A quick note on the importance of jumping through the procedural hoops in challenging public agency compliance with the open meetings law.
Louisville Business First reports that Baptist Healthcare System's takeover of Hardin Memorial Health has again been postponed. Baptist Healthcare was poised to acquire the Elizabethtown hospital when the hospital's former chief of staff, Dr. Larry Hall, petitioned the court to enjoin the merger, arguing that the acquisition violated state laws including the open meetings law.
Hardin Memorial's governing board is composed of the magistrates of the Hardin County Fiscal Court, and the county judge/executive serves as chair. The board is therefore subject to open meetings requirements.
Hall alleged that officials violated the open meetings law in discussions of the merger.
Hall was unsuccessful in the Hardin County Circuit Court and again in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The primary issue before the courts was Hall's standing but the court summarily dismissed his open meetings claims as well.
In an opinion issued in September, the Court of Appeals agreed with county officials that Hall "failed to follow the process required for enforcement of the [open meetings] Act's provision as outlined by KRS 61.846," and "decline[d] to review his allegations that the [Hardin Circuit] court erred with respect to our Open Meetings Act."
http://opinions.kycourts.net/COA/2018-CA-001545.pdf
The court provides a useful summary of the requirements for raising a challenge under the open meetings law. These requirements, the attorney general has repeatedly emphasized, "are not mere formalities." Open meetings complainants and the public agencies *must* comply with them or risk adverse legal consequences including, as here, dismissal of the claim.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23054
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23055
On October 18, Business First reported that Dr. Hall has petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing. If his petition is denied, he still has the option to petition the Supreme Court for discretionary review. For now, the case continues.
Whether he intends to pursue the open meetings issue is unclear, but the case reaffirms the importance of jumping through the procedural hoops — by submitting a written complaint to the agency's presiding officer identifying the open meetings violation and proposing a remedy — before appealing to the attorney general or the courts.
