A recent letter to the editor in the Frankfort State Journal raises a thorny question about special meeting notices.

The letter writer accused Frankfort's mayor of failing to comply with the 24 hour meeting notice for a special meeting conducted at 1:30 pm on October 2 because the writer's copy of the State Journal containing the special meeting notice — which was delivered by mail — did not reach his home until 4:30 pm that day.

Ascribing improper motives to the mayor, he also maintained that the meeting was not conducted at a time convenient to the public per the requirements of the open meetings law.

It is questionable whether the letter writer has any recourse under the existing law.

The law states that as soon as possible, written notice of a special meeting must be delivered to every public agency member and media organizations which have filed a written request to receive notice of special meetings. The critical language in the statute follows: "The notice shall be *calculated so that it shall be received at least twenty-four (24) hours before the special meeting*."

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=23047

In a 2011 open meetings decision, the attorney general addressed the problem of 24 hour special meeting notice in communities that are not served by newspapers with daily circulation. In that appeal, the newspaper acknowledged receipt of the special meeting notice 24 hours before the meeting but indicated that it was unable to publish the notice because it circulated only once a week.

https://ag.ky.gov/orom/2011/11OMD129.doc

"The requirements of timely written notice of special meetings," the attorney general observed, "are satisfied if the notice is 'calculated so that it shall be received at least twenty-four hours before the special meeting.'" Conceding that the statute "does not address the problem of a community not served by a newspaper with a daily circulation," he concluded that the public agency discharged its statutory duty by ensuring that the newspaper received the notice at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting.

This was true even though the meeting notice was not published by the newspaper at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting. The statute binds the public agency, the reasoning goes, and the agency discharges its legal obligation by delivering the notice to the newspaper 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

It is unlikely that the attorney general or the courts would find that Frankfort's mayor violated the special meeting notice requirements since he conveyed the notice to the State Journal at least 24 hours before the meeting. It is undisputed that the notice appeared in the newspaper, but delivery of the newspaper containing the notice by US Mail prevented the letter writer from receiving notice until after the meeting occurred.

Whether the meeting was conducted at a time convenient to the public is a closer question.

Again, however, existing authority does not entirely support the letter writer's position.

The law requires that all public agency meetings be held "at specified times and places which are convenient to the public."

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42576

In a 2004 opinion, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the laws "are designed to prevent government bodies from conducting business at such inconvenient times or locations as to effectively render public knowledge or participation impossible, *not to require such agencies to seek out the most convenient time or location*."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-supreme-court/1477621.html

In that case, the Court looked at the large number of people in attendance and the fact that there was "nothing on the record to indicate that persons wishing to attend or participate in the proceeding were effectively prevented from doing so." The Court found no violation.

The letter writer noted that "all Frankfort citizens who hold jobs" were prevented from attending, including one commission member who is employed during normal business hours and was therefore unable to attend.

The problem, as the attorney general has observed, is that "no time is convenient to each and every member of the public. Because no single day and time meets with universal approval, the attorney general has given public agencies considerable latitude in scheduling their meetings."

https://ag.ky.gov/orom/2018/18OMD215.doc

It remains to be seen how the courts or the attorney general would resolve this issue, but the letter writer's chances would not be good based on existing legal authority.

Kentucky's law might be updated to require web posting of regular meeting schedules and special meeting notices, where the agency maintains a website, as an additional means of maximizing notice. But change is slow in coming to Kentucky, and the climate is not favorable for positive change. Lawmakers who are hostile to the open meetings law might seize the opportunity presented by an amendment to the law to attempt to undermine it.