Annotations for Statute

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).

By conducting its final deliberations in a closed session without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, the State Board of Accountancy rendered its action in censuring an accountant voidable under this section; however, since the accountant raised no objection and demonstrated no prejudice as a result of the Board’s action, the action was not void. Stinson v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 625 S.W.2d 589, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 304 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981) (decided under prior law).

Former members of a public board had constitutional standing to raise violations of the Open Meetings Act with respect to a county fiscal court’s action in removing them and the subsequent action by the board approving a lease termination agreement because they clearly alleged distinct and palpable injuries caused by the actions of the fiscal court and the board for which they would be entitled to a remedy under the Act; any action taken by the fiscal court in violation of the Act was voidable. 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).

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 this Open Records Act action, the order was reversed in part because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conclude the university violated the Open Meetings Act where neither party invoked the circuit court’s jurisdiction to enforce provisions. Univ. of Ky. v. Hatemi, 636 S.W.3d 857, 2021 Ky. App. LEXIS 114 (Ky. Ct. App. 2021).

Injunction was proper under this section — 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).

Pursuant to KRS 61.848, a consulting contract that had been improperly approved following a closed session in a meeting of a county board of education, the attempted ratification of which was an action taken without substantial compliance with KRS 61.815, was voidable by the circuit court. As such, the contractor could retain amounts already paid for services under the contract but was not entitled to any additional payments. Carter v. Smith, 366 S.W.3d 414, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 66 (Ky. 2012).

Trial court erred by dismissing a complaint for lack of standing because the Open Meetings Act permitted an association to recover attorney fees and costs, and the availability of the remedy met the redressability requirement for constitutional standing; because actions taken in violation of the Act were not void ab initio, third parties not involved in the allegedly unlawful conduct could be entitled to rely on the validity of the agreement executed by the county fiscal court and public board. 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).

Trial court properly exercised it authority to void the action of the school board directing legal counsel to pursue litigation because the board did not substantially comply with the Open Meetings Act. Webster County Bd. of Educ. v. Newell, 392 S.W.3d 431, 2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).

Where court found that closed meeting of county board of education had violated the open meetings of public agencies law and declared all action taken at the meeting void and enjoined the board from holding future closed sessions on certain topics discussed at the meeting, the court remained within the authority supplied it by this section in granting such relief and as long as the board and its members made a good faith effort to obey they would not be cited for contempt. Jefferson County Board of Education v. Courier-Journal, 551 S.W.2d 25, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977) (decided under prior law).

While a board of commissioners violated the Open Meetings Act, the court of appeals erred in assessing fees and costs against it because the violation was not willful; the violation stemmed more from the board's effort to avoid the publicity adversely affecting the value of the property and its misconception of the law applicable to bidding at public auction without reserve, than from a willful attempt to violate the Act. Bd. of Comm'rs of Danville v. Advocate Communs., 527 S.W.3d 803, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 501 (Ky. 2017).

While the coverage of the Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.800, was broad enough to include a police captain’s termination hearing, the police captain did not follow the procedures in KRS 61.846 and 61.848, and so was not entitled to relief. Howard v. City of Independence, 199 S.W.3d 741, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 230 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005), abrogated in part, Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville, 2011 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 998 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2011).