23-OMD-119
June 2, 2023
In re: Nathaniel Crenshaw/City of Richlawn
Summary: The City of Richlawn (“the City”) did not violate the Open
Meetings Act (“the Act”) when it held a video teleconference meeting in
compliance with KRS 61.826.
Open Meetings Decision
On May 16, 2023, in a written complaint submitted under KRS 61.846(1),
Nathaniel Crenshaw (“Appellant”) alleged the City had violated the Act in connection
with its video teleconference meeting on May 15, 2023. First, the Appellant claimed
the meeting notice failed to “precisely identify a primary physical location” of the
meeting in violation of KRS 61.826(2)(d). Second, he claimed the meeting notice failed
to give “specific information on how [to] view the meeting electronically” in violation
of KRS 61.826(2)(c). Finally, the Appellant claimed the City had violated
KRS 61.826(4) by failing to suspend the video teleconference when “the audio stream
throughout the meeting was garbled such that members of the public could not
effectively observe nor participate in the meeting.” As a remedy for the alleged
violations, the Appellant requested that the City void any action taken during the
meeting.
In a timely response, the City asserted it had given adequate notice of the
meeting location and the means for observing the meeting electronically. The City
further stated the Mayor and City Commissioners were unaware of any problems
with the video or audio stream during the meetings. Therefore, the City denied
having violated the Act. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the City claims the meeting was not a video teleconference because
the Mayor and Commissioners all met in person. The Act, however, defines “video
teleconference” as “one (1) meeting, occurring in two (2) or more locations, whereindividuals can see and hear each other by means of video and audio equipment.”
KRS 61.805(5) (emphasis added). The use of the word “individuals,” rather than
“members,” indicates that video teleconferences are not limited to meetings where
members of the public agency participate remotely, but also include meetings where
the general public may attend and participate remotely by video. See 20-OMD-040.
Therefore, the City’s meeting on May 15, 2023, was subject to the provisions
applicable to video teleconferences.
Under KRS 61.826(2)(d), “[i]n any case where the public agency has elected to
provide a physical location, or in any circumstance where two (2) or more members of
the public agency are attending a video teleconference meeting from the same
physical location,” the meeting notice must “precisely identify a primary physical
location of the video teleconference where all members can be seen and heard and the
public may attend in accordance with KRS 61.840.” Here, the City’s notice identified
the location as the “St. Matthews Fire Station” at the “Corner of Sears Ave. & Lyndon
Way,” which is in the adjacent community of St. Matthews. The Appellant claims the
City violated the Act by failing to provide a “street number.” However, nothing in the
Act specifically requires the notice to include a street number. Rather, the notice need
only “precisely identify” the physical location. The City asserts there is only one fire
station located at the intersection of Sears Avenue and Lyndon Way in St. Matthews,
which “is well known to all residents of the area.” Given these facts, the information
provided in the notice precisely identified the primary physical location of the
meeting. Accordingly, the City did not violate KRS 61.826(2)(d).
The notice of a video teleconference meeting must also “[p]rovide specific
information on how any member of the public or media organization may view the
meeting electronically.” KRS 61.826(2)(c). Here, the City issued an electronic notice
that included a link to the City’s website, where an “online meeting link” could be
found. A website link is sufficient to comply with KRS 61.826(2)(c). See, e.g., 21-OMD-
018. The Appellant does not allege the online meeting link did not exist or was
difficult to find on the City’s website. Therefore, the City did not violate
KRS 61.826(2)(c).
Finally, under KRS 61.826(4), “[a]ny interruption in the video or audio
broadcast of a video teleconference at any location shall result in the suspension of
the video teleconference until the broadcast is restored.” In order to suspend the
teleconference, however, the public agency must be aware of an interruption. In the
City’s response to the complaint, the Mayor stated he was aware of only three
residents who attended the meeting virtually, with two of whom he “conversed . . .
directly via computer,” and the third of whom “only attended for a few minutes and
did not ask any questions.” The Appellant is not one of the three residents known by
the City to have attended the meeting virtually. Furthermore, the Appellant provides
no evidence of “garbled” audio, beyond his mere allegation. More importantly, heprovides no evidence that the Mayor or City Commissioners were aware of any such
audio problems. Accordingly, this Office cannot conclude that the City violated the
Act by failing to suspend the video teleconference due to an interruption of the
broadcast.
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. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#198
Distributed to:
Mr. Nathaniel Crenshaw
Stephen T. Porter, Esq.
Daniel Sullivan, Clerk
Hon. Matthew Brotzge