.

The board has been deeply and publicly divided since those discussions became public, when veteran board members David Ray, Susan Meek and Elizabeth Hanson went public with the four new members’ discussions and intent to oust then-Superintendent Corey Wise. Despite some public calls for efforts to mend their differences and get on with governance, Friday’s meeting revealed that those divisions have not healed.

With the ruling in place, the board needed to make a decision about whether to appeal it, Peterson said Friday. He was uncomfortable with a resolution that would give him exclusive power in the lawsuit; the resolution was drafted by the law firm representing the board, Hall & Evans. Attorney Matthew Hegarty said that in Colorado, the board had 14 days to appeal the judge’s order, and if they waited until their next meeting to decide to do so — March 22 — it would be “essentially impossible” for him to file an appeal in time. 

Because he thought the resolution was inappropriate, Peterson said, he proposed a second resolution, which would’ve simply directed Hall & Evans to file an appeal. But because the meeting was specially called and noticed to only discuss the resolution giving him decision-making authority, he could not add the appeal resolution without the full board allowing it.

Unsurprisingly, the board did not unanimously vote to include it. Ray, Meek and Hanson were flatly opposed to the entire thing; Ray unsuccessfully attempted to pass a resolution indicating that the board accepted the judge’s ruling and that it would settle the rest of the lawsuit, which also seeks to reinstate Wise. 

Hanson, who’s also an attorney, said she was “gravely concerned” by the resolution. She noted that the lawsuit was filed against the board generally but also against Peterson, vice president Christy Williams, treasurer Kaylee Winegar and secretary Becky Myers individually. If Peterson were granted the sole authority to decide next steps the board should take with the lawsuit, she said, she and the other two, more veteran members would effectively be excluded from “legal representation in a lawsuit we have been dragged into because of your actions.” Myers replied that the district’s issues were not solely because of the board’s four new members.

When Ray attempted to end the meeting, Hegarty – at Peterson’s request – read directly from language governing appeals in Colorado. After he finished, Hanson responded by reading from the rules of professional conduct for attorneys, specifically around communicating with clients. Hegarty had communicated with Peterson about the resolution and apparent timelines, Hanson said, but not other members of the board in advance of Friday’s meeting.

“I am your client,” she said, glaring at his image on a projector screen. “I have had no communication from you about any deadlines. I was given an agenda that presented a resolution that would designate Mike Peterson as the sole decision-maker for all litigation purposes. I was not given any communication about deadlines to make a very important financial decision for our district about pursuing an appeal. This is unbelievably inappropriate behavior.”

Peterson again said he opposed the resolution the law firm had drafted. He moved to amend it so it would only direct Hall & Evans to appeal the decision. That drew further protests from the board’s three more veteran members, and Hanson and Meek both warned that an appeal would cost “tens of thousands of dollars” for an order that, they said, directed the board to simply follow open-meeting laws. They said the lawsuit must now be paid for out of the pockets of the district because its insurance provider had concluded it did not have to cover the expenses.

But Williams and Peterson both said the ruling went beyond just telling the board to follow the law, referring to an interpretation shared with them by Hall & Evans. Peterson said he was concerned about the “precedent” that would be set by the order. Hegarty jumped in to remind the board not to publicly discuss private emails from legal counsel. Meek, Ray and Hanson had rejected an attempt to go into executive session, where more candid conversations among the board and its attorneys could’ve been had in private. 

Hanson told Hegarty she wanted the entire board to receive every communication he’d sent to any one member, and she told him he wanted his invoices by the end of the day. She said she felt there was a conflict of interest with Hall & Evans representing both the board generally and its four leaders individually.

As Peterson tried to steer the board back toward a vote on the new resolution — which would’ve directed Hall & Evans to appeal the decision – Ray said that the newly amended language was substantially different than what was initially drafted and noticed. As a result, he said, it would be out of compliance with the law and would require full board approval to move forward. Peterson disagreed.

Before the board could decide whether to actually on the resolution, Hegarty spoke up. He said he’d re-reviewed rules governing appeals in Colorado and that under a different rule, the district had 49 days to file its appeal, not 14. He also said Hall & Evans would not be charging the district for the firm’s work in drafting the initial resolution giving Peterson sole decision-making authority, which even Peterson said he opposed.

Peterson asked him to be clear: The board could wait until its next regular meeting, on March 22, to decide to appeal? Hegarty said yes.

Ninety minutes after meeting under the umbrella of a time crunch that wasn’t, the board swiftly voted to adjourn.