23-OMD-184
July 25, 2023
In re: Alan Halsey/Wolfe County Tourism Commission
Summary: The Wolfe County Tourism Commission (the “Commission”)
violated the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a
timely response to a complaint. The Commission also violated the Act
when it entered closed session to discuss a “personnel matter” without
providing adequate notice in open session whether such discussions
would lead to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of the employee.
Open Meetings Decision
On May 11, 2023, Alan Halsey (“Appellant”) submitted a written complaint to
the Commission’s presiding officer alleging it had violated the Act at its meeting on
May 10, 2023, when it entered closed session to discuss the removal of its current
director. On May 11, 2023, the Commission confirmed receipt of the Appellant’s
complaint and stated, “it has been forwarded to all commissioners as well as [the
Commission’s] attorney.” On July 11, 2023, having received no further response from
the Commission, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
Under KRS 61.846(1), a person seeking to enforce the Act must first submit
his or her complaint to the presiding officer of the public agency. After receiving a
complaint, the public agency “shall determine within three (3) [business] days . . .
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.” KRS 61.846(1). Here, the Appellant submitted a complaint in writing to the
Commission’s presiding officer on May 11, 2023. However, the Commission did not
notify the Appellant in writing whether it denied the alleged violation or would acceptthe Appellant’s proposed remedy within three business days of receiving the
complaint. Therefore, the Commission violated the Act.
The Commission also violated the Act at the May 10, 2023, meeting. The
Appellant states the Commission voted to enter a closed session to “discuss an
employee.”1 When a quorum of members of a public agency discusses, or takes action
on, public business over which it has jurisdiction, a “meeting” occurs and shall be
open to the public. KRS 61.810. Under KRS 61.810(1), a public agency may discuss
several topics in closed session without the public present. However, prior to entering
closed session to discuss these topics, the public agency must give notice in the open
session “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.” KRS 61.815(1)(a).
One exception is KRS 61.810(1)(f), which authorizes a public agency to enter
closed session to hold discussions “which might lead to the appointment, discipline,
or dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student.” Because
KRS 61.810(1)(f) expressly forbids the discussion of “general personnel matters in
secret,” this Office has found that a public agency cannot merely state it is discussing
“personnel matters” before entering closed session. See, e.g., 21-OMD-091 (finding
that, prior to entering closed session under KRS 61.810(1)(f), the agency must state,
at a minimum, whether the discussions are likely to lead to appointment, likely to
lead to discipline, or likely to lead to dismissal of an employee); 97-OMD-110 (same).
Here, however, the City did not state in open session whether the “personnel
issue” to be discussed related to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of an
employee. Furthermore, KRS 61.810(1)(f) “shall not be interpreted to permit
discussion of general personnel matters in secret.” Consequently, the Commission
violated the Act when it failed to state in open session whether the closed-session
1
The Appellant claims the closed session focused on the Commission’s director, but the director is
actually employed by the Wolfe County Fiscal Court. The Appellant’s claim suggests that the
Commission could not properly invoke KRS 61.810(1)(f), because the personnel matter it cited for
entering closed session did not relate to an employee of the Commission. In contrast, the Commission
claims the director is its employee and that its invocation of KRS 61.810(1)(f) at the meeting was
proper. As proof, the Commission submits a “job description” and a “newspaper ad” that indicate the
director reports directly to the Commission. Nevertheless, under KRS 61.846, this Office is unable to
resolve factual disputes in the context of an Open Meetings appeal, such as whether a person is an
employee of an agency. See, e.g., 23-OMD-103 (unable to resolve competing factual claims regarding if
secret meetings were held to discuss the dismissal of an employee); 08-OMD-040 (unable to resolve a
factual dispute as to statements made during a closed session).discussions would lead to the appointment, discipline, or the dismissal of an
employee. See, e.g., 21-OMD-091.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#306
Distributed to:
Alan Halsey
Clifton Gifford, Chairman
Steve O’Connor