20-OMD-158
October 7, 2020
In re: Glenn Hayden/Graves County School Board
Summary:
Social media posts by individual members of public agencies
regarding matters over which the agency has no authority to take action are
not “meetings” under the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”). There is no
evidence in the record to support a finding that the Graves County School
Board (“Board”) held a series of meetings with less than a quorum present
for the purposes of avoiding the requirements of the Act.
Open Meetings Decision
Glenn Hayden (“Appellant”) claims that the Board violated the Act when Vice-
Chair Kelly Eaton Thurman posted a negative comment about him on Thurman’s
personal Facebook page. The post relates to an Open Records Act appeal that Appellant
had made to this Office, and Thurman’s opinion of Appellant for having initiated that
appeal. Although Appellant also provides copies of the comments appearing under the
post, it is unclear if those commenters included other Board members.
“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, open to the public at all times[.]” KRS 61.810. The operative phrase is “public
business,” which means “the discussion of the various alternatives to a given issue about
which the board has the option to take action.” Yeoman v. Commw., Health Policy Bd., 983
S.W.2d 459, 474 (Ky. 1998). The subject post reflects one Board member’s personal opinion
about Appellant and has no relation to education, school administration, or any otherpolicy matter over which the Board “has the option to take action.” Id. Thus, the post
itself is not a violation of the Act.
Appellant also argues that Thurman uses her personal Facebook page as a “Secret
Rolling Quorum Open Meeting,” and that Thurman’s Facebook page promotes a series
of meetings in which less than a quorum is present. KRS 61.810(2). Even assuming that
was possible, there is nothing in the record to suggest that is what occurred here, because
neither the post nor subsequent comments relate to “public business” as defined in
Yeoman. Moreover, KRS 61.810(2) only prohibits a series of meetings between less than a
quorum of members “for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of” the Act. Because
there is no evidence in the record that the Board intended to avoid the requirements of
the Act when Thurman posted her comments, the Board did not violate the Act. 1
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 shall be
notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or
in any subsequent proceedings.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
/s/Marc Manley
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General
#311
Distributed to:
Glenn Hayden
Jesse E. Wright
1
Appellant also claims that his right to privacy was violated. This Office has no authority to address
such a claim. See e.g., 20-OMD-072 (finding several claims unrelated to enforcement of the Act as being
nonjusticiable by this Office).