Denver Public Schools has filed a motion to prevent the release of an executive session audio in which the board of education discussed reversing its policy prohibiting police on campus while the district’s appeal plays out.

DPS was required to release the audio Tuesday.

“This case is about a press coalition’s insistence on discovering the private discussions of a local school board held in the immediate wake of a school shooting,” the district argued in its filing Tuesday.

In response, attorneys for the media coalition seeking the audio recording filed a motion for contempt, arguing that the district was “keenly aware” the court provided DPS 14 days to obtain a stay prior to the order taking effect.

As of noon Tuesday, the Colorado Court of Appeals had not yet stayed the court’s ruling.

The legal fight stems from a five-hour executive session, which is not open to the public, in which the Board of Education was to discuss security measures related to the March 22 shooting of two administrators at East High School, the district’s flagship campus.

Under Colorado law, state and local governments are required to discuss and take action in meetings open to the public with certain exceptions that include attorney consultations, personnel matters or issues involving an individual student.

Any action must be taken in public.

The board, however, emerged on March 23 with a memo drafted in executive session reversing, temporarily, the district’s policy barring police officers on campus.

The measure was unanimously approved without any public discussion.

A coalition of news outlets that includes The Denver Gazette and Colorado Politics sued the Board of Education and its custodian of records for the release of the executive session minutes and recording.

Denver District Court Judge Andrew J. Luxen spent two days listening to the executive session.

The lawsuit alleges the secret meeting violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law prohibiting policy making in executive session. And the judge agreed, ordering its release.

In the judge’s original ruling, he found that the district had engaged in “a substantial discussion of matters” not stated on the agenda and failed to the sufficiently cite the statute that formed the basis for the confidential meeting.

The district’s appeal questions whether the judge erred in reviewing and then revealing in his order details from the audio not yet disclosed.