Request By:
Wm. Allen Love
P.O. Box 873
Versailles, KY 40383Fred Siegelman, Mayor
City of Versailles
196 South Main Street
P.O. Box 625
Versailles, KY 40383William K. Moore, City Attorney
City of Versailles
126 S. Main Street
Versailles, KY 40383-1214
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 Versailles City Council mooted the issue on appeal by acknowledging its error in failing to treat all council committees as public agencies for open meetings purposes and adhere to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act in the conduct of their meetings. The express language of the Act, 1 coupled with the overwhelming weight of legal authority, 2 supports the view that a committee established, created, and controlled by a public agency is itself a public agency within the meaning of KRS 61.805(2)(g), notwithstanding the fact that the committee is comprised of less than a quorum of the members of the public agency that created it and is not empowered to take action but instead operates in an advisory capacity. The Versailles City Council having now acknowledged its error and committed itself to corrective measures consisting of strict adherence to all requirements of the Open Meetings Act in the conduct of committee meetings, 3 we find that the issue Mr. Love raised in his August 9, 2006, open meetings appeal is moot, and that no further analysis of the issue is warranted. See 98-OMD-74 and 98-OMD-119 (enclosed) (holding that when a public agency concedes the open meetings error alleged, the issue upon which the appeal is based becomes academic or moot) ; compare 02-OMD-135 (holding that issues on appeal were not mooted insofar as public agency neither acknowledged open meetings error nor agreed to the proposed course of remedial action or a mutually agreed upon alternative course of remedial action) .
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 proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.805(2)(g) defines the term "public agency" as:
Any board, commission, committee, subcommittee, ad hoc committee, advisory committee, council, or agency, except for a committee of a hospital medical staff or a committee formed for the purpose of evaluating the qualifications of public agency employees, established, created, and controlled by a "public agency" as defined in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (h) of this subsection.
2 See 99-OMD-77 (enclosed) , and authorities cited therein.
3 We note certain irregularities in the council's supplemental response relative to its proposed compliance with KRS 61.823(4)(a) and (b). We remind the council that each committee is statutorily obligated to strictly observe these provisions, and that the announcement of committee meeting times during regular meetings of the council is not a recognized method of noticing special meetings. While such notice may be given in addition to the meeting notice contemplated by KRS 61.823(4)(a), it cannot be given in lieu of notice delivered personally, by fax, or by U.S. Mail. See 04-OMD-184 (enclosed) (holding that oral notice may be utilized in addition to, but not in lieu of, the statutorily required methods of communication). It is imperative that the council and each committee adhere, in all particulars, with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.