Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
OPEN MEETINGS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by Mr. Edward H. Hook concerning his letter to Mayor Wayne Rogier. Mr. Hook maintains that Mayor Rogier has not responded in writing to his written complaint.
In a letter to Mayor Rogier, dated August 19, 1993, Mr. Hook alleged that the city council was in violation of the Open Meetings Act relative to notification of the date, time, place, and agenda of a special meeting.
In his letter of appeal to the Attorney General, received September 20, 1993, Mr. Hook said in part that he was informed that neither the mayor nor the council were required to answer his complaint and that no violations had occurred.
KRS 61.846(1) provides in part as follows relative to a complaint under the Open Meetings Act and the response required by the public agency:
The person shall submit a written complaint to the presiding officer of the public agency suspected of the violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850. The complaint shall state the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 and shall state what the public agency should do to remedy the alleged violation. The public agency shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of the complaint whether to remedy the alleged violation pursuant to the complaint and shall notify in writing the person making the complaint, within the three (3) day period, of its decision.
The city council is obviously a public agency (KRS 61.805(1)(c)) and thus subject to the terms and provisions of the Kentucky Open Meetings Act (KRS 61.805 to KRS 61.850).
The letter of complaint submitted by Mr. Hook, dated August 19, 1993, was sufficient under KRS 61.846(1) to invoke and bring into play the terms and provisions of the Open Meetings Act.
KRS 61.846(1) mandates that the mayor respond in writing within three business days after receipt of the complaint to the person submitting the complaint against such a public agency. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The mayor should immediately respond in writing to Mr. Hook relative to his complaint of August 19, 1993. See 93-OMD-61, copy enclosed.
For the information of both parties, your attention is directed to KRS 61.823 relative to special meetings.
Mr. Rogier or the city may challenge this decision by filing an appeal with the appropriate circuit court within thirty days from the date of this decision. See KRS 61.846(4)(a) and KRS 61.848.