Court Opinion

ID: 9908289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:06:25.479759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.188976
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                  Court of Appeals
                    NO. 2023-CA-0175-MR

JESSICA MORELAND; BILL SEARS;
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LOWES,
KENTUCKY, INC.; JANIE
BURCHARD; JEREMY BURCHARD;
JODIE HANSEN; KELLY SEARS;
KIM JACKSON; MICHALEA
JACKSON; PHYLLIS TERRY; AND
TERRY JACKSON                                       APPELLANTS

            APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE KEVIN D. BISHOP, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 21-CI-00162

GRAVES COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION; CHARLES RONNIE
HOLMES; GRAVES COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCE
CORP.; JONI GOODMAN; JULIE
MOFFITT; KELLY THURMAN;
KENNETH HOUSE; AND
SUPERINTENDENT MATTHEW
MADDING                                              APPELLEES
                                           OPINION
                                          AFFIRMING
                                          ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, COMBS, AND EASTON, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellants1 – citizens and parents of school-age children in

Graves County (“the Citizens”) – appeal a Graves Circuit Court summary

judgment upholding the Graves County Board of Education (“School Board”)

decision to close Lowes Elementary School (“Lowes”). After review, we affirm.

                                  I.       BACKGROUND

                In March 2021, the School Board voted to close Lowes. In May 2021,

the Citizens brought suit against the School Board and its members, alleging, in

relevant part, that the School Board’s decision to close Lowes (and the procedure

leading up to that closure) violated (1) the Kentucky School Facilities Planning

Manual, which is incorporated by specific reference within 702 KAR2 4:180 (“the

Manual/KAR”), and (2) the Open Meeting laws codified within Kentucky Revised

Statute (“KRS”) 61.800 et seq. The complaint also requested that the court issue a

temporary and “permanent restraining order and injunction prohibiting the closure

of Lowes[.]”

1
 Jessica Moreland; Bill Sears; Concerned Citizens of Lowes, Kentucky, Inc.; Janie Burchard;
Jeremy Burchard; Jodie Hansen; Kelly Sears; Kim Jackson; Michalea Jackson; Phyllis Terry;
and Terry Jackson.
2
    Kentucky Administrative Regulation.

                                               -2-
             In July 2021, the court held a hearing at which Graves County

Schools Superintendent Matthew Madding (“Superintendent Madding”) testified

that the June 2016 Local District Facilities Plan (“2016 Plan”) designated Lowes as

a “permanent” facility in need of renovations in excess of $6 million. By the time

of the hearing, Superintendent Madding testified the school condition had

deteriorated further and Lowes needed updates in excess of $10 million. Also, he

stated that a proposed June 2021 Local District Facilities Plan (“2021 Plan”) had

been submitted to the Kentucky Board of Education for possible approval in

August 2021. The 2021 Plan recharacterized Lowes as a “transitional” facility and

did not list any construction costs for Lowes.

             The Citizens asserted that according to the Manual/KAR, schools

could only be closed if designated as “transitional” facilities, and school boards

could not close “permanent” facilities. The Citizens argued that Lowes could not

be closed because it was still designated a “permanent” facility; the Kentucky

Board of Education had not yet approved the 2021 Plan that redesignated Lowes as

a “transitional” facility. Next, in relevant part, the Citizens argued that the School

Board failed “to conduct public meetings, public forums, and public hearings in the

closure of Lowes [] as required by Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act[.]”

             Shortly after the hearing, the court entered an Order Denying

Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (“July 2021 Order”).

                                          -3-
First, the July 2021 Order stated that the School Board did not violate the

Manual/KAR. As the School Board points out in its appellee brief, the court

recognized that the designation of a particular school as “permanent” or

“transitional” for planning purposes does not preclude a school board from

reprioritizing needs, from changing its long-term facilities plan, or from closing a

school formerly designated as a permanent center.

             The Court finds the designation as a “permanent” facility
             does not prohibit the [] School Board to vote to close the
             facility. . . . Again, the Manual[/KAR], and the adherence
             to it, is for access to limited state funding and is not a
             prerequisite for the local School Board in determining
             whether to close a facility.

             Next, the court determined that the School Board did violate the

Kentucky Open Meetings law in January 2021, but that the violation did not negate

the School Board’s March 2021 vote and decision to close the school.

