O’Connell v. Woodland Park School District.

2025 CO 55. No. 24SC34. Colorado’s Open Meetings Law—Purpose of Open Meetings Laws—Costs and Fees.

September 15, 2025

The cure doctrine provides that a public body may resolve a violation of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law (COML), CRS §§ 24-6-401 to -402,  by holding a subsequent meeting that complies with the COML and that does not merely rubber-stamp the earlier decision. The doctrine was first recognized in Colorado by the court of appeals in Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition v. Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, 2012 COA 146, 292 P.3d 1132 (COHVC). The supreme court granted certiorari to consider whether COHVC was wrongly decided or, in the alternative, wrongly applied by the division of the court of appeals below, and whether O’Connell is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees as a prevailing party. O’Connell v. Woodland Park School District, No. 22CA2054 (Dec. 7, 2023).

The supreme court affirmed the division in part, holding that the cure doctrine does not contravene the COML or longstanding precedent. It further concluded that the COML focuses on the fact of a violation, not on whether an alleged violation was intentional or unintentional. However, the court reversed the division’s holding regarding attorney fees and concluded that O’Connell is a prevailing party because she successfully proved the original COML violation by the Woodland Park School District Board of Education, which was not cured until after O’Connell filed suit. Accordingly, she is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to CRS § 24-6-402(9)(b). The court therefore reversed that part of the division’s opinion and remanded the case with instructions that the matter be returned to the district court to determine and award O’Connell her costs and reasonable attorney fees.