TO BE PUBLISHED
97-OMD-84
May 22, 1997
In re: Concerned Citizens of Lyon County/Lyon County Board of
Education
Open Meetings Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by a
group called the Concerned Citizens of Lyon County in connection
with its complaint against the Lyon County Board of Education.
In a letter to the school board chairman, dated April 16,
1997, but apparently not received by him until April 23, 1997,
the concerned citizens group referred to a meeting of the school
board held on January 24, 1997. The concerned citizens said that
because of a large turnout the meeting was moved from the small
school board office to a school library. It was alleged that when
the school board moved the meeting back to the school board
office before it was over, knowing that facility was too small to
permit public observation of the proceedings, the Open Meetings
Act was violated.
Legal counsel for the school board responded to the concerned
citizens group in a letter dated April 24, 1997, and maintained
that the meeting in question was "legal in all
respects." It was admitted that the school board returned to
its main office to discuss the feasibility of an executive
session. Legal counsel said no motion was made relative to going
into an executive session but the school board did vote to extend
a particular person's contract at that time.
The appeal of the concerned citizens was received by this
office on May 8, 1997. It was alleged that the school board
violated the Open Meetings Law when the meeting, which had been
moved from the school board office to a school library to
accommodate a larger than expected turnout, was moved back to the
school board office where additional business was transacted. A
majority of those in attendance in the school library could not
observe proceedings in the school board office according to the
citizens group.
In a response received May 16, 1997, legal counsel for the
school board said that the meeting, which began at the school
board office, was moved to a school library in order that public
comments could be made relative to the school superintendent's
contract. He said that 53 persons gathered in the school library,
slightly fewer than the number of persons in the original
gathering.
At the conclusion of the public comments the board's legal
counsel said an executive session was contemplated and it was
counsel's opinion that any vote on any matter had to be made at
the place where the meeting began which was the school board's
office. He said about 30 citizens returned to that location.
KRS 61.820 provides in part that all meetings of all public
agencies of this state shall be held at specified times and
places which are convenient to the public.
KRS 61.840 states in part that no condition other than those
necessary for the maintenance of order shall apply to the
attendance of the public at any meeting of any public agency.
That same statute also includes a sentence providing that all
public agencies shall provide meeting room conditions which allow
effective public observation of the public meeting.
The parties to this appeal do not agree as to why the meeting
was moved from the school board office room to the school
library. They also do not agree on how many people showed up at
the original meeting site, how many went to the school library,
and how many returned to the school board office room with the
school board members. In view of the ten day period relative to
the issuance of decisions, this office does not have the time nor
do we have the information or resources to determine the answer
to those questions.
However, no matter what the precise reason for moving the
meeting or the number of citizens in attendance at either
facility, we think it can be stated that the meeting was moved
for the convenience, safety, or comfort of the public. Moving a
meeting for any of these reasons is proper, something for which
the school board deserves credit, and is in furtherance of the
board's obligations to hold a meeting in a place convenient to
the public and which affords effective public observation of the
proceedings.
Legal counsel for the school board maintains that the meeting
was moved back to the school board meeting room because a prior
decision of this office required that any vote or decision by the
public agency must be made at the place where the meeting began.
We do not believe that the decision in that appeal dictated the
course of action followed by the school board in this situation.
In 95-OMD-92 this office decided that three members of a board
of education violated the Open Meetings Act when the notice,
motion, and vote relative to the closed session were given, made,
and taken at a place which did not constitute the forum for the
open and public meeting. The meeting site had not been changed in
that situation. Three members of the board, rather than returning
to the meeting site, attempted to take action while they were in
a place in the building other than the designated meeting site.
This appeal involves a situation where, for whatever the
precise reason, the meeting was moved to another site. Once the
meeting reconvened in the school library that facility became the
meeting site. All proceedings and actions relative to the meeting
should then have taken place at that location. Since the school
library facility apparently was sufficient to accommodate those
in attendance and to enable the school board to conduct the
remainder of the meeting, there was no reason, legal or
otherwise, to switch the meeting back to the original site. It
would be inconvenient to the public to require them to move from
an apparently satisfactory meeting location to another site in
absence of any compelling reason to do so.
It is the decision of the Attorney General that when the
school board moved the meeting site from the school board office
to the school library the latter location became the designated
meeting site from which all remaining proceedings and actions
relative to the meeting should have been conducted. In absence of
any compelling reason to do so, the school board was not
justified in moving the meeting to yet another location as such
an action is inconvenient to the public.
A party aggrieved by this decision may challenge it 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. Pursuant to KRS 61.846(5),
the Attorney General must be notified of any action filed in the
circuit court, but he shall not be named as a party in that
action or in any subsequent proceeding under the Open Meetings
Act.
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Thomas R. Emerson
Assistant Attorney General
#508
Copies of this decision
have been distributed to:
Concerned Citizens of Lyon County
c/o Pat Bassett
P.O. Box 893
Eddyville KY 42038
G. L. Ovey
Ovey and Johnson, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 679
Eddyville KY 42038