An accusation that an Oxford Downtown Development Authority (DDA) meeting last month was conducted in an illegal manner has no merit based on an attorney opinion.

The special meeting held by the DDA on Friday, May 12 did not violate the state’s Open Meetings Act (OMA), nor was it conducted contrary to DDA bylaws, according to a June 15 opinion letter issued by village attorney Bob Davis.

DDA Chairperson Sue Bossardet, who’s also the village president, presented the letter as an agenda item at the regular June 19 meeting.

“I asked for an attorney opinion because there were some remarks made that it was an illegitimate meeting, so I sent the village attorney all of the paperwork, e-mails, postings, everything,” she explained.

Five of the nine DDA board members were present at the May 12 special meeting during which two candidates for the vacant executive director position were interviewed. Both interviews were videotaped by Oxford Community Television and posted on YouTube so the four absent members could have an opportunity to view them.

When the full DDA board discussed the candidates at the regular meeting on Monday, May 15, Board Member Rod Charles, who did not attend the May 12 meeting, twice referred to “the process” as “illegitimate.”

When it came time to vote on offering the position to one of the candidates, Charles abstained and said, “I’m not going to vote on a process that’s illegitimate.”

“It’s unfortunate that those remarks were made because it, I felt, cast a bad light on the people that were here for that meeting,” said Bossardet at last week’s meeting. “And I don’t think that we deserved it.”

According to Davis’ opinion, the OMA’s public notification requirement to conduct a special meeting was “satisfied.”

The law states a public body can conduct a special meeting if there is a public notice stating the date, time and place “posted at least 18 hours before the meeting.”

A public notice regarding the 5 p.m. May 12 meeting was posted at approximately 12:15 p.m. on May 11, according to the information provided to the attorney.

“The posting of the agenda exceeds 24 hours before the designated start time,” Davis wrote.

DDA bylaws allow for a special meeting to be called “upon written request of the chairperson or any three members of the board” provided “24-hours written notice” is given “to each member of the DDA board.”

“The written notice shall designate the purpose of such meeting and shall be served personally or left at the usual place of residence or business of each board member,” the bylaws state.

E-mail communications sent by Bossardet to all of the other DDA board members notifying them about the May 12 special meeting and its purpose were provided to Davis.

“The email documents show acknowledgment and responses from members Rod Charles, Dorothy Johnston, Elgin Nichols, Regina Woodson, Susan Schurr, Peter Scholz, Geno Mallia and Sam Barna,” Davis wrote. “Thus, it appears each DDA board member received the meeting notice and acknowledged the notice.”

With regard to the question of whether the e-mail process constitutes the notice being “served personally or left at the usual place of residence or business,” as required by the bylaws, Davis wrote, “I believe a reviewing body would view the e-mail process that I reviewed as satisfying this provision.”