OMA “New Business” Narrowed: Agenda Must Be Amended When Substantive Action Becomes Known More Than 24 Hours Before a Meeting

Case: OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS RISK MANAGEMENT TRUST v. LEXINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2026 OK 38 (Okla. May 27, 2026)  |  Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

1. Introduction

This certified interlocutory appeal arose from collection and declaratory-judgment litigation filed by Oklahoma Schools Risk Management Trust (“OSRMT”) against multiple member school districts (collectively, “Respondent Schools”) over unpaid invoices tied to an amended trust agreement. OSRMT is a public trust created under the Interlocal Cooperation Act, 74 O.S. § 1001, et seq., providing member-funded self-insurance coverage to Oklahoma public schools through a Trust Agreement.

The pivotal dispute was not the merits of the invoices themselves, but whether OSRMT’s Board of Trustees complied with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act (“OMA”), 25 O.S. §§ 302, 303, 311, and whether any noncompliance was “willful” such that the Board’s action is invalid under 25 O.S. § 313. Specifically, after the Attorney General’s office required a fresh Board vote on a revised amended Trust Agreement, OSRMT proceeded to vote at a June 12, 2019 meeting under an agenda item labeled “New Business,” without amending the posted agenda to disclose that the amended Trust Agreement would be considered.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment for Respondent Schools, holding:

• OMA violation: OSRMT violated the OMA because the June 12, 2019 agenda did not provide notice that the Board would vote to adopt and submit a new version of the amended Trust Agreement; the “New Business” item could not lawfully encompass that action once it was known more than 24 hours before the meeting.
• Willfulness: The violation was willful because OSRMT knew (more than 24 hours in advance) the vote would occur, had time and options to amend the agenda or defer the matter, and nonetheless proceeded under a deceptively vague agenda heading.
• Issue not reached: Because the agenda defect was dispositive, the Court did not decide whether OSRMT also willfully violated the OMA by failing to notify the Secretary of State of the rescheduled meeting date.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

• Baughman v. World Acceptance Corp., 2025 OK 57, ¶ 20, 576 P.3d 931, 939
  Role: Jurisdictional/procedural boundary. The Court relied on this authority to limit review to the portion of the certified interlocutory order that actually granted partial summary judgment (not the denial of OSRMT’s own motion).
• Mills v. J- M Mfg. Co., Inc., 2025 OK 23, ¶ 7, 567 P.3d 385, 388
  Role: Established de novo review for summary judgment issues because summary judgment resolves questions of law.
• Hirschfeld v. Oklahoma Tpk. Auth., 2023 OK 59, ¶¶ 6, 9, 17, 541 P.3d 811, 817–820
  Role: (1) Confirmed OMA interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo; (2) reinforced that agendas must give sufficient notice of subject matter; (3) supported the conclusion that acting beyond an agenda’s scope violates the OMA.
• Fraternal Ord. of Police, Bratcher/Miner Mem‘] Lodge, Lodge No. 122 v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, ¶¶ 9, 15, 17–19, 489 P.3d 20, 24–26
  Role: The decision’s principal OMA framework. It supplied (a) the “plain language” agenda standard; (b) the principle that materially obscuring a meeting’s purpose defeats transparency; (c) the requirement of advance notice for amendments; and (d) the Court’s willfulness formulation—no bad faith required; a deceptively vague notice likely to mislead can be willful.
• Owens v. Owens, 2023 OK 12, ¶ 30, 529 P.3d 905, 915
  Role: Core statutory-interpretation rule: implement legislative intent when plain from the statute.
• Matter of Termination of Parental Rts. of Schultz, 2017 OK 5, ¶ 8, 389 P.3d 322, 324
  Role: Whole-act rule: interpret a statute in context, considering the entire act.
• The Honorable Robert H. Macy, 1982 OK AG 114, ¶ 14
  Role: Narrowing “New Business” to matters arising on less than twenty-four hours’ notice—supporting the Court’s rejection of OSRMT’s expansive reading.
• Bailey v. State ex rel. Bd. of Tests for Alcohol & Drug Influence, 2022 OK 50, ¶ 38, 510 P.3d 845, 859
  Role: Clarified that willfulness does not require intent to evade the statute; it is enough that the body knows what the OMA requires and acts outside those requirements.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) OSRMT is subject to the OMA. The Court treated OSRMT as a “public trust” and “public body” for OMA purposes, citing statutory provisions making public trusts and entities created by them subject to OMA notice-and-agenda requirements (see 74 O.S. § 1003(A)(3) and 25 O.S. § 304(1)).

2) The OMA’s notice and agenda scheme requires meaningful disclosure of the business to be transacted. The Court centered OMA policy—an “informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems” (25 O.S. § 302)—and the statutory requirement that meetings be preceded by advance public notice specifying time, place, and the matters to be considered (25 O.S. §§ 303, 311(A)(9)(a)). Critically, the agenda must identify “all items of business” to be transacted (25 O.S. § 311(B)(1)), in “plain language” (drawing from Fraternal Ord. of Police).

