Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open meetings appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Hopkins County Fiscal Court mooted the issue on appeal by acknowledging error in permitting discussion of topics not specifically identified on the agenda for the special meeting(s) conducted on December 15, 2005. 1 In support, we refer the parties to 01-OMD-175, upon which Mr. Moore relies, construing KRS 61.823(3) to prohibit "the practice of including open ended agenda items like old and new business, or open to counsel and floor . . . ." 01-OMD-175, p. 6; see also, 03-OMD-149; 04-OMD-137. In addition, we refer the parties to 98-OMD-74 and 98-OMD-119, holding that when a public agency concedes the open meetings error alleged, the issue upon which the appeal is based becomes academic or moot. Copies of these decisions are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Hopkins County Fiscal Court having acknowledged its error and committed itself to corrective measures 2 consisting of the use of restricted agendas and omitting "open discussion" as an agenda item, we find that the issue which Mr. Moore raised in his December 27, 2005, open meetings appeal 3 is moot and no further analysis of the issue is warranted.
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.
Robert P. MooreHopkins County Attorney25 East Center StreetCourthouse AnnexMadisonville, KY 42431
Patricia HawkinsHopkins County Judge/Executive56 North Main StreetMadisonville, KY 42431
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 The "open discussion" which gave rise to Mr. Moore's complaint was conducted at the conclusion of the 2:00 p.m. special meeting of the Legislative Committee but apparently encroached upon the 3:00 p.m. meeting time for the Solid Waste Committee's special meeting. The agendas for both special meetings contained an agenda item for "open discussion," and were, to this extent, improper. It is therefore largely irrelevant whether the challenged discussion occurred during the Legislative Committee meeting or the Solid Waste Committee meeting.
2 We note that Mr. Moore's complaint did not contain proposed remedial action as required by KRS 61.846(1) ("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 "). (Emphasis added.)
3 Mr. Moore's appeal reached this office on January 3, 2006.