Request By:
Ms. Dona Rains, Staff Writer
The Paducah Sun
408 Kentucky Avenue
P.O. Box 2300
Paducah, Kentucky 42001
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; Cicely D. Jaracz, Assistant Attorney General
This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion regarding the Open Meetings Law. Specifically, you state that Mayfield Mayor Virgil Gilliam divided the twelve member Mayfield City Council into two groups of six, and invited each group to back-to-back meetings on January 5th "with the expressed purpose of avoiding a quorum and the necessity of holding the meeting in public." You indicate that Mayor Gilliam invited the council members to his office to ask them about committee assignments. Six members apparently visited the mayor at 9:00 a.m., and, four members at 11:00 a.m. Also according to you some council members indicated that board appointments, committee assignments, and two public business topics were discussed at these meetings.
You request an opinion as to the legality of the two meetings under the Open Meetings Law.
Pursuant to KRS 81.010, Mayfield is classified as a third class city. The city is governed under the mayor-council plan, with an elected mayor and twelve member elected city council. KRS 83A.030(1). The mayor presides at council meetings and may participate, but cannot vote except in case of a tie. KRS 83A.130(5). The legislative authority of the city is vested in the council, which is required to hold meetings at least once each month. KRS 83A.130(11). A majority of the council constitutes a quorum. KRS 83A.060(6).
The Mayfield City Council is a public agency pursuant to KRS 61.805(2) and is thus subject to the Open Meetings Law. However, the Open Meetings Law only applies when a quorum of the public agency meets to discuss public business. KRS 61.810. Seven members of the Mayfield City Council constitute a quorum. According to you, the meetings in the mayor's office were attended by six and four members, respectively. The absence of a quorum of council members in the mayor's office at each meeting herein therefore renders the Open Meetings Law inapplicable.
This office is unable to render an opinion as to whether the spirit and intent of the Open Meetings Law was violated, for we have no facts proving that Mayor Gilliam met with the council in such a manner to expressly avoid a quorum and the necessity of a public meeting. It is the opinion of the Attorney General that the meetings were not subject to the Open Meetings Law because of the absence of a quorum.