Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Matt James,Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
The questions presented in this appeal are whether the Corbin Public Library Board ("Library Board") violated the Open Meetings Act in conducting unscheduled committee meetings and meetings of a quorum of the Library Board without complying with the notice requirements for a special meeting, in not keeping minutes of meetings, in not timely approving accurate copies of the minutes, in holding meetings after hours behind locked doors, and in not complying with the notice requirements for going into executive session. We find that the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act in conducting unscheduled committee meetings and meetings of a quorum of the Library Board without complying with the notice requirements for a special meeting, in not keeping minutes of meetings, in not timely approving accurate copies of the minutes, in holding meetings after hours behind locked doors, and in not complying with the notice requirements for going into executive session.
Background
Brenda Huff submitted a written complaint to the Library Board on February 27, 2017, alleging the following open meetings violations: 1
. Based on meeting minutes from other meetings, committee meetings were held on December 2, 2014 and January 8, 2015, but minutes of those committee meetings were not recorded.
. Several meetings were held after hours and behind locked doors on September 26, 2015, November 9, 2015, May 11, 2016, June 14, 2016, and October 3, 2016.
. On August 15, 2016, "a brunch [was] held this day, with a quorum of board members present, was held by invitation only and began at 10:00 a.m. The library was closed to the public as the staff were attending a training."
. "The minutes from the May 10, 2016 meeting seem to suggest that this meeting was scheduled at that meeting, for the purpose of approving the May 10, 2016 minutes so that changes could be made to the library's accounts. Less than 24 hours separate the action in the May 10, 2016 meeting and the convening of the May 11, 2016 meeting . . . ."
. On August 18, 2016, "a meeting was held at the home of a board member. The minutes do not reflect the location of this meeting (the library was closed due to a bedbug infestation) ."
. There were no minutes kept for a November 17, 2016 meeting.
. On December 8, 2016, "the board voted to enter into executive session, but did not state any reason aside from "personnel. "
As a remedy, Huff requested proof that the meetings complied with the Open Meetings Act.
The Library Board responded on March 4, 2017. It stated that "the issues in question regarding the Open Meetings Act . . . have been addressed and the Board of Trustees has taken steps to ensure that Board meetings will be open to the public at all times and the minutes and all necessary records will be properly presented and archived . . . ." The Library Board noted that names or initials were often written on copies to ensure that particular staff receive the copies, and that "Mrs. Hoskins provided for your review the Board Secretary's copies of the minutes . . . because it appeared at the time that Heather Croley was only able to locate and produce some but not all of the library records you requested." The Library Board admitted that three of its members did meet on December 2, 2014 to discuss recommendations, but that "no decisions were made by us . . . . only recommendations were produced." It further asserted that "the same process happened with the January 8 gathering of ideas . . . presented in the February 12, 2015 meeting." The Library Board stated that it did not know whether "minutes were taken or committee meetings announced," but that "no decisions of any kind were made at these committee meetings." Regarding the brunch, the Library Board stated that a quorum of board members was present, but that "no business was conducted during this brunch. "
On March 13, 2017, Huff submitted another complaint to the Library Board. In addition to reiterating her previous allegations, Huff additionally alleged:
. "The minutes for meetings held on October 8, 2015, November 6, 2015, July 14, 2016, August 2, 2016, August 11, 2016, and August 18, 2016 that I viewed . . . were signed and dated with dates that did not correspond to meetings in which this minutes were approved
. "Minutes for the June 14, 2016 meeting signed on July 14, 2016 and the August 15, 2016 meeting minutes that are signed on the same date were never approved at any subsequent meeting."
. "I was provided with two different sets of minutes for the December 11, 2015 meeting . . . . When I viewed the minutes in the library, yet a third set of minutes was presented . . . with handwritten corrections."
. "The library board waited weeks and sometimes months to approve minutes for October 8, 2015, October 29, 2015, November 9, 2015, November 12, 2015, May 24, 2016, July 14, 2016, August 2, 2016, August 11, 2016, and August 18, 2016."
. At the December 8, 2016 meeting, "attendees were told to sign in at the meeting, an apparent violation of KRS 61.840."
Huff asked for specific remedies, including amending the minutes and voiding of several of the actions.
Huff initiated this appeal, which was received on March 30, 2017. Huff argued that "the board failed to acknowledge my request for remedy for meetings of the board and committees appointed by the board . . . . For meetings held on August 26, 2015, and November 17, 2016, video footage exists of these board meetings in apparent violation of some or all of the aforementioned statutes." Huff attached two substantively identical versions of the minutes from the Library Board's December 11, 2015 meeting, one of which was more properly formatted and corrected several typos in the other version, and screenshots of video captures on September 26, 2015 and November 17, 2016.
The Library Board responded to the appeal on April 10, 2017, addressing Huff's issues as follows:
. December 2, 2014 and January 8, 2015 discussions: the Library Board admitted that on December 2, 2014, "a committee did get together on a Tuesday morning at the library to look at the policies we had been asked to examine," and "this same process happened with the January 8 gathering of ideas on the policies in question." The Library Board reiterated that "only recommendations were collected . . . . no decision of any kind was made."
. Meetings after hours behind locked doors: the Library Board admitted that "we are now aware of this as a violation and we have not met behind locked doors at any time since Dec. 1, 2016. . . . We understand that doors must be unlocked at all times during the meeting so the public will have easy access."
. Invitation-only brunch meeting on August 15, 2016: the Library Board stated that "the only purpose of the very brief meeting that followed the brunch was to approve the minutes of the previous meeting."