             [The Citizens] argue the testimony of [School] Board
             member Kenneth House established the [School] Board
             met in executive session for at least 15 minutes and
             discussed the closing of Lowes [] in violation of the open
             meeting laws. The [] School Board argues the [School]
             Board went into executive session for the purpose of
             discussing proposed or pending litigation which would be
             a valid exception to the Open Meetings law under KRS
             61.810(1)(c). The Court is not persuaded by the [School]
             Board’s argument based upon [School] Board member
             Kenneth House’s testimony that he did not recall
             discussing any litigation during that specific executive
             session. As such, the Court finds the [School] Board did
             violate the Kentucky Open Meetings law when it went into
             executive session and discussed the closure of

                                         -4-
             [Lowes]. . . . [T]he mere fact the [School] Board
             discussed the closure of [Lowes] on January 21, 2021,
             without taking action, does not negate the [School]
             Board’s vote and decision to close [Lowes] which was
             taken at the March 18, 2021, meeting.

             Finally, the court stated in the July 2021 Order that the Citizens failed

to meet the threshold requirements of Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”)

65.04 warranting injunctive relief.

             [The Citizens] failed to raise a substantial question
             concerning the underlying merits of the case and have
             failed to show a substantial possibility that they will
             ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court further finds
             the [Citizens’] remedy, if any, will not be irreparably
             impaired absent the granting of such extraordinary
             injunctive relief. The Court also finds based upon the
             evidence that an injunction would be inequitable and
             would unduly disserve the public and would in fact place
             the students, faculty and staff at greater risk of illness and
             injury due to the current condition of [Lowes].

             As such, the Graves Circuit Court denied the Citizens’ motion in full.

Ten days later, on July 23, 2021, the Citizens filed a motion to alter, amend, or

vacate the July 2021 Order pursuant to CR 59.05. The School Board filed a

response and a supplemental response, but our review of the record has not found a

circuit court order addressing that CR 59.05 motion.

             On December 9, 2021, the School Board moved for summary

judgment. The next day, a tornado destroyed the Graves County Courthouse, and

all pending cases were continued generally. In December 2022, the court held oral

                                          -5-
arguments on the School Board’s summary judgment motion. In January 2023, the

court granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board and denied the

Citizens’ request for relief. The order addressed the Citizens’ arguments about

alleged violations of Kentucky’s Open Meetings laws and the Manual/KAR.

            First, addressing the alleged Open Meetings violations, the court

stated:

            [The Citizens] assert they were not given adequate notice
            prior to the March 18, 2021 school board meeting to
            prepare and make “sufficient comment” to close Lowes.
            The Court notes members of the public were given several
            opportunities to comment on the [School] Board’s
            decision on how to proceed with Lowes. The public were
            given opportunities to comment on whether the [School]
            Board should make repairs or close Lowes.

            The court then pointed to testimony from members of the public

acknowledging their knowledge and opportunity to comment before the closing

vote in March 2021. Specifically, the court noted (a) Appellant Jessica Moreland

learned about the possible closure in August 2020 and voiced her opinions at the

December 2020 School Board meeting; (b) six people were scheduled to speak and

did so at the December 2020 School Board meeting; and (c) the March 2021 board

meeting had “lengthy comments,” discussion, and a PowerPoint presentation

before the vote. The order granting summary judgment stated:

            [b]ased upon the pleadings of record, including testimony
            by depositions and testimony at the hearing for a
            temporary restraining order and temporary injunction, the

                                        -6-
             Court concludes the [Citizens], and the community at
             large, were given ample opportunities to be heard prior to
             the [School] Board’s vote on closure of Lowes on
             March 18, 2021.

             Next, the court addressed the alleged Manual/KAR violations,

specifically, the Citizens’ arguments that the School Board failed to conduct

certain studies prior to the closure and began the closing process prior to gaining

approval by the Kentucky Board of Education. The court noted financial restraints

in updating Lowes, Superintendent Madding’s communications with the Kentucky

Board of Education, the process for Lowes’s students to be transported to more

modern schools, and the Manual/KAR threshold requirements limiting funding

options. The court found that “[b]ased upon the pleadings of record, including

testimony by depositions and testimony at the hearing for a temporary restraining

order and temporary injunction, the Court concludes the [Citizens] have failed to

provide proof the [School] Board acted outside its authority. The Court concludes

the [School] Board acted appropriately.”

