We posted about this open meetings issue on April 18, but it bears repeating since officials — at least those in Bowling Green— continue to ignore their statutory duty to ensure adequate space and seating during public meetings. .

This earlier post was prompted by reports that attendee at a Bowling Green Commission meeting to discuss a local fairness ordinance filled the Commission chamber and corridors of city hall. We wrote:

"Certainly an issue of less importance than the actual issue before it, but shouldn't the Commission have anticipated a larger than normal turnout for this meeting and scheduled it in a larger meeting site to avoid 'an overflow crowd' that 'filled the Commission chambers and corridors of city hall?' There is no indication in the story that any kind of provision was made for attendees who were 'shut out.'

This contravenes KRS 61. 840, requiring 'meeting room conditions, including adequate space, seating, and acoustics, which insofar as is feasible allow effective public observation of all public meetings.'

If not a larger meeting site, what about an overflow room with live streaming so all attendees could see and hear what transpired at the meeting.

This is a fundamental open meetings requirement.

Attendees who are forced to stand in the hall, or who cannot see or hear what is transpiring at a public meeting, should raise their objections in the public meeting. This is the one case where a 'contemporaneous' objection is a necessity since the courts and the OAG generally require some kind of proof that attendees voiced their objection to being 'shut out.'"

The Bowling Green Commission was on notice, if not before the April 16 meeting then certainly during and after the meeting, that because of the level of community interest in the fairness ordinance a larger meeting site was required — or an overflow room where attendees could both see and hear the meeting by live video streaming.

Again, there is a greater issue at stake in Bowling Green than open meetings compliance, but isn't that the best argument for ensuring the ability of all attendees to see and hear what is transpiring at the public meeting.