Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Matt James,Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
The questions presented in this appeal are whether the City of Meadow Vale ("City") violated the Open Meetings Act in not responding to a complaint within three days and in holding an informational meeting to discuss events committee selection without a quorum present. We find that the City did not violate the Open Meetings Act in holding an informational meeting concerning an events committee where a quorum was not present and no action was taken. The City violated the Open Meetings Act in not responding to a complaint within three business days.
On July 13, 2017, the City held a "volunteers informational meeting." The minutes of the meeting stated:
Mayor Hornek introduced the five people who have expressed an interest in helping with events for the City of Meadow Vale. . . .
Past Commission minutes stated a need to assign a committee to assist with Social Events Planning. Mayor Hornek explained that their names would be submitted to the City Commission, for approval, at the next city meeting. The conversation that followed was a brain storming of ideas for upcoming events to be shared at the first meeting. A tentative meeting date was set for the first Tuesday of every quarter with additional meetings as needed. The first meeting to be August 1, 2017 at 6PM to make the appointments and establish committee.
Mayor Hornek gave a copy of the city's ethic ordinance . . . . We went over the guidelines for submitting requests for funds, gathering vendor information etc.
On August 1, 2017, Meadow Vale City Commissioner Melissa Steineker submitted an open meetings complaint to Meadow Vale Mayor Mary Hornek. The document was titled "City of Meadow Vale Open meetings complaint," addressed to Mayor Hornek, and began by stating "because you are the presiding officer at city council meetings I am submitting to you a complaint concerning a city volunteer committee meeting held on July 13, 2017." Steineker alleged that "you, Commissioner Roberts, and Commissioner Morrow planned this meeting as a quorum, therefore causing it to be subject to Open Meetings requirements and, therefore, an illegal meeting." In support of her allegations, Steineker claimed that:
. The meeting minutes from the June meeting of the City of Meadow Vale indicate that Commissioner Roberts, Morrow, and Mayor Hornek planned the meeting. . . .
. The meeting was held at City Hall . . . .
. The meeting was not properly advertised according to Open Meetings requirements . . . .
. The email that Mayor Hornek sent to Commissioner Steineker the afternoon of the meeting defending the meeting is an attempt at manipulating legal requirements . . . .
. The minutes that Commissioner Morrow took . . . are entitled "Volunteers Informational Meeting," and reference the Commission Meeting Minutes. . . . 1
On August 23, 2017, Steineker initiated this appeal. Steineker alleged that her "response to my complaint, dated August 1, 2017, was not responded to within the three days prescribed by law." 2 She further alleged that:
One of her enclosures is a photo of her taking a photo of a "Notice of Special Meeting" regarding the Events Committee Appointment. " This notice, in order to meet the requirements of the law, should have been made "24 hours in advance of the special meeting. " It was not. . . . As the enclosed photo of the door of City Hall proves, the meeting had not been posted 4 1/2 hours prior to said meeting.
. . . Mayor Hornek took actions, including posting the meeting on the door of City Hall, dispatching the City of Meadow Vale Police Chief to my home to summon me to City hall, and emailing me explaining that if I came to the meeting it would constitute a quorum and "no city business would be discussed" to cover and defend her illegal, premeditated actions . . . . 3
Steineker attached a "Notice of Special Meeting" at City Hall dated June 13, 2017 for "Events Committee Appointment, " which stated that "no Action will be taken at this meeting." She also attached an email from Mayor Hornek addressed to Steineker, and sent to her and the City Council members, dated July 13, 2017, 3:45 PM, which stated, "you are welcome to come for the appointment this evening at 6 PM at City Hall. There will be no meeting, only the appointment of committee members. . . . With you, Commissioner Morrow and me there this evening it would constitute a quorum and no city business will be discussed." 4
The City responded on September 5, 2017, stating:
The City Mayor received a complaint by Commissioner Melissa Steineker on August 4, 2017 . . . . The same letter was also sent to the City Ethics Board . . . . In consideration of the complaint being sent to the Ethics Board in addition to the accusations of unethical behavior, it was decided this was a matter for the Board of Ethics.
The Ethics Board met on August 8, 2017, set a preliminary inquiry meeting, . . . and subsequently found no ethical violations and further found this complaint not to be the proper forum for what appeared to be an open meetings complaint.
The City also attached a letter from Mayor Hornek, which stated:
There was no business acted on at the meeting of the group . . . .
. . . The photograph in question was taken when the notice was posted after being advised by the attorney that such be done. It was posted in the event Ms. Steineker came to the meeting as well as another Commissioner, and thus, constituting a quorum. She did not attend and there was no quorum of the City Commission present. . . .
. . . As to the formation of the committee, it had yet to be approved though there was discussion as to it's [sic] feasibility and the interest of any residents. . . . Approval of the committee occurred at our July 17, 2017 meeting that was held in open session and noted in the minutes. 5
KRS 61.846(1) provides that upon receipt of a written complaint under the Open Meetings Act, "the public agency shall determine within three (3) days . . . after the receipt of the complaint whether to remedy the alleged violation pursuant to the complaint and shall notify in writing the person making the complaint, within the three (3) day period, of its decision." The City states that it treated Steineker's open meetings complaint as an ethics board complaint and responded using those procedures. The document is titled "City of Meadow Vale Open meetings complaint," addressed to Mayor Hornek as the presiding officer of City Council meetings, and references open meetings issues throughout. It should have been construed by the City as an open meetings complaint. The City does not dispute that it did not respond to Steineker's open meetings complaint within three days. Accordingly, in not timely responding to Steineker's open meetings complaint within three days, the City violated the Open Meetings Act.
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." "In the absence of a quorum at a single meeting . . . there 'was not a public meeting under the Open Meetings Act. '" 16-OMD-065. Here it does not seem to be disputed that there was not a quorum of the City Council at the events committee appointment meeting. While the City nonetheless untimely posted a notice of a special meeting in the event a quorum attended, and Steineker was notified that if she attended the meeting, a quorum would be present, it is not disputed that a quorum did not attend the meeting. Further, no action appears to have been taken by the agency at the meeting. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not find that the City violated the Open Meetings Act in holding an informational meeting concerning an events committee, where a quorum was not present and no action was taken.
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