             Finally, the order granting summary judgment for the School Board

concluded the Citizens had ample opportunity to complete discovery. As such –

and considering a school board’s broad discretion in managing the internal affairs

of its district, including school closures – the court determined “the record is

absent of proof which would lead to a conclusion that the Board has acted outside

of its statutory authority.”

                                          -7-
             [T]he Board acted within the discretion granted to it in
             deciding to close Lowes [] and to transfer its students to
             other schools within the district. The [Citizens] have
             failed to show any evidence tending to show the [School]
             Board violated the legal standards applicable to the closing
             of a school. The Court concludes there is no genuine issue
             as to any material fact in this action[.]

             After the Graves Circuit Court dismissed their claims, the Citizens

appealed.

                        II.    STANDARD OF REVIEW

             The appellate standard of review when a trial judge has granted a

motion for summary judgment is whether the record, when examined in its

entirety, shows there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56.03. “The record

must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for

summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v.

Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991) (citation omitted).

             Summary judgment is appropriate when “‘as a matter of
             law, it appears that it would be impossible for the
             respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a
             judgment in his favor and against the movant.’” [Steelvest,
             807 S.W.2d at 483)] (quoting Paintsville Hospital Co. v.
             Rose, 683 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Ky. 1985)). In using the word
             “impossible” in Steelvest, we have acknowledged that it
             “is used in a practical sense, not in an absolute sense.”
             Perkins v. Hausladen, 828 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Ky. 1992).

O’Bryan v. Cave, 202 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Ky. 2006).

                                         -8-
             As “[a]ppellate review of a summary judgment involves only legal

questions and a determination of whether a disputed material issue of fact exists[,]”

our review is de novo. Shelton v. Ky. Easter Seals Soc’y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901,

905 (Ky. 2013) (citation omitted). We must note that “[i]t is not a proper judicial

function for the courts to interfere with the administration of the internal affairs of

a school system except in extraordinary circumstances.” Swift v. Breckinridge

Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 878 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Ky. App. 1994) (citing Skinner v. Bd. of

Educ. of McCracken Cnty., 487 S.W.2d 903, 905 (Ky. 1972)).

                                  III.   ANALYSIS

             Here, the Citizens state that the “issue on appeal is not whether the

School Board should have closed Lowes[,]” but rather, whether the School Board

“complied with Kentucky law in the process.” More specifically, the Citizens

again argue that, in closing Lowes, the School Board (1) violated the Manual/KAR

and (2) Kentucky’s Open Meetings laws. However, the issue is moot, and even if

it was not, the Citizens presented no issues of material fact sufficient to preclude

summary judgment.

             “A ‘moot case’ is one which seeks to get a judgment . . . upon some

matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect

upon a then existing controversy.” Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 98-99 (Ky.

2014) (citing Benton v. Clay, 233 S.W. 1041, 1042 (Ky. 1921)). Here, even if we

                                          -9-
were to rule in the Citizens’ favor, the ruling would have no practical legal effect

upon the controversy. In fact, it is unclear what relief the Citizens seek; they claim

no damages and seek no other relief that might compensate them for some

unidentified loss occasioned by the closure. The court found – and the parties

seem to agree – that reopening Lowes is unsafe and a practical, financial

impossibility.

             Moreover, even if the Citizens were requesting legally tangible relief,

the Citizens presented no issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary

judgment. First, the Citizens allege procedural errors of the Manual/KAR. They

contend that the Kentucky Board of Education did not approve the 2021 Plan

(designating Lowes as “transitional” and therefore susceptible of being marked for

closure) until five months after the Board voted to close Lowes. By moving

forward with the vote before the designation was changed, the Citizens argue that

the School Board made a procedural error. Second, the Citizens allege procedural

errors of Kentucky’s Open Meetings law. The Citizens argue the School Board

violated the Open Meetings laws of Kentucky in sessions prior to the March 2021

open, public session where the School Board members voted for closure. The

court did not find any violations of the Manual/KAR nor any substantive violations

of the Open Meetings Laws. However, for argument’s sake, assuming the School

Board did procedurally err and violate the Manual/KAR and Open Meetings laws,

                                         -10-
those errors – as described by the Citizens – would still not be “material” under

these circumstances.

