Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Covington City Commission violated the Open Meetings Act by conducting a retreat in Lexington, Kentucky on January 25 and 26, 2002. For the reasons that follow, we find that because the Commission's meeting was conducted outside the incorporated limits of the city the Commission serves, the meeting was not convenient to the public and therefore violated KRS 61.820.
In an undated complaint directed to Mayor Irvin Callery, Howard B. Hodge challenged the Commission's retreat, asserting that the meeting violated KRS 61.820, requiring "meetings to be held at specific times and places convenient to the citizens of Covington who might want to attend. " As a means of remedying the alleged violation, Mr. Hodge proposed that the Commission "discuss at future, properly called meetings in a local location all matters discussed at the improper meetings held in Lexington, Kentucky on January 25th and 26th, 2002."
By letter dated February 15, 2002, Covington City Solicitor John Jay Fossett denied that the Commission's meeting violated KRS 61.820. He explained that the Commission complied with the notice requirements codified at KRS 61.823, that the retreat meetings were held in meeting rooms at the Hilton Suites Lexington Green that were open to the public, and that in fact several citizens of Covington attended the meetings. Further, he observed:
[T]he City has been holding retreat meetings in Lexington for several years. A number of other cities in Northern Kentucky and throughout the state hold similar meetings outside their jurisdictional boundaries. We do not believe that these meetings violate KRS 61.820, so long as notice of these meetings are given under KRS 61.823 and the meetings are conducted in a place where the public may attend, such as a meeting room of a public hotel. KRS 61.820 does not require the city to hold its meetings in its commission chambers or within the City of Covington for that matter.
In support, Mr. Fossett cited 99-OMD-213, misidentified as 95-OMD-64, in which the office found that the Carter County Fiscal Court did not violate the Open Meetings Act when it conducted meetings at Carter Caves State Park.
On appeal, Mr. Hodge expresses a continuing objection to the Covington City Commission retreat. He notes:
The retreat meetings have become a local custom during the past five or more years. The City Commission holds a two-three day session at a Lexington, Kentucky hotel. At that meeting there is a detailed review of the City government's accomplishments for the previous year. Policies, projects and goals for the coming year are discussed. The city manager, assistant city manager, city attorney and all department heads are required to attend the meeting. The city department heads do not attend as a group but have individually scheduled sessions with the city commission. The city clerk is not present and no minutes of the meeting are taken. 1 Formal votes are not taken but general consensus is indicated by city commission as to what policies and goals to pursue in the coming year. The meeting as a whole is quite important, as the city commission discusses all city operations and sets policy for the coming year.
Acknowledging that "a public meeting in Lexington, Kentucky may be convenient for a statewide agency," Mr. Hodge nevertheless asserts that it is not "a convenient place for a municipal meeting when that municipality is located over 80 miles away." We agree.
The only reference in the Kentucky Open Meetings Act to the site of a public meeting appears at KRS 61.820. That statute provides, in part:
All meetings of all public agencies of this state, and any committees or subcommittees thereof, shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public . . . .
The majority of open meetings decisions construing this provision focus on convenient times for public meetings rather than on convenient places. For example, in 96-OMD-264, the Attorney General observed:
The phrase "convenient to the public" is not defined or explained anywhere in the Open Meetings Act. It is obvious that the public agency has some flexibility and discretion in determining what is a convenient day and time. It is equally obvious . . . that no matter what day and time are selected . . . those decisions will meet with less than full and complete approval . . . ."
96-OMD-264, p 2. Thus, in a series of open meetings appeals, complainants have unsuccessfully challenged meetings held during the school day (95-OMD-106); at 9:00 a.m. (93-OMD-20); at 2:45 p.m. (96-OMD-262); at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday (96-OMD-264); and late into the evening (92-OMD-1728); at 9:00 a.m. on a school day (98-OMD-74). These open meetings decisions confirm that no time is convenient to each and every member of the public. Because no single day and time will meet with universal approval, the Attorney General has given public agencies considerable latitude in scheduling their meetings, and has never held that an agency intentionally scheduled a meeting at an inconvenient time as to the public generally.
With reference to the places at which the members of a public agency gather, this office has determined that no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurs when a quorum of the members attend a professional or social event, such as a convention sponsored by an entity other than the agency itself. OAG 78-634. Elaborating on this view, in 95-OMD-136 the Attorney General held that Kentucky law does not require "a conclusion that attendance of a quorum of the members of a public body at a convention or conference organized by someone other than the public agency constitutes a meeting of the public agency. " Nevertheless, this office admonished that agency members "attending such a convention or meeting are not authorized to take action affecting [the agency they represent] nor are they permitted to discuss matters directly affecting their [agency]." 95-OMD-136, p. 3. Based on the Kentucky Supreme Court's holding that "the mere fact that a quorum of members of a public agency are in the same place at the same time, without more, is not sufficient to sustain a claim of a violation of the Act,"
Yeoman v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Health Policy Board, Ky., 983 S.W.2d 459, 474 (1998), in 00-OMD-147 this office concluded that the Monticello City Council did not violate the Act when a quorum of the members met socially at a local restaurant following the council's regular meeting and the record was devoid of proof that they discussed public business.
Nevertheless, the Open Meetings Act is premised on the legislative recognition "that the formation of public policy is public business, " KRS 61.800, and the judicial recognition that "[t]he failure to comply with the strict letter of the law in conducting meetings of a public agency violates the public good."
Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff, Ky., 955 S.W.2d 921, 923 (1997). It is for this reason that we find that a city commission meeting is not convenient to the public if it requires the citizenry directly concerned to leave the incorporated limits of the municipality in order to attend. McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 13.07.20 (3rd Ed.). We cannot extend the same latitude to local government agencies in scheduling their meetings as to place that we have extended to local government agencies in scheduling their meetings as to time. Although no day or time selected will be convenient for all citizenry directly concerned, the site selected can and must be.
