Request By:
[NO REQUESTBY IN ORIGINAL]
Opinion
Opinion By: ALBERT B. CHANDLER III, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by Robert L. Jones in connection with his complaint against the city of Williamstown.
In a letter to Glenn V. Caldwell, Acting Mayor, dated October 3, 1997, Mr. Jones complained about a meeting held by the city on April 24, 1997. It was alleged that Mr. Jones, the executive authority of the city at the time, was not notified of the April 24, 1997 meeting which apparently was a special meeting.
On October 15, 1997, this office received from Mr. Jones what was designated as his letter of appeal. Mr. Jones said in part that neither the acting mayor nor anyone else on the city's behalf has responded to his complaint. It was further stated that the letter sent to the city by Mr. Jones was "received and signed for on October 7, 1997."
KRS 61.846(1) sets forth the duties and obligations of both the complaining party and the public agency in connection with a complaint submitted under the Open Meetings Act. The written complaint to the presiding officer of the public agency shall state the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act and what the public agency should do to remedy the alleged violation. While this office cannot decide the question raised on its merits, in view of the lack of facts and information furnished, it can be stated that the complaining party has at least satisfied the statutory requirements relative to the making of a complaint.
The statute requires that the public agency, within three business days after the receipt of the complaint, notify the complaining party in writing whether it intends to correct the situation set forth in the complaint. If the public agency denies the allegations set forth in the complaint the agency must set forth in its written response a statement of the specific statute supporting the public agency's denial and a brief explanation of how the statute applies to the specific situation under consideration.
The limited record available to this office indicates that neither the acting mayor, as the presiding officer at the council meetings, nor any other city official has submitted a written response to the complaining party concerning the matters set forth in the letter of Mr. Jones, dated October 3, 1997, and received by the city on October 7, 1997.
This office is not making and cannot make at this time any decision as to whether the city council violated the Open Meetings Act in connection with the apparent special meeting held on April 24, 1997. It is, however, the decision of this office that the city violated the Open Meetings Act by its failure to respond in writing to the complaining party within three business days after the receipt of the complaint. See 97-OMD-78, a copy of which is enclosed. The city should immediately respond in writing to Mr. Jones relative to the complaint of October 3, 1997, addressed to the acting mayor, being certain to consider the issue raised and include in the response the information required by KRS 61.846(1).
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.