Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Michelle D. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Mt. Vernon City Council violated the Kentucky Open Meetings Act in, among other things, failing to comply with any of the notice requirements codified at KRS 61.815(1) that "shall be met as a condition for conducting a closed session" authorized by KRS 61.810 , before going into a closed session during its April 19, 2010, meeting, and in discussing a "general personnel matter" beyond the scope of the specific provision upon which it presumably relied in conducting the closed session, KRS 61.810(1)(f), as prohibited by KRS 61.815(1)(d). In 10-OMD-100, the decision by this office which resolved the recent appeal initiated by Mt. Vernon City Councilman Don Jones, the Attorney General found that both violations were, in fact, committed. Based upon the unrefuted evidence presented, this office also concluded that the "Council took final action during the improperly held closed session, in direct contravention of KRS 61.815(1)(c), and violated KRS 61.846(1) in failing to issue a written response within three business days of receiving" Mr. Jones' complaint. 10-OMD-100, p. 1. Because the allegations in Michael Sheliga's April 30, 2010, complaint largely mirror those found in Mr. Jones' April 19 complaint regarding the actions of the Mt. Vernon City Council prior to, as well as during the closed session held during its April 19 meeting, and the City Council's response to Mr. Sheliga's appeal is also identical to that provided in response to Mr. Jones' appeal, the reasoning found in 10-OMD-100 is controlling on all of the issues presented. 1 A copy of 10-OMD-100 is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
As in the prior appeal, the record here "is devoid of any indication that the Council provided any notice prior to entering into the closed session at issue. The Council did not challenge Mr. Jones' [or Mr. Sheliga's] account of the meeting in response to his complaint or address the Council's apparent non-compliance with KRS 61.815(1)(a) in responding to his appeal." 10-OMD-100, p. 6. As before, this office therefore finds that "[a] declaration by the Mayor that a closed session is necessary, standing alone, simply does not constitute a 'specific and complete notification.' In failing to strictly comply with the requirements of KRS 61.815(1) prior to conducting the closed session held on April 19, the Council acted in contravention of" Floyd County Board of Education v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1997), the fundamental policy of the Open Meetings Act codified at KRS 61.800, and prior decisions of this office. 10-OMD-100, p. 6. Likewise, in admittedly discussing the general personnel matter of whether the City was required to pay the former Mayor for unused vacation time, as opposed to any of the specifically authorized subjects identified at KRS 61.810(1)(f), the Council "'expanded the scope of the [personnel] exception and improperly concealed matters otherwise appropriate to the view of the public[,]' in violation of the Open Meetings Act. Ratliff, above, at 924." 10-OMD-100, p. 9. Here, as in 10-OMD-100, the Council also essentially conceded a violation of KRS 61.815(1)(c) in asserting on appeal that it "failed to come back into a public session and announce the actions that it had taken in the executive session. " (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Council has offered no explanation for its failure to issue any written response upon receipt of Mr. Sheliga's written complaint, which constitutes a violation of KRS 61.846(1).
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.
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
Michael SheligaGary CromerJerry J. Cox
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Issues related to Mr. Sheliga's request(s) for certain records, which he made simultaneously with his complaint under the Open Meetings Act, will be addressed separately in Open Records Appeal, Log No. 20100187.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -