A timely reminder from State Journal publisher, Steve Stewart, that the open meetings law "prohibits a quorum from discussing public business in private *or* meeting in number less than a quorum for the express purpose of avoiding the open meeting requirement of the Act. KRS § 61.810(2)."

Not long after it was established, the Kentucky Open Government Coalition characterized these illegal serial less than quorum meetings as "the crabgrass" of open meetings violations—all too common and just as pernicious.

We wrote:

"It's an illegal practice known as a serial meeting or a 'walking'meeting. Two agency members privately discuss public business then 'walk' to a third member to discuss the same business, and so on.

"The open meetings law was amended in 1992 to address the problem. Lawmakers prohibited 'any series of less-than-quorum meetings, where the members attending one or more of the meetings collectively constitute at least a quorum of the members of the public agency.'

"Virtually anyone who regularly attends public meetings has witnessed it. Agency members publicly 'discuss' a matter of greater or lesser importance for a few minutes at an open meeting. Because they have predetermined the outcome in less-than-quorum (LTQ) discussions that precede the public meeting, there is no meaningful discussion or debate.

"Some agencies defend it as a service to the public, a means of reducing protracted discussion, as well as the length of their meetings, and sparing the public from the tedious details of the public business under consideration.

But the public's ability to fully understand the issue, or assess why its representatives voted for or against it, is nullified.

Not surprisingly, it is not a problem unique to Kentucky. On March 4, 2019, Cincinnati's WCPO-9 News reported that five Cincinnati City Council members had admitted to breaking that state's open meetings law by conducting public business in private text messages and emails with each other. The city agreed to pay $101,000 to settle the pending 'Gang of Five' text messaging scandal lawsuit.

"Proving a violation of the open meetings law based on serial LTQ meetings 'requires luck and magic' unless, as in Cincinnati, the members offer a rare admission of wrongdoing.

"The Chronicle points to evidence in one case that 443 out of 444 agency votes were unanimous, asking 'in what world do seven people agree 99.9 percent of the time without prior, off-the-grid discussions.'

"In Kentucky, the challenges are even greater since our law requires proof that the challenged serial meetings were 'held for the purpose of avoiding the requirements' of the open meetings law. In addition, our law permits serial meetings 'between individual members where the purpose of the discussions is to educate the members on specific issues.'

"What self-respecting agency member will volunteer that he or she engaged in serial meetings to avoid the requirements of the open meetings law? And what self-serving public agency will not avail itself of the defense that its members were merely 'educating' themselves 'on specific issues.'

"It is a serious problem in this and other states, and one that is almost certainly on the rise given the use of email and text messaging. Those communications are, by the way, public records under state regulation, and agency members are required to preserve and retain them regardless of whether they are stored on publicly issued or privately owned devices.

"Serial 'walking' meetings are the crabgrass of open meetings violations.

"But unlike crabgrass, violations of the open meetings law based on these meetings do not go dormant in the winter months. They are a year-round blight on the open government landscape."

Thanks to The State Journal for reminding us—and the candidates we will elect in November—that our open government laws are "neither ideals nor suggestions. [They are] the law. Public entities must [strictly comply with them] as required or risk meaningful punishment for noncompliance. Rigid adherence to this stark principle is the lifeblood of [laws] which rightly favor disclosure, foster transparency, and secure the public trust."