             Determination that a fact is material or immaterial rests on
             the substantive law’s identification of which facts are
             critical and which facts are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty
             Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.
             2d 202 (1986). But as CR 56.03 reflects, the inquiry is not
             simply whether an issue of material fact exists but what
             facts the parties are able to prove. See Steelvest, 807
             S.W.2d at 483; Barton v. Gas Serv. Co., 423 S.W.2d 902,
             905 (Ky. 1968). An issue of material fact is “genuine” at
             the summary judgment phase when discovery has revealed
             facts which make it possible for the non-moving party to
             prevail at trial. See Welch [v. Am. Publ’g Co. of Ky.], 3
             S.W.3d [724,] 730 [(Ky. 1999)].

Kearney v. Univ. of Ky., 638 S.W.3d 385, 397 (Ky. 2022).

             As such, the alleged procedural errors were “material” only if the

Citizens could show that – assuming they were true – those facts could make it

possible for them to prevail at trial. The Citizens could only prevail at trial if they

could prove that the School Board did not meet their legal obligations in closing

Lowes, i.e., the Citizens needed to present evidence that the School Board acted

arbitrarily or unreasonably. Swift, 878 S.W.2d at 811. In fact, the decision to close

a school is one that rests well within its authority, so long as it is not arbitrary or

unreasonable. Id. It is well established that a local school board has broad

discretion in the administration of schools in its district. Phillips v. Board of Educ.

of Muhlenberg Cnty., 580 S.W.2d 730, 731 (Ky. App. 1979) (citing Snapp v.

                                           -11-
Deskins, 450 S.W.2d 246, 252 (Ky. 1970)). The Citizens admit, citing Coppage v.

Ohio County Board of Education By & Through Likins, 860 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Ky.

App. 1992), that when closing a school, “a local [school] board ‘must act in good

faith, upon a sound, just and reasonable basis, and have due regard for the public

interest and consequences of its actions upon the children affected.’” However,

here, the Citizens were unable to prove that – assuming the procedural errors

occurred – the School Board did not meet their legal obligations. Stated another

way, even if the alleged Manual/KAR and Open Meetings violations occurred, the

Citizens did not show that the School Board failed to act in good faith, upon a

sound, just and reasonable basis for closing, and without due regard for the public

interest and consequences of its actions upon the children affected.

             Lowes was built in 1953 and had fallen into disrepair. Lowes’s boiler

was outdated and inefficient. The school had mold and asbestos issues. Air

conditioning was provided by window units. The school did not have the

classroom space necessary to accommodate the number of sixth graders attending

the school. With fewer than 300 students, Lowes did not qualify for major

renovation funds from the state. Superintendent Madding testified that a phased

approach to renovations was considered, but the State Board of Education had

previously suggested that was not the recommended path. Superintendent

Madding stated that transportation studies were performed to assist in the

                                        -12-
reassignment of Lowes’s students to other, more modern schools. The only

hardship the Citizens testified to – as to the reassignment of students to other

schools – was the possible 45-minute bus ride for students. While certainly this

was a concern, the School Board determined the travel time did not outweigh the

health, safety, and financial problems with keeping Lowes open. Six people spoke

at the December 2020 School Board meeting; and the March 2021 board meeting

had “lengthy comments,” discussion, and a PowerPoint presentation before the

vote. Clearly, the School Board’s decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Indeed, the Citizens failed to provide any evidence that the School Board acted

arbitrarily or unreasonably. The School Board’s decision – despite possible

procedural errors – was in good faith, upon a sound, just and reasonable basis, and

with due regard for the public interest and consequences of its actions upon the

children affected. Therefore, even if the School Board did commit the alleged

procedural errors, those facts are not material – i.e., sufficient for the Citizens to

prevail at trial – and therefore summary judgment was appropriate under these

circumstances.

                                IV.    CONCLUSION

             For all the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the ruling of the Graves

Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                          -13-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Richard L. Walter          H. Randall Redding
Bradley A. Sears           Sharon W. Farmer
Paducah, Kentucky          Henderson, Kentucky

                         -14-