The conclusion was reported July 15 and addresses a key procedural question in the continuing leadership dispute at Fayette County Public Schools, Lexington’s public-school district.

The finding is limited to the closed-session notice and the suspension action. It does not establish that the board’s process was free of every possible procedural concern, nor does it resolve the broader dispute involving the board and Liggins.

What the finding says

According to reporting on the attorney general’s conclusion, the board’s notice for the closed session was incorrect. The attorney general nonetheless found that the notice problem did not amount to an Open Meetings Act violation when the board suspended Liggins.

The available source material does not include the full attorney general opinion or its detailed statutory analysis. As a result, the precise basis for the conclusion is not established in the material available for this report.

The ruling concerns the procedural validity of the suspension under the open-meetings law. It is not a final determination of Liggins’ employment status or of issues raised in related controversy.

Employment review remains unresolved

Liggins was reported to be on paid leave while his employment was under review. The available reporting does not establish the terms or end date of that leave, and it does not show that the employment review had concluded as of Aug. 3.

That distinction remains important for families, employees and the district: a suspension and paid leave during an employment review are not the same as a termination, resignation or decision to retain a superintendent. No such final outcome is supported by the available source packet.

The leadership dispute has unfolded alongside the district’s effort to restore its financial footing. Reporting identifies the superintendent matter and district finances as part of a broader governance controversy involving Fayette County Public Schools and its elected board.

School year approaches

The district’s public website identified Aug. 12 as the planned first day of the 2026-27 school year. The attorney general finding does not itself change that operational date, but it provides a formal public determination about one part of the board’s handling of the superintendent matter as the new school year approaches.

The next known development in the leadership matter is the continuation or resolution of the employment review. The available sources do not identify a board meeting date, review deadline or final employment decision.

The notice warns that a quorum of the City Council and the Montgomery Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) may be in attendance—an important transparency step for residents who want to understand how Texas Open Meetings Act rules can be triggered when a quorum shows up and deliberates about public business.

What the City’s notice says (key details)

In the posted certificate, the notice explains it was certified by City Secretary Ruby Beaven and that it was posted on the City website and bulletin board at City Hall on June 29, 2026 at 10:00 AM, remaining continuously posted before the July 9 meeting time.

What a “notice of potential quorum” is meant to flag under Texas law

Under the Texas Open Meetings Act framework described by the Texas Attorney General, the question is not just whether officials are physically in the room—it’s whether a gathering involving a quorum becomes a legally defined “meeting” because members deliberate about public business or public policy over which their governmental body has supervision or control.

The Attorney General’s materials also emphasize:

• Deliberation and discussion are treated the same for OMA purposes, and (since 2019) deliberation includes written materials.
• A “meeting” can include quorum deliberations (either among members of the quorum or between the quorum and another person) where covered public business or public policy is discussed or considered.

And in Attorney General Opinion GA-0957, the Attorney General states that when a notice for a committee meeting indicates a quorum of the governmental body may attend and deliberate about public business/policy under supervision or control, a court would likely view that notice as sufficient to notify the public—assuming the other Open Meetings Act requirements are met.

What residents should take away for the McCown meeting

The practical point of Montgomery’s posted notice is not that City Council or MEDC members will necessarily deliberate or take action. Instead, it’s a warning signal: if quorum members attend and discuss covered public business/policy in a way that fits the Open Meetings Act definition, the public should expect additional legal “meeting” obligations.

If you plan to attend the McCown Public Meeting, you may want to pay close attention to what’s being discussed and whether any topics fall within the supervision/control of the governmental bodies named in the notice.

Sources

• City of Montgomery — “Notice of Potential Quorum” for the McCown Public Meeting (July 9, 2026)
• Texas Attorney General — Open Meetings Act opinion GA-0957