Well before the Open Meetings Act was enacted, Kentucky's courts recognized that the proper place for a public meeting "must not only be one to which the public is generally invited and may freely attend, but it must also be a place from which no part of the citizens are expressly excluded or who may be excluded by reason of not feeling they may freely attend. "
City of Lexington et al. v. Davis et al., 310 Ky. 751, 754, 221 S.W.2d 659 (1949). In Davis, the court observed:
No one would attempt to say that there was a deliberate aim upon the part of the Commissioners to meet in secrecy [when they met in the Mayor's sickroom]; to conceal anything from the public; to exclude any person; or to mislead the public in any way. There was no concealed activity nor anything done indicative of umbrage. But, a public meeting presupposes the right of the public freely to attend such meetings . . . . Anything which tends to "cabin, crib or confine" the public in this respect would be destructive of the right expressly provided . . . .
Davis at 754, citing
Town of Springfield v. People's Deposit Bank, 111 Ky. 105, 63 S.W. 271 (1901) (meeting held in a saloon was not open to the public even though the saloon was a public place because members of the public would, on grounds of conscience, not feel free or at ease to go there). Although the court did not question the city commissioners' motives in Davis, it nevertheless concluded that "to permit such procedure would create a situation that might furnish opportunity to set up a facade for secrecy . . . . Davis at 754. Accord,
Town of Paradise Valley v. Acker, 100 Ariz. 62, 411 P.2d 168 (1966) (holding that Paradise Valley Town Council's meeting was not open to public when it was conducted in Phoenix and outside the boundaries of the Town of Paradise Valley). 2 It is thus widely recognized that in the absence of statutory authorization, a city commission has no authority to conduct its meetings outside the city limits. 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions § 160 (1990).
We find the reasoning of these opinions highly persuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that KRS 61.820 requires city commissions, and other local government agencies such as county fiscal courts, to conduct their meetings within the jurisdictional limits of the governmental units they serve. Anything, that tends to inhibit the public's ability to freely attend local government agency meetings, including distance, is destructive of the rights granted to the public, and the duties imposed on public agencies, by the Open Meetings Act. We believe that the open meetings decision cited by the Covington City Commission undermines, rather than supports, this position. In 99-OMD-213, the complainant challenged the Carter County Fiscal Court's decision to conduct a meeting at Carter Caves State Park, located in Carter County. We found no violation of KRS 61.820, noting in dicta that KRS 67.090(1), requiring fiscal courts to hold their meetings "at the county seat or at other county government centers," was not enforceable in an open meetings appeal. Applying the rule we announce today, our decision in 99-OMD-213 remains unaltered inasmuch as the Carter County Fiscal Court did, in fact, conduct the meeting within the jurisdictional limits of the government unit, namely Carter County, it served.
Such is not the case in the appeal before us. The Covington City Commission selected a meeting site that was not within its jurisdictional limits thus inhibiting the ability of the citizenry directly concerned to attend. We believe that this practice contravenes the requirement of a meeting place that is convenient to the public codified at KRS 61.820. Here, as in the opinions cited above, we find no evidence of a deliberate attempt to avoid public scrutiny, but conclude that any other holding creates the potential for abuse. If, in fact, "other cities in Northern Kentucky and throughout the state hold similar meetings outside their jurisdictional boundaries," these cities and all other local government agencies should reevaluate their policies and be guided by this decision.
We also agree with Mr. Hodge that this interpretation of KRS 61.820 cannot be applied to public agencies with statewide authority. Because such agencies do not serve discrete local areas, the citizenry directly concerned with their activities is the citizenry of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and their meetings may properly be held anywhere within the Commonwealth. Unless a specific statute directs that an agency with statewide authority conduct its meetings at a particular place, we find that it is not bound by the restrictions described above. Our decision today is limited to local government agencies, including but not limited to city and county legislative bodies. With respect to these agencies, we find that public meetings, regardless of whether they are characterized as regular or special meetings, work sessions, or retreats, must be conducted within the jurisdictional limits of the governmental units they serve, and that meetings held outside these jurisdictional limits, including the retreat held by the Covington City Commission in Lexington, Kentucky, violate KRS 61.820.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.846(4)(a). The Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceedings.
Howard B. Hodge225 Covington AvenueCovington, KY 41011
Irvin T. CalleryMayor, City of Covington638 Madison AvenueCovington, KY 41011
John Jay FossettOffice of the City Solicitor638 Madison AvenueCovington, KY 41011
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Although Mr. Hodge does not raise the issue of noncompliance with KRS 61.835 in his complaint or appeal, we note that that provision requires public agencies to promptly record the minutes of action taken at every meeting. This office has repeatedly recognized that "[t]he requirement that the agency record minutes of its meetings is triggered regardless of whether action is taken at the meeting." 98-OMD-94; 99-OMD-77; 99-OMD-117; 99-OMD-116. At a minimum, we have observed, the minutes should reflect that the meeting was convened, a quorum was present, minutes approved, formalities for going into and returning from a closed session were observed (if one was held), and the meeting adjourned.
2 In Acker, the court opined:
Certainly, when the statute says the proceedings shall be public, it means public to the citizenry directly concerned, in this case public to the citizens of Paradise Valley, Arizona, without the necessity of their leaving the incorporated limits of the municipality to attend a town council meeting. It does not seem reasonable that a meeting held outside of the town limits can comply with the statutory requirement. If a valid meeting can be held in Phoenix, then why not elsewhere, be it close or far distant?
Acker at 64.