23-OMD-205
August 9, 2023
In re: The Levisa Lazer/Lawrence County Fiscal Court
Summary: The Lawrence County Fiscal Court (“the Fiscal Court”)
violated the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a
written response to a complaint within three business days. The Fiscal
Court also violated the Act when it failed to send notice of a special
meeting to a media organization that had filed a written request to
receive such notices under KRS 61.823(4).
Open Meetings Decision
In a written complaint to the presiding officer of the Fiscal Court, The Levisa
Lazer (“Appellant”), an online newspaper, alleged that the Fiscal Court had violated
the Act by failing to notify the Appellant of special meetings held in June and July
2023. The Appellant is a media organization that has requested notice of special
meetings pursuant to KRS 61.823(4). As a remedy for the alleged violations, the
Appellant requested the Fiscal Court to ensure the Appellant received notice of
special meetings in the future. Having received no response to its complaint, the
Appellant initiated this appeal on July 27, 2023.
The record on appeal does not reflect when the Fiscal Court received the
Appellant’s complaint. However, in its response to this appeal dated August 2, 2023,
the Fiscal Court does not deny receiving the complaint, nor does it claim to have
responded to it. Upon receiving a complaint alleging a violation of the Act, a “public
agency shall determine within three (3) [business] 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.” KRS 61.846(1). Here, the Fiscal Court violated the Act when
it failed to respond to the Appellant’s complaint within three business days.Under KRS 61.823(4)(a), prior to a special meeting, “[a]s soon as possible,
written notice shall be delivered personally, transmitted by facsimile machine, or
mailed to . . . each media organization which has filed a written request, including a
mailing address, to receive notice of special meetings. The notice shall be calculated
so that it shall be received at least twenty-four (24) hours before the special meeting.”
This notice requirement may be satisfied by email when the media organization
states a preference to be notified by email. KRS 61.823(4)(b). The Appellant claims it
did not receive notice of the Fiscal Court’s special meetings held on June 29 and July
6, 2023, despite its prior written request to receive such notices. In its response to the
appeal, the Fiscal Court does not deny the Appellant’s allegations,1 but merely states
that, “[i]n an effort to conform to the statutory requirements of [the Act], a formal
notice of special meetings will be sent to the [Appellant] from this point forward.” As
the Fiscal Court has not contested the alleged violations, the Office finds it violated
the Act by failing to notify the Appellant of the two special meetings in question.2
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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#333
Distributed to:
Mr. Mark Grayson
Hon. Phillip L. Carter
Johnny W. Osborne, Esq.
1
The Fiscal Court claims the Appellant’s representative attended the special meetings, but the
Appellant disputes this claim. Regardless, the issue is whether the Fiscal Court sent the required
written notice to the Appellant, not whether the Appellant was represented at the meetings.
2
The Appellant also claims it was not notified of a special meeting held on July 27, 2023. Because
that meeting is outside the scope of the Appellant’s original complaint, the issue is not properly before
the Office. See, e.g., 22-OMD-017 n.2.