Skip to main content

Opinion

Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General

Open Meetings Decision

The questions presented in this appeal are whether the Harlan County Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act at its May 6, 2003 meeting by failing to provide meeting room conditions that would allow effective public observation of the meeting, as required by KRS 61.840, and whether the Board further violated KRS 61.846(1) of the Act by failing to respond to Roy Silver's written complaint to the presiding officer of the Board that the May 6th meeting had violated the Act by failing to provide proper meeting room conditions. For the reasons that follow, we find that although the evidentiary record precludes us from resolving the claimed violation of KRS 61.840, the record supports the claim that the Board violated the Act by not responding to Mr. Silver's complaint, as required by KRS 61.846(1).

On December 8, 2003, Mr. Silver submitted a written complaint to Gary Farmer, Chairperson of the Harlan County School Board, in which he stated:

I am writing to inform you of a violation of the Open Meetings Act that needs to be corrected. The Harlan County Board of Education meeting of 6 May 2003 violated the Open Meetings Act when only the Chairperson of the Board had a working microphone. The other members of the Board did not have working microphones. Those attending the meetings could not hear the committee's discussion or vote on item "No. 126 Facility Plan and Waiver Request." The Harlan County Board of Education violated the Act by not furnishing meeting room conditions that permitted effective public observation of this public meeting. The Board's action is in violation of KRS 61.840. . . .

To remedy the alleged violation, Mr. Silver asserted that the Board should declare the vote on "No. 126 Facility Plan and Waiver Request" null and void and hold another public meeting and vote again on the plan.

In his letter of appeal, dated December 15, 2003, Mr. Silver stated that, as of that date, he had not received a written response, as required by KRS 61.880(1), and his first letter, mailed to Mr. Farmer, was not accepted by the Harlan County Schools Board of Education and on the envelope it was marked "refused" and "return to sender" with a note on the envelope that stated "not for county board."

After receipt of Mr. Silver's letter of appeal, Susan Turner Landis, attorney for the Board, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Landis, in relevant part, advised:

As for Mr. Silver's allegations that the Harlan County Board of Education was in violation of the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, the Board and Chairman Gary Farmer, deny that there has been any such violation. The Board's records of the May 6th, 2003 meeting clearly show that it was open to the public. A large crowd was anticipated for this meeting as one of the main issues to be discussed dealt with the question of consolidating the high schools in the Harlan County School System. This particular meeting was moved to a facility that would sufficiently accommodate the expected crowd.

Mr. Farmer states that during no portion of this meeting did anyone in attendance complain of an inability to hear and or understand any part of the proceedings including statements made by any of the Board Members or questions asked of the Board Members and/or statements from the public. Mr. Farmer also asserts that it is not necessary for individual Board Members to have an individual microphone, as each Board Member had equal access to the microphone. It is the policy of the Harlan County Board of Education that a microphone system is set up in such a way to ensure that all board members have access to it and that they may be heard during their statements and/or inquiries that occur during any meeting. This was done at the meeting on May 6th, 2003 as with every Board Meeting and therefore, there have been no violations of the open meetings act as alleged by Mr. Silver.

We address first Mr. Silver's complaint that the Board failed to respond to his written complaint submitted to Mr. Farmer, the Chairperson of the Board. KRS 61.846(1) requires an agency response to an open meetings complaint in writing, and within three business days. 1 That statute provides, in part, as follows:

If a person enforces KRS 61.805 to 61.850 pursuant to this section, he shall begin enforcement under this subsection before proceeding to enforcement under subsection (2) of this section. The person shall submit a written complaint to the presiding officer of the public agency suspected of the violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850. The complaint shall state the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 and shall state what the public agency should do to remedy the alleged violation. The public agency shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, 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.

In construing the operation of KRS 61.846(1), this office in 03-OMD-116, at p. 2, explained:

The statute does not contemplate immediate action. It requires that the agency notify the complainant within three days of its decision on what will or will not be done about the complaint. Hence, requests that the agency take action in the future must be responded to within the three-day period.

The facts before us in this appeal indicate that the Board did not respond at all to Mr. Silver's written complaint. KRS 61.846(1) requires an agency response to an open meetings complaint in writing, and within three business days. A letter directed to the Attorney General following initiation of an open meetings appeal does not satisfy the statutory requirement found at KRS 61.846(1). Accordingly, we find that the failure of the Board to respond to Mr. Silver's complaint in writing within the three-day period constituted a violation of KRS 61.846(1) and the Open Meetings Act.

Turning to the second issue in Mr. Silver's appeal, we find that the record is insufficient to support the claimed violation of KRS 61.840, and in view of the disparate nature of that record, acknowledge that we are not equipped to resolve the factual dispute presented.

Mr. Silver maintains that only the Chairperson of the Board had a working microphone and "[t]hose attending the meetings could not hear the committee's discussion or vote on item "No. 126 Facility Plan and Waiver Request."

The Board's response to this issue, advised that the Chairperson of the Board had indicated that "during no portion of this meeting did anyone in attendance complain of an inability to hear and or understand any part of the proceedings including statements made by any of the Board Members or questions asked of the Board Members and/or statements from the public."

