six of seven school board members signed a separation agreement with the board's superintendent as of that moment that the superdome to no longer have a job he had a job until march thirty first under the terms of the agreement so the separation agreement without further when they signed it was fully effect an important an important question in the case i think it's according to the terms of the agreement it seems as though it would have been effective the parties were representing at the time one term of the agreement did represent that the parties  request for review was filed alleging improper final action in february was we had a subsequent open meeting and we took a valid vote that would have approved the settlement agreement and our position the attorney general found that that was not the case because of the second sentence of section two we which says that final action shall be that's fine we believe that a summary of the key terms of the agreement would have been sufficient what about posting the agreement on the line  take place at the meeting itself so someone who was interested in what was going on but who feel school board were super to them if they checked possibility that people attending the meeting might not have seen the agenda on the website and in fact at that meeting a lot of people were there primarily because of a different issue which was the closure of a springfield school it was a college preparatory academy and they were told that the school was being close to a budget reason i think twenty six people made public comment about that they may well have been interested in knowing in terms of the budgetary reasons being given that the superintendent's separation agreement involved a fairly amount of a fairly substantial amount of compensation paid them but if they hadn't been interested in that  but that didn't happen here either we're going to go to find the minimum arguments or no we determine well i think in part  the attorney general's determination of that isn't puddled to some deference but it's you know i think i think it's hard to find guidelines i think  but the language of section chu we does say that information must be provided that would inform the public of the business being conducted and i think a reasonable number of the public who just heard that it involved a separation agreement with the superintendent which is all that was really sad that the meeting brokaw actions it is nine point one group or resolution regarding separation agreement released between superintendent dr walter bill jr of the board of education there it is and had  enough and it seems to me like that's not the kind of behavior we want to  that was commendable and indeed it was but the purpose of finding this violation isn't really to punish the school district either or the school or we believe it's to further omas purpose which is assuring that people are informed about the conduct also needed to meet the public recycle requirements as well and that's that's the main thing this finding your paper the fight if humans are trying to point out and again the purpose isn't so much to punish but to advise and to try to assure better compliance in the future and in this case  course going back to again there were two violations found but what happened basically and i may have explained this before but i think it's just an important point to emphasize the charge that was filed by they report or in this case said that improper final action was taken to a closed meeting and the board's defense again was we took a ballot final action at the march fifth open meeting and token open vote but again the attorney general decided that that was not sufficient because of the public recycle requirement and the attorney general's decision is rad out loud or you know and that simply is not the case again what the attorney general found was that a summary of the key terms the attorney general also found that aside from that that the february fourth two thousand and thirteen  s to say that it's proper to take straw votes in a closed session and then vote in an open session we think it's a little different here where the board members actually signed the agreement although as the board does point out the agreement was that day that they left they did leave the day off the gree but we think that's different there's also some indication in the record that the board members would have considered the agreement binding before it was finally approved  or before the march fifth meeting where the vote was taken to approve it at a feb eighteenth open meeting there was some good discussion about what could be said about the agreement and the board's attorney basically said it's simple go by the agreement which had a confidentiality clause and later said that nothing else that the board could say they were going to take a public vote on the agreement later on because that was nothing not anything substantive about the agreement it appears that what happened is that the reason the public recycle didn't take place is that the board was operating under the impression that it couldn't discuss the terms of the agreement at the time even though it's your honor pointed out they did post it but we feel that the attorney general found that ohman did require at least some summary of the agreements key terms in order to meet the public recycle requirement so the march two thousand and thirteen approval one is was not valid for that reason oh i think that's all i have to second what extent can this court look to host the mine five days before he your honor right i think i think that's what i think that's up to those court but here's wrote here's the way i think the a g didn't think so she didn't think apparently was worth anything in that regard of that if you construe those provisions together to be concerns more what happens at the meeting itself and i would i would think if the court rules in our favor it should say that the board did something commendable by posting the agenda but simply say that it should have taken one s more and for the people who are actually at the meeting given a short public recycle and you know we don't mean this to come off as being you know i don't think the purpose of this is so much punishment as education educating public bodies and educating the public about the requirements of  oman and the attorney general act in creating the public access council emphasize the importance of education and you know what i think but i think the key question in making the determination your honor is the word preceded probably if preceded means any time before three before but if preceded means and there are some dictionary definitions that would support this view if preceded means preface or introduced which would suggest immediately before then we're correct and i think because of the structure of the act i think reading the agenda requirements of section two point zero two together with section two e two point zero two concerns what needs to be done the type of notice that needs to be given in advance of the meeting and section two we how long is it that you know they're required to have  standard of review the attorney general's decision still does get some deference even if it's a matter of statutory interpretation because she and the public access counselor do hel taken that's true and it is important but i think it is also required to you know give the public information that will inform them of the business being conducted otherwise when they open votes that public doesn't really know what positions that the board members are taking and certainly again or did comply with the agenda requirements and i think his i've even said in the opening argument probably over a complied with that but i'm councils mentioned the possible inconvenience to public bodies and school boards but i think the open meetings act is really about the public and not so much about public bodies and assuring that public bodies are doing all they can to provide information about what they are doing and you know as your honour's as justice stockman pointed out taken the one additional step and at the meeting itself for people who might not have seen the agenda also engaged in a brief summary of the key terms