Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
Lawrence Trageser appeals the Spencer County Fiscal Court's response to his January 7, 2016, open meetings complaint alleging that the magistrates conducted a series of less than quorum non-public meetings with the Spencer County Sheriff to discuss the sheriff's budget, that the magistrates attending the non-public meeting collectively constituted a quorum of the fiscal court, and that the purpose of these meetings was to avoid discussion of the budget in a public meeting. In a January 11 response prepared by the Spencer County Attorney, the magistrates acknowledged participation in a series of less than quorum meetings at which the sheriff's budget was discussed. Additionally, the magistrates acknowledged that those in attendance collectively constituted a quorum. Although the county attorney apologized to the "citizens of Spencer County," he declined, on behalf of the fiscal court, to implement the other remedies Mr. Trageser proposed in his January 7 complaint. The actions described constitute a violation of KRS 61.810(2). 1
In 10-OMD-043 the Attorney General addressed this issue in a nearly identical factual context. There, the complaint alleged that four of six members of the Butler County Fiscal Court met with the Butler County Sheriff, in a series of less than quorum meetings, to discuss the sheriff's budget. Emphasizing that "[t]he right of the public to be informed transcends any loss of efficiency," 2 and that the public's right to be informed includes not only the right to know what decisions are made but how they are made, 3 we concluded that the magistrates' actions fell within the zone of conduct prohibited by KRS 61.810(2). We find that 10-OMD-043 is persuasive and rely on the analysis set forth therein. A copy of 10-OMD-043 is attached.
Because the role of this office in adjudicating a dispute under the Open Meetings Act is limited to issuing a decision "stat[ing] whether the agency violated the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850," the Attorney General is not authorized to comment on the remedies proposed by the complainant or implemented by the agency. 12-OMD-200 (enclosed). Here, as in past open meetings decisions, we respectfully decline to do so.
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.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.810(2) states:
Any series of less than quorum meetings, where the members attending one (1) or more of the meetings collectively constitute at least a quorum of the members of the public agency and where the meetings are held for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit discussions between individual members where the purpose of the discussions is to educate the members on specific issues.
2 Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Univ. of Kentucky Presidential Search Comm., 732 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Ky. 1987).
3 KRS 61.800 (recognizing that "[t]he formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret").