Deputy Superintendent Stacy Cooper warns Lyon County School Board about closed‑session notice; board votes 4–1 to enter closed session

Deputy Superintendent Stacy Cooper told the Lyon County School Board on May 15 that she has not received the written notice required by Nevada law if the board intends to discuss her professional competence or character in closed session.

"I have not received such notice," Cooper said, adding that without it she is being denied the right to be present, to have a representative, and to present facts and evidence. She asked trustees to be "very careful" during the upcoming closed session and reminded the board that "per NRS 241.033, a public body cannot hold a meeting to consider a person's professional competence or character without giving that person a proper written notice."

The Lyon County Administrators Association, represented at the meeting by President Gwen Matthias and president‑elect Julie Baumgartner, urged the board to follow Nevada's open‑meeting statutes and the district's governance policies. Matthias told trustees the statutes require written notice for employees who may be discussed and prohibit final action in closed session.

"NRS 241.032 expressly prohibits the board from taking any final action in closed session," Matthias said, and the association asked the board to ensure any closed session remains narrowly confined to matters authorized by statute.

After public comment concluded, the board moved to the agenda item calling for a closed session. The board took a formal motion to convene closed session; the motion was recorded as made by Trustee Boldt and seconded by Trustee Day. The Board President called for the vote; trustees affirmed the motion and the chair restated that the prior vote was 4–1, with Trustee Barnes identified as opposed. The board then moved into closed session.

Trustees also debated whether earlier communications with district counsel should have been agendized as a request for a legal opinion under board policy DDAA. One trustee said an exchange of emails with the district counsel included requests for case citations and an analysis that the trustee considered to be a legal opinion and therefore the subject of a formal request and potential cost to the district.

During the discussion, participants referenced a billing amount connected to work on the matter. Meeting remarks indicated the portion of the memo that moved into more extensive legal analysis carried an approximate bill of $3,500; participants framed that number while debating whether the work had been properly agendized as a legal opinion request.

Board members disagreed about whether the materials provided by counsel constituted an ordinary response or a formal legal opinion requiring prior board action. One speaker described legal opinions as "based in law" and urged requesters to cite statutes or case law; another speaker described having answered a series of questions and said the deeper legal analysis crossed into the scope of a billed legal memo.

The meeting record shows the board followed the motion process and proceeded into closed session after the votes. The meeting agenda listed a parent‑complaint appeal as the closed‑session topic; at the time of adjournment to closed session, trustees had not announced any final action in open session.