Prineville, Ore. – The Crook County School District has finally released an unredacted version of its written meeting minutes to the Prineville Review from its December 2024 illegal executive session over discussions of a complaint against Athletic Director Rob Bonner.
The decision to release the unredacted version, which came during a Feb. 10th public meeting of the Crook County School District Board, came amid several legal arguments from the Prineville Review challenging the legality of cited redactions.
As part of its challenges, the Prineville Review informed the CCSD Board it was likely to take two primary steps as part of the efforts to ensure transparency the law requires.
The first was a challenge under the state’s public records law, which involved submitting an appeal petition to the Crook County District Attorney as provided by the public records law. Oregon journalists are
The second was the potential submission of a formal complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) as part of this publication’s original public meetings grievance filed in December over the illegal meeting, namely in response to several board members’ assertions the meeting was legal. This publication argued that the failure to produce the minutes in full also violated the public meetings law, specifically the requirement outlined in ORS 192.650.
The board’s vice-chair, Scott Cooper, had also alleged in statements to KTVZ that the Prineville Review violated the law and acted unprofessionally in releasing a recording of the illegal meeting.
That CCSD Board ultimately admitted to its violation in a response letter to the grievance sent to the Prineville Review and copied to the OGEC, which it disclosed last month.
“[T]he board admits that its failure to provide advance written notice to the subject of the complaint that was discussed in executive session at the December 9th [meeting] violated ORS 192.610 to 192.705,” wrote Knight.
“As to your second allegation, after consulting with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the Board acknowledges that it failed to declare in public session which provisions of ORS 192.660(2) authorized the reconvening of the executive session later in the board meeting. Further, the Board acknowledges that parts of the discussion that occurred in the reconvened executive session exceeded the scope of the discussion allowed under ORS 192.660(2)(b).”
Immediately following the meeting on Feb 10th, Cooper also apologized to this publication about his earlier public criticisms of the Prineville Review, going on to say appreciated the efforts by the Prineville Review which he explained would help the board in the future.
The board’s chair, Jennifer Knight, had also alleged they were acting on assurances from the legal counsel provided by the High Desert Education Service District. The unredacted minutes appear to confirm the board had indeed been advised that notice to Bonner was not required since the executive session was being held only to decide if they would hear the appeal to the complaint, not to review the particulars.
However, the recording of the Dec. 9th meeting released by the Prineville Review also uncovered that the board’s initial responses had been cagey about its deliberations, confirming it did in fact engage in conversations about the complaint and not merely a discussion if they wanted to move forward.
The board did not directly answer questions related to its past handling of staff reviews under the cited executive session provisions, but a response to our public records request, which had been seeking past notices to employees as required by the law, admitted the district had no responsive records.
That aside, information provided by State ethics officials, while speaking generally about the executive session requirements, confirmed to the Prineville Review that if an executive session was called under ORS 192.660(2)(b) there were no exceptions — as the school board had originally claimed.
This publication had also argued that the attorney client privilege did not apply to the actual meeting minutes, as as well stating that only sessions under ORS 192.660(2)(h) would qualify for the privilege cited by district officials.
The Prineville Review had also cited a 2022 case to the CCSD Board in which now former Clackamas Review and Oregon City News Editor Raymond Rendleman petitioned the Clackamas County District Attorney. The petition ultimately intended to seek an order that the Oregon City School District release audio minutes for an illegal executive session under the records law over its handling of an investigation into an OHSET equestrian coach.
The primary argument by Rendleman and Pamplin Media Group centered on the basis that since the executive session was not valid, the minutes were no longer exempt from disclosure under the records or meetings law. They also challenged the district’s refusal to release an investigatory report into the Oregon City High School OHSET equestrian coach.
Clackamas County Deputy District Attorney Brian Powell, its former public records DDA, ultimately ordered that the Oregon City School District had to disclose both investigatory records; along with the recording of the illegal portion of the executive session, in accordance with Oregon’s public records law.
DA’s in Oregon can only make rulings under the records law, while the OGEC investigates and educates public officials related to Oregon’s ethics and public meetings laws.
You can view the unredacted version of the minutes from the illegal Dec. 9th meeting here. The originally redacted portion was included in section 4.0. The Prineville Review was not in attendance for this portion of the “reconvened” executive session.