3) “New Business” is a narrow exception; OSRMT’s expansive interpretation was rejected. OSRMT argued that because the Attorney General’s direction (that a new vote was required) arose after the agenda was posted, the Board could address it as “New Business.” The Court refused to read “time of posting” in isolation. Applying whole-act interpretation (Schultz) and liberal construction in favor of the public (Fraternal Ord. of Police), it held that “New Business” exists only for items that genuinely cannot be placed on an agenda in time—i.e., matters arising within the 24-hour notice window. The Court emphasized that nothing in the OMA prevents posting an amended agenda once new matters become known with time to provide notice, and that adopting OSRMT’s view would reduce agenda notice to a “formality.”

4) The Court effectively treated the statutory “or” in the “New Business” definition as narrowing, not expanding. Confronting OSRMT’s argument that “unknown about or could not have been reasonably foreseen” provides alternative defenses, the Court concluded that, read in context and favoring public notice, the definition allows “New Business” only when the matter is both unknown and not reasonably foreseeable at posting. On these facts, OSRMT knew by June 10 that a fresh vote was required, yet did not amend the June 7 agenda for the June 12 meeting.

5) Substantive revisiting of a prior vote is not “housekeeping.” The Court rejected OSRMT’s characterization that the June action merely cleaned up the Attorney General submission. Withdrawing the April submission and adopting/submitting a new amended Trust Agreement was “substantive,” not ministerial, thus requiring agenda notice.

6) Willfulness was satisfied by deliberate disregard of agenda requirements despite time and options to comply. Under Fraternal Ord. of Police and Bailey, willfulness does not require malice; it encompasses conscious, purposeful violations or blatant disregard by those who know or should know OMA requirements, including deceptively vague notices likely to mislead. The Court found willfulness because:

• OSRMT had actual knowledge more than 24 hours in advance that the Board would vote on a new amended Trust Agreement;
• OSRMT had available compliance tools (amended agenda on June 10/11, defer to next meeting, or call a special meeting) but used none;
• Proceeding under a generic “New Business” item was “deceptively vague and likely to mislead the public” about what would be considered.

7) Narrow disposition. Having affirmed willful violation based on the agenda defect, the Court declined to reach the alternative alleged willful violation concerning failure to notify the Secretary of State of the meeting date change.

C. Impact

• Constrains “New Business” statewide. Public bodies in Oklahoma should treat “New Business” as confined to matters arising too late to meet the 24-hour notice requirement, not as a catch-all for items discovered after an agenda is posted days earlier.
• Encourages amended agendas as the default compliance tool. The Court expressly noted that the OMA does not prohibit amended agendas and indicated they are the “appropriate mechanism” when a matter becomes known with sufficient time to provide public notice.
• Lowers the practical threshold for “willful” findings in agenda cases. By tying willfulness to knowingly proceeding without amending an agenda—without requiring bad faith—the opinion increases the risk that noncompliant actions will be invalidated under 25 O.S. § 313 when public bodies rely on vague agenda categories.
• High salience for interlocal entities and public trusts. Entities created to carry out cooperative governmental functions under the Interlocal Cooperation Act are reaffirmed as OMA-governed, and governance steps (especially contract-like amendments) must be transparently agenda-noticed.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Open Meeting Act (OMA): Oklahoma’s transparency statute requiring government bodies to give advance public notice of meetings and to list, on an agenda, what they plan to discuss and decide—so the public can observe and participate meaningfully.
• Agenda requirement (“all items of business”): The agenda must list the specific subjects that may be acted upon. A vague category that hides the real topic can violate the OMA.
• “New Business”: A narrow safety valve for truly unforeseen matters that come up too late to be placed on an agenda with legally required notice. It is not meant to cover important issues that become known days in advance.
• Willful violation (OMA): Not necessarily “bad faith.” It can mean knowingly acting outside OMA requirements, or using misleadingly vague notice likely to mislead the public, even if the body did not intend to “evade” the statute.
• Certified interlocutory appeal: An appeal taken mid-case from a certified order addressing a controlling legal question. Here, review was limited to the portion granting partial summary judgment.

5. Conclusion

OKLAHOMA SCHOOLS RISK MANAGEMENT TRUST v. LEXINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT fortifies Oklahoma’s agenda-notice regime by sharply limiting reliance on “New Business.” When a public body learns more than 24 hours before a meeting that it intends to take substantive action—especially action revisiting or replacing a prior vote—it must provide meaningful agenda notice, typically by posting an amended agenda or deferring the matter. Proceeding anyway under a generic “New Business” label can be a willful OMA violation, rendering the action vulnerable to invalidation under 25 O.S. § 313. In practical terms, the opinion pushes Oklahoma public bodies toward proactive agenda corrections and away from elastic agenda catch-alls that obscure what will actually be decided.