The jury is out on an open meetings decision issued by Attorney General Andy Beshear in an appeal filed by the Glasgow Daily Times. The decision itself will not be available to the public until early next week.
But as it is described in the Daily Times, the OAG's analysis raises questions.
The Daily Times alleged that members of the Glasgow Electric Plant Board violated the open meetings law by conducting a series of less than quorum meetings to discuss removal of the board superintendent.
Such conduct is illegal under KRS 61.810(2) if the purpose of the nonpublic less than quorum meetings is to "avoid the requirements" of the open meetings law.
In support, the newspaper cited statements made by board member D.T. Froedge, prior to public discussion of the issue, that he was speaking for himself, and on behalf of a majority of the board members, in requesting the removal and replacement of the superintendent; that "the members of the board that are a majority of the members wanted to do this;" that "the consensus of the new board is that they need to replace the superintendent and move on;" and that although he didn't talk to the board "as a group," he talked to the members individually "and this is their consensus of what they want to do."
Froedge expressed the belief that "he could speak individually with other members and determine what the consensus is as long as they didn't actually meet together."
Given the apparent division on the board that subsequently emerged, it is possible that the other members disputed Froedge's multiple statements that he spoke with them. Barring this, the newspaper presented solid evidence to the OAG in the form of multiple admissions by Froedge of nonpublic discussions about the removal of the superintendent with board members who, collectively, constituted a quorum.
It's rare, indeed, for a complainant like the Daily Times to produce such compelling proof.
The OAG's decision may hinge on Froedge's statement that he believed the law to permit discussions with individual members collectively constituting a quorum as long as they didn't actually meet together.
As noted, the statute prohibiting secret less than quorum meetings states that the meetings must be held "to avoid the requirements" of the open meetings law.
Froedge's statement that he did not believe the members were violating the law because they didn't "actually meet together" may have provided the legal cover he needed.
If he didn't know the law prohibiting serial meetings, the argument goes, how could his intent have been to avoid the law?
Unfortunately, every public official asserts this defense rendering KRS 61.810(2) meaningless. In spite of the fact that the statute prohibiting serial meetings was enacted in 1992, this remains an easy out for public officials, including Froedge.
If, on the other hand, Froedge and other public officials are so poorly informed and advised that they actually believe this nonsense, then Kentucky has got to step up its game to ensure that they receive proper open meetings education and training.
We'll know on Monday why the OAG gave the Glasgow Electric Plant Board a pass on this apparent violation.
One thing is clear, without adequate education and rigorous enforcement the open meetings law will become, in short order, nothing more than a paper tiger.
