Request By:
Mr. Robert Draper
Muhlenberg County Judge/Executive
Greenville, Kentucky 42345
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
At a regular meeting of Muhlenberg Fiscal Court on February 14th, a young lady walked into the court room. After you opened your meeting she got up to the front of the fiscal court and started taking pictures of the court. After the pictures were taken, she left the courtroom before anyone had an opportunity to find out who she was or why she was taking the pictures.
Your question:
"Can anyone come into the court without permission and not introduce themselves and start taking pictures even if they are employed by some newspaper?"
KRS 61.840 reads:
"No condition other than those required for the maintenance of order shall apply to the attendance of any member of the public at any meeting of a public agency. No person may be required to identify himself in order to attend any such meeting. All agencies shall provide meeting room conditions which insofar as is feasible allow effective public observation of the public meetings. All agencies shall permit news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting. "
First, let us assume this person was employed by some sector of the news media. The meeting you describe was a public, open meeting. KRS 61.805, et seq.
The statute [KRS 61.840] explicitly provides that "All agencies shall permit news media coverage, including but not limited to recording and broadcasting. " (Emphasis added). It is our opinion that if this woman was from one of the news media, the fiscal court was required to permit her to take photographs of the fiscal court. See Department of Revenue v. Oldham County, Ky., 415 S.W.2d 386 (1967) 390, as to the mandatory significance of the term "shall". The subject statute says "All agencies shall permit . . ." Also see OAG 77-755, copy enclosed. However, under the particular circumstances of the situation, there was nothing in connection with the attire or equipment of the woman that suggested her connection with the news media. The scenario was utterly barren of any evidence of her connection with the news media. Under these unusual circumstances we believe that she should have identified herself as representing one of the news media in order to take advantage of her right to engage in news media coverage, including taking photographs. We must hasten to add, however, that where the fiscal court can visually note the connection of an observer with the new media by way of some obviously identifying insignia, or other device, or equipment, identification on the part of the news media representative is not necessary for the representative to assert his or her right to engage in coverage of the meeting. And the representative may photograph the proceedings even though they tend to be somewhat disruptive of the meeting.
On the other hand, if this woman was not connected with the news media, she did not have to identify herself. But with the news media, she did not have to identify hereself. But the fiscal court could have permitted her to photograph the fiscal court, provided that she did not interfere with the maintenance of order of the meeting.