Request By:
Mr. Gary S. Webb
The Kentucky Post
421 Madison Avenue
Covington, Kentucky 41011
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Carl Miller, Assistant Attorney General
You have requested an opinion of the Attorney General concerning the Kentucky Open Meetings Law, KRS 61.805-61.850, upon the following statement of facts:
"At a special meeting of the Newport City Commission on January 11, 1982 the City Commission unanimously agreed to form a 'Task Force' to study a number of problems in the City's Community Development Department. At that meeting, it was announced that the 'Task Force' would meet two days hence in the City Manager's Office."
You further state that the Task Force met on January 13 and was made up of 8 persons and was advised by 2 other persons, the Community Development Director and the Mayor; you were also present but you were asked to leave because the Task Force was discussing matters of a sensitive nature and that the press was not invited to sit in on the meeting. You request our opinion as to whether you were properly excluded from the meeting.
The first question to be addressed is whether the "Task Force" is a "public agency" as defined in KRS 61.805(2). The pertinent part of that statutory provision reads as follows:
"'Public Agency' means . . . any county, city, school district, special purpose district boards, public commissions, counsels, offices or other municipal corporations or political subdivision of the state; any committee, ad hoc committee, subcommittee, subagency or advisory body of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statutes, executive order, local ordinance or resolution or other legislative act . . ."
The City of Newport is a second class city with a commission form of government. The Board of Commissioners is vested with all the legislative, executive and administrative power of the City. KRS 89.130. The affirmative vote of a majority of the members shall be necessary to the adoption of any motion, resolution or ordinance. KRS 89.160.
Since the Task Force was created by a formal action of the Board of Commissioners, we believe that it is a public agency subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Law.
The second question is whether, as a public agency, the Task Force properly held a closed session. According to your statement of facts, the Task Force did not observe the formalities provided by KRS 61.815 whereby a public agency holds a closed session in that it did not give notice in an open meeting of the general nature of the business to be discussed in the closed session and the reason for the closed session, no motion was made and carried by a majority vote in open, public session and final action was taken in the closed session.
The third question is whether the subject matter of the closed session was one which is authorized by KRS 61.810 as an exception to the mandatory requirement of an open meeting.
You sent us a copy of the introduction to the Task Force's report which included, inter alia, the following statement:
"The purpose of the meeting was to:
(1) review the HUD letter of December 11, 1981,
(2) review a draft implementation strategy,
(3) estimate time and cost for completion of the strategy."
We are unable to tell from this statement of facts whether the subject matter of the meeting was exempted under the law. The five subject matter exemptions in KRS 61.810 are the acquisition or sale of real property, discussions of proposed or pending litigation, collective bargaining negotiation, personnel matters, and industrial prospects. If the Task Force discussed any of these matters, it could have done so in a closed session, but this does not mean that the entire meeting could have been closed to the public, only that part of the meeting where one of the exempted subjects was under discussion.
For the reasons stated herein, it is our opinion that you were improperly excluded from the meeting of the Task Force.