Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
This matter having come before the Attorney General on the question of whether the Spencer County Board of Elections violated the Open Meetings Act prior to a special meeting scheduled for November 19, 2013, by failing to comply fully with the notice requirements for special meetings under KRS 61.823 and improperly including the open-ended item "Any other new business" on the agenda, we find that said violations occurred. The regular meetings of the Board of Elections were held on the fourth Thursday of each month, and November 19, 2013, was a Tuesday. Thus, the meeting held on November 19 should have been treated as a special meeting.
Lawrence Trageser submitted a written complaint to this effect on November 20, 2013, and Spencer County Clerk Lynn Hesselbrock's November 22, 2013, response admitted the substance of the allegations while maintaining that the November 19 meeting was a "rescheduled regular meeting" and therefore not subject to the notice and agenda requirements of KRS 61.823 for special meetings. Mr. Trageser initiated an appeal to this office on December 17, 2013, and Ms. Hesselbrock replied on December 26, 2013, that the "Board of Elections did not knowingly intend to violate the spirit of the law," but that she had misunderstood the legal effect of rescheduling a regular meeting for a different day. Given the factual admissions, we find that the notice and agenda for the November 19 meeting failed to comply with the special meeting requirements of KRS 61.823.
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.
# 494
Distributed to:
Mr. Lawrence TrageserLynn Hesselbrock, ClerkRuth A. Hollan, Esq.