Annotations for Statute

A discussion by a county board of education concerning the termination of the expenditure of funds on an educational television station operated by the county board of education and the attendant potential dismissal of all the employees of such station dealt only with a general personnel matter and therefore did not come under the exemption of subsection (6) (now (f)) of this section as an exemption to the requirement of the Open Meetings Law that all meetings be public meetings. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).

A report by an associate superintendent on the status of a proposed contract between the county board of education and two (2) teachers’ associations and a recommendation to the board that negotiations should take place did not come under the exception of subsection (5) (now (e)) of this section so as to permit such discussion to take place in a closed meeting. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).

Although a quorum of the commissioners may have discussed the issue among themselves at a gathering other than a regular meeting, the trial court specifically found that no secret meetings were held in violation of the Open Meetings Act, where the entire matter concerning the salaries was publicly aired in the press and broadcast media, and there was testimony at trial that the police officers, themselves and through counsel, engaged in discussions with the commissioners regarding the reduction of their salaries. Beckham v. Bowling Green, 743 S.W.2d 858, 1987 Ky. App. LEXIS 603 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).

As long as the bylaws of the University of Louisville Foundation, Inc. provide for a membership of a quorum of the Board of Trustees of the University of Louisville, meetings of the University of Louisville Foundation, Inc. are subject to the Open Meetings Law. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. v. University of Louisville Bd. of Trustees, 596 S.W.2d 374, 1979 Ky. App. LEXIS 524 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).

Because a closed session in a meeting of a county board of education was not justified by any of the statutory exceptions in KRS 61.810, substantial compliance could not be found under KRS 61.848. There cannot be substantial compliance when an agency entirely fails to comply with the law by entering a closed session to which none of the exceptions apply. Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 66 (Ky. 2012).

City did not violate the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800 et seq., when it conducted settlement negotiations privately with the property owners regarding a zoning matter where the settlement agreement itself was voted on in an open meeting. Although the residents claimed that the private settlement negotiations violated that law, an exception in the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.810(1)(c), allowed discussion regarding proposed or pending litigation to be conducted privately so long as the final settlement agreement itself was voted on in an open meeting. Cunningham v. Whalen, 373 S.W.3d 438, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 109 (Ky. 2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1158, 133 S. Ct. 1245, 185 L. Ed. 2d 179, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1105 (U.S. 2013).

County Board of Education violated Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act,  KRS 61.800- 61.850, by discussing in a closed session the resignation of the superintendent of schools and his appointment as a consultant to the school district. Neither the litigation exception in  KRS 61.810(l)(c) nor the personnel exception in  KRS 61.810(l)(f) applied; there was only a remote possibility of litigation, and the enumerated personnel topics did not include either an employee’s resignation or a contractor’s hiring.  Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 66 (Ky. 2012).

Court of appeals properly found that the exception to open meetings related to the acquisition of real property did not apply because a board of commissioners went into closed session to discuss its intention to bid on real property offered for sale pursuant to an absolute auction, an auction without reserve; the board's post-auction approvals, while public, were window-dressing because the city was already compelled to complete the purchase or answer a complaint for specific performance. Bd. of Comm'rs of Danville v. Advocate Communs., 527 S.W.3d 803, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 501 (Ky. 2017).

Exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that were capable of repetition, yet evading review was not applied on appeal when a county government’s declaratory judgment action against a newspaper asking for closed council meetings under the litigation exception to the Open Meetings Act was dismissed as moot because the county government did not show that a similarly-situated party would be subject to the same action again. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. Lexhl, L.P., 315 S.W.3d 331, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 218 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).

General Assembly declared that all citizens have a direct interest in public agencies’ compliance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, and the particularized injury arises from the agency’s violation of the Act itself, not specifically from the action taken; the rights accorded under the Act are not merely procedural but also grant the public at large a direct interest in its enforcement, and in other words, the violation of the Act itself constitutes the direct and personal injury. Lincoln Trail Grain Growers Ass'n v. Meade Cty. Fiscal Court, 632 S.W.3d 766, 2021 Ky. App. LEXIS 89 (Ky. Ct. App. 2021).

In order to fully comply with subsection (2) of this section and KRS 61.815(1) notice of the county board of education of the business intended to be discussed in a closed session should contain information that the board of education intends to conduct an executive session for the purpose of discussing the sale or acquisition of real property and that the reason for privacy is due to the fact that publicity at the deliberation stage might be likely to affect the value instead of merely saying that the business to be discussed was “property and negotiations.” Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).

In the absence of a quorum of board of adjustment members, the Open Meetings Act was not applicable to the private review of a taped public meeting by a committee of two (2) board members, an administrative employee, and legal counsel for the purpose of preparing amended findings pursuant to Circuit Court order. Bourbon County Bd. of Adjustment v. Currans, 873 S.W.2d 836, 1994 Ky. App. LEXIS 36 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994).

Injunction was proper under KRS 61.848 — even without a showing that petitioners had no adequate remedy at law — when a school board violated the Open Meeting Law by discussing a personnel reorganization plan in closed “executive” meetings; the preparation-for-litigation exception would not apply to mere discussion of whether dismissed administrators might sue the board. Also, the board failed to adhere to KRS 61.815, which requires that, before going into a closed session, a public body must state the exact exception it relies on to go into a closed meeting. Floyd County Bd. of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921, 1997 Ky. LEXIS 145 (Ky. 1997).

Litigation exception to open public meetings was not applicable to the school board’s decision directing legal counsel to pursue a challenge to the petition to recall the board’s nickel tax because it was a “final action” of the board to authorize litigation. Webster County Bd. of Educ. v. Newell, 392 S.W.3d 431, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).

Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 637 S.W.2d 658, 1982 Ky. App. LEXIS 232 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982); Frankfort Pub. Co. v. Kentucky State University Foundation, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681, 1992 Ky. LEXIS 103 (Ky. 1992); Brownsboro Rd. Area Def., Inc. v. McClure, — S.W.3d —, 2004 Ky. App. LEXIS 77 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).

Nothing in subdivision (6) (now (f)) of this section permits a public agency to condition an employee’s right to a public hearing upon written or timely notice. Reed v. Richmond, 582 S.W.2d 651, 1979 Ky. App. LEXIS 417 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).

Notice given in open meeting preparatory to closed session that the closed meeting would be held to discuss “property and negotiations” was not sufficient compliance with the requirement of notice of subsection (1) of KRS 61.815 for the term “property” fails to reveal whether it is real or personal, for purchase or for sale or whether publicity would affect its value. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).

The Presidential Search Committee created by the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky was not excepted from declaring public meetings when discussing the appointment of a president. Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. University of Kentucky Presidential Search Committee, 732 S.W.2d 884, 1987 Ky. LEXIS 227 (Ky. 1987).

The State Board of Accountancy is not a quasi-judicial body excluded from the definition of “public agency” found in KRS 61.805, since otherwise any administrative agency which occasionally held hearings on certain matters could exempt itself from the open meetings statutes and, moreover, there would be no need for the exception to the open meeting requirement found in subsection (6) (now (f)) of this section, because any agency which held any disciplinary hearings would be quasi-judicial; accordingly, the Board violated the open meeting laws by conducting its final deliberations on the question of whether to censure an accountant in a closed session. Stinson v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 625 S.W.2d 589, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 304 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).

The collective bargaining negotiations referred to in subsection (5) (now (e)) of this section means the settling of disputes by negotiation between employer and the representatives of the employees and does not embrace reports or status briefings on the labor negotiations. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).