Request By:
In re: Richard S. Cagle/Fulton County Public Library District Board
Opinion
Opinion By: A.B. CHANDLER III, ATTORNEY GENERAL; By: THOMAS R. EMERSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPEN MEETINGS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by Richard S. Cagle as the result of the written response he received from Danny R. Zickefoose, President of the Fulton County Public Library District Board.
In an undated letter to Mr. Zickefoose, Mr. Cagle made various complaints concerning actions which occurred at special meetings of the library board on July 31, 1995 and August 28, 1995.
Mr. Zickefoose replied to Mr. Cagle in an undated letter and, basically, denied that the library board violated the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Zickefoose did state in part that he received Mr. Cagle's letter on September 20, 1995.
The Attorney General received Mr. Cagle's letter of appeal on December 20, 1995.
Pursuant to the Attorney General's authority under KRS 61.846(2) to request additional documentation, this office, in a letter dated January 3, 1996, to both parties, requested that they furnish information relative to the date when the public agency's response was sent to the complaining party and the date on which the public agency's response was received by the complaining party.
Only Mr. Zickefoose responded to the Attorney General's request and in a letter received by this office on January 8, 1996, he stated he wrote his response to Mr. Cagle on September 20, 1995. The original of that letter was mailed to Mr. Cagle about 5:00 p.m. on the afternoon of September 20, 1995. Mr. Zickefoose did not know precisely when Mr. Cagle received the letter in question but he estimated that it would have been received on September 21 or September 22, 1995.
KRS 61.846(2) provides in part that if a complaining party wishes the Attorney General to review a public agency's denial, the complaining party must forward to the Attorney General a copy of the written complaint and a copy of the written denial within 60 days from the receipt by the complaining party of the written denial.
Since the public agency's denial was prepared and mailed on September 20, 1995, allowing for normal mail delivery time, and with no response or denial received from the complaining party, we have to conclude that the receipt of the complaining party's appeal by this office on December 20, 1995 was well beyond the required statutory deadline of 60 days. Thus, this office has no jurisdiction or authority to entertain the appeal and address the issues presented as it was not received within the required statutory time frame.
A party aggrieved by this decision may challenge it by filing an appeal with the appropriate circuit court within thirty days from the date of this decision. See KRS 61.846(4)(a) and KRS 61.848. Pursuant to KRS 61.846(5), the Attorney General must be notified of any action filed in the circuit court, but he shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceedings under the Open Meetings Act.