. August 18, 2016 meeting that was held at the home of a board member due to a bedbug infestation in the library: the Library Board conceded that "we admit this is a clear violation of the law."
. November 17, 2016 meeting for which no minutes were kept: the Library Board stated that "this was a random incident of members just being in the library at the same time."
. Executive session at the December 8, 2016 meeting, for which "personnel" was the only stated reason: the Library Board indicated that "we were unsure as to whether we had followed the proper rules in going into executive session. "
Analysis
Regarding the meetings of a committee of board members where recommendations were discussed but no actions were taken, KRS 61.805(1) provides that "'meeting' means all gatherings of every kind, . . . regardless of where the meeting is held, and whether regular or special and informational or casual gatherings held in anticipation of or in conjunction with a regular or special meeting. " KRS 61.810(1) provides that "all meetings of a quorum of the members of any public agency at which any public business is discussed or at which any action is taken by the agency, shall be public meetings." 2 "In construing this provision, the Attorney General has focused on the use of the disjunctive particle, 'or,' rather than the conjunction, 'and.' On those occasions when a quorum of the members of a public agency are present and the members discuss public business or take action, the requirements of the Open Meetings Act must be observed." 11-OMD-060 (citations omitted). It is thus not necessary for action to be taken at a meeting to make that a public meeting; discussion of public business by a quorum of members invokes the application of the Open Meetings Act. This extends to subcommittees, as KRS 61.805(2)(g) provides that "public agency" means "any board, commission, committee, subcommittee, ad hoc committee, advisory committee, council, or agency . . . established, created, and controlled by a 'public agency. '" It is unclear from the record whether a quorum of board members were present at these meetings, but the Library Board effectively concedes that a committee of board members met to discuss public business, even though only recommendations were formulated and no final action was taken.
Regarding other meetings, the Board does admit that a quorum of board members met randomly at the library on November 17, 2016 and discussed public business. The Library Board also admits that after the brunch on August 15, 2016, a brief meeting was held "to approve the minutes of the previous meeting." Concerning the meeting held at a board member's home due to a bedbug infestation in the library, KRS 61.820 provides that "all meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public." The Library Board admits that "this is a clear violation of the law." The board also held a meeting on May 11, 2016 less than twenty-four hours after a meeting on May 10, 2016. These meetings, and the committee meetings to discuss policy, were not regularly scheduled meetings, and must therefore comply with the requirements of a special meeting in KRS 61.823, but there is no evidence that the Library Board attempted to comply with those requirements. Accordingly, in convening special meetings of committees to discuss public business without complying with the requirements of KRS 61.823, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act.
Regarding the keeping of minutes, KRS 61.835 provides that "the minutes of action taken at every meeting of any such public agency, setting forth an accurate record of votes and actions at such meetings, shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection at reasonable times no later than immediately following the next meeting of the body." The Board does not deny that no minutes were kept for the December 2, 2014, January 8, 2015, and November 17, 2016 meetings. Accordingly, in not keeping minutes for public meetings, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act.
Huff also argues that the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act by "waiting weeks and sometimes months to approve minutes. " The minutes provided for the December 11, 2015 indicated that "Minutes of Meeting of Oct. 8, Oct. 29, Nov. 6, Nov. 9, Nov. 12 and Nov. 16, 2015 were approved as amended." In failing to approve accurate minutes by the next meeting of the body, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act. See 05-OMD-188 (To the extent the City Commission otherwise failed to take and promptly approve accurate minutes . . ., the City Commission violated KRS 61.835."). 3
Regarding meetings held after hours and behind locked doors, KRS 61.810(1) provides that "all meetings . . . of any public agency . . . shall be public meetings, open to the public at all times." An agency violates KRS 61.810(1) by locking the doors to a public meeting. See 03-OMD-169 ("The Commission . . . violated KRS 61.810(1) in that access to the meeting was temporarily blocked, albeit unintentionally, when the doors to the building were locked while the meeting was in session. "). The Library Board concedes that this is a violation, and that it has discontinued the practice since December 1, 2016. Accordingly, in holding meetings after hours behind locked doors, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act.
Regarding the executive session on December 8, 2016, for which only "personnel" was stated as the reason for the executive session, KRS 61.815(a) requires that to conduct a closed session, "notice shall be given in regular open meeting of the general nature of the business to be discussed in closed session, the reason for the closed session, and the specific provision of KRS 61.810 authorizing the closed session. " It is not disputed that these requirements are not met. Accordingly, in stating only "personnel" as notice for an executive session, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act.
Huff also alleges that at the December 8, 2016 meeting, attendees were instructed to sign in. KRS 61.840 provides that "no person may be required to identify himself in order to attend any such meeting." "Conditions on attendance, such as . . . a mandatory sign-in sheet have been held to contravene KRS 61.840." 05-OMD-200 (citations omitted). The record before us is unclear whether there was a sign-in sheet, or whether it was mandatory, and is therefore insufficient to find a violation.
In summary, the Library Board violated the Open Meetings Act in conducting unscheduled committee meetings and meetings of a quorum of the Library Board without complying with the notice requirements for a special meeting, in not keeping minutes of such meetings, in not timely approving accurate copies of the minutes, in holding meetings after hours behind locked doors, and in not complying with the notice requirements for going into executive session. While we do not question the intent or integrity of the Library Board, we caution them to be cognizant of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act going forward. 4
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 must 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