Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
John Likins appeals the Caney Creek Watershed Conservancy District's handling of the July 18, 2014, open meetings complaint he attempted to personally deliver to the presiding officer of the district's board. Mr. Likins alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act based on the district's refusal to admit the public to its meetings, 1 its failure to adopt a regular meeting schedule to be made available to the public upon request, 2 and its failure to give proper notice of special meetings. 3 On appeal, Mr. Likins also states that he received no written response to his open meetings complaint. 4
In an unsigned response directed to this office after Mr. Likins initiated his appeal, the district advised that it "is in the process of complying with the Open Meetings Act, " agreeing to post "on the door of the office where the watershed meeting will be held at [least] 24 hours prior to the meeting" a meeting notice "with the agenda attached." Additionally, the district agreed to send the newspaper "a meeting notice . . . with the meeting date, time, and place of each meeting to be held." In a separate response directed to this office on behalf of the district, the Grayson County Attorney stated:
The Caneyville Watershed District [sic] does hold an annual regular meeting per year. We will continue to comply with KRS 61.820 by providing the schedule of that meeting to the public. With reference to emergency meetings or special meetings, we will comply with KRS 61.823 by faxing notice of the date, time, location and agenda of the special meeting to every member of the public agency and every media organization that has filed a written request for notice at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the emergency or special meeting. Further, conspicuous notice will be posted in the building where the special or emergency meeting is to take place at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting. It is our intent to continue to comply with the KRS 61.800, et. seq.
Neither response acknowledged that violations of the Open Meetings Act, as alleged by Mr. Likins in his complaint, had occurred.
The Open Meetings Act states that all meetings of a quorum of the members of a public agency at which public business is discussed or action is taken "shall be public meetings, open to the public at all times" except for that portion of a meeting set aside to discuss one of thirteen statutorily approved subjects found at KRS 61.810(1)(a) through (m). 5 The Caney Creek Watershed Conservancy District is a public agency, as defined in KRS 61.805(2)(c), and does not dispute Mr. Likins' allegation that it violated the Act by failing to admit the public to its meetings and by failing to give proper notice of its meetings. We draw no inferences from the district's silence in relation to Mr. Likins' complaint, but find that if the district's board did, in fact, refuse to admit the public to its meetings; did, in fact, fail to adopt a regular meeting schedule; and did, in fact, fail to give proper notice of its special meetings, the board's actions constituted violations of KRS 61.810(1), KRS 61.820, and KRS 61.823, respectively. There can be no doubt that the district violated KRS 61.846(1) by failing to respond in writing, and within three business days, to Mr. Likins' open meetings complaint.
Because the district has agreed to implement Mr. Likins' proposed remedies by admitting the public to its meetings, both regular and special, and complying with the requirements of KRS 61.820 and KRS 61.823 in providing notice of regular and special meetings, the issues on appeal merit no further analysis. However, the unsigned response from the district reflects only a partial understanding of its obligations under KRS 61.820 and 61.823. We are hopeful that counsel for the district will assist the district to ensure strict compliance with the Open Meetings Act. In particular, we urge the district to strictly comply with the requirements for special meetings found at KRS 61.823(2), (3), and (4) in relation to content, distribution, and posting of meeting notice. We trust that any doubt about the district's statutory duty to admit all members of the public to its board meetings, and to properly respond to open meetings complaints, has been eliminated.
Either party may appeal this decision 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:
John R. LikinsJerry FraimK. Clay Ratley
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.810(1).
2 KRS 61.820.
3 KRS 61.823.
4 KRS 61.846(1).
5 Before conducting a closed session to discuss one or more of these approved subjects, the agency must observe the requirements for going into closed session found at KRS 61.815(1)(a) through (d). No final action can be taken in the closed session.