Appellants objected to the application of Board policies which they contend denied meaningful participation in the regular Board meeting held November 11, 1996. On November 7, 1996, Appellants wrote the superintendent and enclosed two pages of concerns, requesting time to read the items and to speak to them briefly. On November 8, 1996, the superintendent called Mrs. Holmes and advised her that her concerns would not be placed on the agenda, but some time would be allocated to her during the open forum.

The minutes were duly published and Appellant's concerns were reprinted in verbatim. Mrs. Holmes requested the tapes of the meeting which had been erased, following publication of the minutes. When Mrs. Holmes could not get satisfaction from the Board on her "corrected minutes," this appeal was filed. Mrs. Holmes contended that the District produced a fraudulent historical record of the meeting.

Appellee argued that there are no legal requirements that require a school board to place an item on the agenda simply because a person makes such a request. Mrs. Holmes was allowed to address the Board and had a fair opportunity to address her concerns to the local board. This case involved the right of a local board to control its own agenda. To simply allow any member of the public to place any item on the agenda has the potential to render the board powerless to act on other items of necessity.

The State Board found no basis on which to reverse the actions taken by the Board in its attempts to control its meeting agenda.

That the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lawton-Bronson Community School District limiting the concerned citizens to the open forum was affirmed.