Who would have imagined that the first big Kentucky open government news story of the decade would involve the generally less contentious, and certainly less frequently litigated, open meetings law and not the open records law?

WHAS 11 reports that "a group of famers also known as the Lincoln Trail Growers Association filed a lawsuit and restraining order [in Meade Circuit Court on] Thursday to prevent the closing of the Consolidated Grain and Barge Company (CB&G) elevator."

Reporter Chris Williams explains that "[a] Nucor steel plant is to be built on 900 acres in the riverport and part of the area set aside for the project includes the current location of the Consolidated Grain and Barge Company elevator" in spite of assurances that the Nucor project "would not mean the end of a grain elevator on the riverfront."

The suit names the Meade County Fiscal Court, the County Riverport Authority, Industrial Development Authority, CB&G, and Nucor. The Growers Association alleges, among other things, that meetings at which the deal was discussed were conducted in contravention of the open meetings law.

Specifically, the Growers allege that the fiscal court willfully violated the open meetings law "on multiple occasions, including but not limited to the March Special Meeting, the October Special Meeting, and the December Closed Meeting, all without fulfilling the requirements" of the open meetings law, for the purpose of excluding public participation and debate.

With respect to the March and October meetings, the Growers allege that the fiscal court:

• failed to deliver written notice of the date, time and place of the special meeting and a legally sufficient agenda for the meeting, to the members of the public agency at least 24 hours before the special meeting;

• failed to deliver written notice of the date, time and place of the special meeting and a legally sufficient agenda for the meeting, to the media at least 24 hours before the special meeting; and

• failed to post the date, time and place of the special meeting and a legally sufficient agenda for the meeting in a conspicuous place in the building where the special meeting will take place and in the building which houses the headquarters of the fiscal court, at least 24 hours before the special meeting.

With respect to the December meeting, the Growers allege that the fiscal court conducted an improper closed session under the exception for "[d]discussions between a public agency and a representative of a business entity and discussions concerning a specific proposal, if open discussions would jeopardize the siting, retention, expansion, or upgrading of the business."

Specifically, the Growers allege that the fiscal court's closed session was illegal because:

• no "representative of a business entity" was present for the closed session;

• the fiscal court did not cite any "specific" proposal involving the "siting, retention, expansion, or upgrading" of a business which necessitated a closed session; and

• the fiscal court failed to establish that any such proposal would have been "jeopardize[d]" by open discussions.

Adding insult to injury, the fiscal court failed to respond to the Growers Association's written open meetings complaint, thus committing an additional violation of the open meetings law.

For these and other reasons, the Growers Association seeks to have the actions taken at these illegal meeting voided by the Meade Circuit Court. A hearing is scheduled in the case on January 9.

The consequences of an agency's failure to comply with the requirements of the open meetings law may come at a very high price, in some respects a higher price than failure to comply with the open records law. Public officials who dismiss the law, and their duty of strict compliance, do so at their own peril and the peril of the constituencies they serve.