Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Matt James, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Spencer County Board of Elections ("Board") violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to include the agenda for the meeting on notices of two special meetings on August 24, 2012, and September 11, 2012, and by not notifying the media of the August 24, 2012 meeting. We find that the Board committed violations of KRS 61.823(3) by not posting the agenda for the special meetings in the notices but did not violate KRS 61.823(4) by failing to report the special meeting to the media. We further find that the Board violated KRS 61.846(1) by not providing a response in writing to the complainant.
By letter dated September 5, 2012, Lawrence Trageser submitted a written complaint to Spencer County Clerk Lynn Hesselbrock, as chair of the Board of Elections, in which he alleged:
Regular scheduled meeting was supposed to be held, August 23, 2012. Instead, meeting was held August 24, 2012. This action created a special meeting.
Count 1. Special meeting was not posted with date, time, and place of the special meeting and the agenda.
Count 2. Media was not notified of special meeting.
By letter dated September 17, 2012, Mr. Trageser submitted a written complaint to Lynn Hesselbrock, in which he alleged:
Count 1. The Board of Elections special meeting held Tuesday, September 11, 2012 violated the open meetings act because it did not contain a listed special meeting agenda, on the posted notice.
Having received no written response, Mr. Trageser initiated this appeal to the Attorney General containing both complaints. He stated that he had received oral confirmation from Ms. Hesselbrock that no response would be forthcoming. Attached to the appeal were copies of photos of the notices posted on the rear door of the Spencer County Courthouse for each meeting.
Ms. Hesselbrock responded to Mr. Trageser's appeal by letter dated September 26, 2012. As a response to the first complaint, Ms. Hesselbrock provided the agenda for the Board meeting, indicating that Mr. Trageser was present at the meeting, and the printed notification of the meeting in the SPENCER MAGNET on August 22, 2012. As a response to the second complaint, Ms. Hesselbrock provided the agenda for the meeting and a confirmation email from the SPENCER MAGNET indicating receipt of the notification for the meeting. Copies of Mr. Trageser's photos of the notices for both meetings were also included.
KRS 61.823(3) provides that for special meetings, "the public agency shall provide written notice of the special meeting. The notice shall consist of the date, time, and place of the special meeting and the agenda. " Neither party disputes that the meetings were special meetings. The photos of the notices for both meetings submitted by Mr. Trageser indicate that the notices did not contain the agendas for the meetings. Accordingly, we find the Board in violation of KRS 61.823(3).
KRS 61.823(4)(a) provides that "as soon as possible, written notice shall be delivered? to? each media organization which has filed a written request. .. to receive notice of special meetings." KRS 61.823(4)(b) allows that the requirement of KRS 61.823(4)(a) may be met by sending the notice through electronic mail. It is unclear from the record whether the SPENCER MAGNET has filed a written request to receive notice of special meetings, or whether any other media organization has. Regardless, the printed notification for the August 24, 2012 meeting in the August 22, 2012 edition of the SPENCER MAGNET, and the email confirmation of notification of the September 11, 2012 meeting by the SPENCER MAGNET, indicate that the SPENCER MAGNET had sufficient notification of both meetings. Accordingly, we do not find the Board in violation of KRS 61.823(4)(a).
Ms. Hesselbrock does not dispute that she did not provide a written response to Mr. Trageser. KRS 61.846(1) requires that an agency receiving an open meetings complaint "shall notify in writing the person making the complaint? of its decision." Accordingly, we find the Board in 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.
Distributed to:
Lawrence TrageserLynn Hesselbrock