Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Ryan M. Halloran, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the faculty of the University of Louisville Department of Urban and Public Affairs Faculty violated the Open Meetings Act in conducting nonpublic meetings that did not conform to the requirements of the Act. Because the KRS 61.846(1) complaint out of which this appeal arises failed to "state the circumstances which constituted an alleged violation," that complaint was deficient and the issue presented on appeal is not ripe for review. Accord 13-OMD-037, note 1.
In 13-OMD-037, the Attorney General refused to consider arguments relating to the University's "Faculty of the School (Department) of Urban and Public Affairs" and "Admissions and Review Committee of the School (Department) of Public Affairs" because "the record [did] not contain complaints from [the complaining party, Dr. Christopher] Grande, in relation to these entities that comport with KRS 61.846(1) by identifying 'the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 . . . .'" 13-OMD-037, p. 1, note 1. Our refusal was based on the KRS 61.846(2) requirement that an appellant "forward to the Attorney General a copy of the written complaint" that is required by KRS 61.846(1), mandating inclusion of a statement of "the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation," and the corresponding administrative regulation prohibiting this office from "consider[ing] a complaint that fails to conform to KRS 61.846(2) . . . ." 40 KAR 1:030 Section 1. As in 13-OMD-037, the omission of a statement of the circumstances constituting an alleged violation precludes us from considering Dr. Grande's arguments.
In his January 29, 2013, "Appeal to Presiding Officer of Public Agency: Violations of KOMA viz the School (Department) of Urban and Public Affairs Faculty Meetings" directed to President James Ramsey, Dr. Grande referenced "collateral materials," recited various provisions of the Open Meetings Act and a publication prepared by the Legislative Research Commission, and proposed a series of remedies, but failed to identify a specific meeting date on which a specific violation occurred. The omission of a statement of the circumstances constituting an alleged violation again precludes consideration by this office. Accord, 00-OMD-156; 06-OMD-079; 13-OMD-037.
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:
J. Fox DeMoiseyChristopher M. GrandeAngela D. KoshewaDeborah H. PattersonJames R. Ramsey