In 03-OMD-178, we discussed an agency's inability to correct an inaudibility problem, when it is not brought to the agency's attention during the meeting and this office's inability to resolve an Open Meeting issues when we are presented conflicting facts. At page 17 of that decision, we observed:

The Board notes that the record is devoid of proof that any official was advised of the problem. While the courts have recognized that, in general "[t]here is no requirement of public objection found in the [open meetings] statute," Floyd County Board of Education, at 924, we agree that agency members or meeting participants whose statements are inaudible, but who are unaware of the problem, cannot reasonably be expected to rectify the problem. Compare, 97-OMD-28 (holding that board of education violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to address noise problem that had been brought to its attention, thus frustrating the public's ability to observe the meeting). This assumes, of course, that every feasible measure has been taken by the agency to insure effective public observation.

Ultimately, we cannot resolve this issue because of the conflict in the facts presented to this office by the parties. The problems associated with adjudication of this issue are compounded by the fact that our review is limited to the written record presented by the parties. KRS 61.846(2). The divergent factual accounts presented by the parties with regard to this issue compel us to conclude that the record is insufficient to support the claimed violation. Simply stated, we are not equipped to resolve this factual dispute in either party's favor, but encourage the Board to take all appropriate measures to provide meeting room conditions that conform to the requirements of KRS 61.840 and Mr. Watson and the six aggrieved attendees to address future concerns to the presiding officer of the agency whose public discussions are inaudible. 00-OMD-169; 02-OMD-2; 02-OMD-108.

Thus, under the facts presented by the parties in the instant appeal, we cannot say that the Board violated the provisions of KRS 61.840 and the Open Meetings Act on this issue.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.846(4)(a). The Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.

Distributed to:

Roy SilverP.O. Box GBenham, KY 40807

Gary Farmer, ChairmanHarlan County Board of Education251 Ball Park RoadHarlan, KY 40831

Johnnie TurnerSusan Turner LandisP.O. Box 351Harlan, KY 40831

Footnotes

Footnotes

1 In his letter of appeal, Mr. Silver states that Mr. Farmer had not responded to his written complaint, as required by KRS 61.880(1). This statute applies to written responses to an open records request. The relevant statute requiring a written response to an Open Meetings complaint is KRS 61.846(1).

2003

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 177

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 89

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 128

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 152

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 88

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 273

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 251

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 27

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 127

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 87

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 151

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 250

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 150

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 126

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 249

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 149

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 86

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 26

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 269

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 125

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 124

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 218

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 248

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 123

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 247

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 268

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 85

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 148

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 84

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 82

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 83

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 122

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 80

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 81

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 184

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 267

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 246

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 243

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 245

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 121

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 216

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 120

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 244

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 147

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 266

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 119

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 118

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 4

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 79

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 78

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 242

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 197

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 196

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 77

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 241

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 176

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 215

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 214

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 117

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 164

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 146

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 240

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 145

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 195

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 15

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 272

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 239

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 265

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 213

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 163

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 264

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 238

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 76

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 116

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 75

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 263

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 212

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 199

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 237

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 175

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 236

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 235

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 144

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 115

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 74

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 234

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 183

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 233

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 182

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 47

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 194

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 232

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 143

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 73

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 193

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 174

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 231

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 173

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 114

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 262

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 71

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 72

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 211

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 14

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 229

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 210

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 271

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 261

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 230

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 142

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 70

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 260

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 192

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 141

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 259

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 258

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 209

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 113

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 257

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 191

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 112

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 69

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 190

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 68

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 228

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 140

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 67

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 189

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 139

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 227

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 208

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 153

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 25

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 226

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 94

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 111

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 66

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 225

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 24

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 172

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 157

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 168

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 110

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 224

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 170

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 28

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 65

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 223

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 169

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 23

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 155

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 93

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 275

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 64

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 91

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 167

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 171

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 63

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 159

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 180

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 204

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 160

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 92

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 90

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 106

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 30

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 62

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 270

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 162

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 158

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 181

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 109

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 61

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 203

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 166

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 1

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 202

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 222

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 154

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 59

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 60

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 58

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 56

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 57

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 6

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 54

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 108

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 55

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 256

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 105

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 255

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 200

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 22

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 201

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 2

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 138

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 104

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 9

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 107

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 221

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 53

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 137

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 52

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 136

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 102

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 207

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 217

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 21

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 103

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 135

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 8

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 13

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 134

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 188

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 187

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 254

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 133

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 20

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 19

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 206

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 253

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 12

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 29

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 132

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 161

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 3

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 51

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 18

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 131

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 11

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 205

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 101

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 186

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 7

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 50

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 17

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 130

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 95

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 198

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 10

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 129

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 49

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 179

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 274

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 178

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 100

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 220

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 219

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 48

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 165

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 252

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 185

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 156

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 97

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 16

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 98

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 96

2003 Ky. AG LEXIS 99

LLM Summary
The decision addresses two issues regarding the Harlan County Board of Education's compliance with the Open Meetings Act during its May 6, 2003 meeting. First, it finds that the Board violated KRS 61.846(1) by failing to respond in writing within three business days to a complaint about meeting room conditions that allegedly hindered effective public observation. Second, it concludes that the record is insufficient to determine whether the Board violated KRS 61.840 due to conflicting accounts about the audibility of the meeting, and thus does not resolve this issue.
Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.
Requested By:
Roy Silver
Agency:
Harlan County Board of Education
Type:
Open Meetings Decision
Lexis Citation:
2004 Ky. AG LEXIS 119
Forward Citations:
Neighbors

Support Our Work

The Coalition needs your help in safeguarding Kentuckian's right to know about their government.