Request By:
Mr. John Rosenberg
Attorney at Law
Route 1, Clark Addition
Box 275
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
In your letter to the Attorney General received May 24, 1982, you request an opinion on the following statement of facts:
"At a recent meeting of the Floyd County Board of Education, the Superintendent announced that it would be necessary to go into Executive Session to determine how anticipated budget cuts in the Title I program would be implemented. It was his view that since this discussion involved the potential dismissal, or demotion, of specific personnel and/or reduction in salaries, that the Board had the right to discuss this in Executive Session. Parents took issue with this decision, stating that the discussion of how the cuts were to be implemented was a public matter. The parents conceded that the Board had the right to discuss individual personnel matters in Executive Session."
The Open Meetings Law, KRS 61.805-61.850, provides that all meetings of a public agency shall be open to the public except for five subject matter exceptions listed in KRS 61.810. One of the subject matter exceptions is the following:
"(6) Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, discipline or dismissal of an individual employee, member or student without restricting that employee's, member's or student's right to a public hearing if requested, provided that this exception is designed to protect the reputation of individual persons and shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters in secret. "
It is our opinion that the matter described in your letter, as quoted above, was a general personnel matter which should not have been discussed in secret as long as the Board was discussing which positions to eliminate in the implementation of budget cuts. If the issue was, for example, whether to eliminate social workers or music teachers or science teachers, etc., it was a general personnel matter and should have been discussed in an open meeting.
On the other hand, if a decision had been reached to eliminate two out of four social worker positions and the question became which two of the four persons holding those positions would be dismissed, it then being necessary for the Board to discuss qualifications and personalities, we believe the Board would be justified in going into closed session for the purpose of that discussion. The Superintendent, of course, is required to make a recommendation on the employment of personnel and the Board has only the power to approve or disapprove his recommendation. KRS 160.380. Before voting on the Superintendent's recommendations the Board may want to discuss the individuals involved.
The discussion as to how the cuts in funding were to be implemented generally should have been conducted publicly and the matter finally decided in an open meeting.