Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Meetings Decision
This matter having been presented to the Office of the Attorney General in an open meetings appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Eastern Kentucky University Parking Appeals Committee mooted the issue raised by Matthew James Dean in his January 26, 2006, appeal by acknowledging certain irregularities in the conduct of the December 2004 meeting at which Mr. Dean's written appeal of his Fall 2004 parking citation was considered and agreeing to implement corrective measures. Those measures consisted of an offer to conduct a rehearing on the issue and a commitment to provide proper notice of committee meetings and maintain the required documentation of committee action at those meetings. 1 The Committee does not contest its status as a public agency and has repeatedly acknowledged its obligation to comply with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, including KRS 61.823, relating to notice of special meetings, and KRS 61.835, relating to minutes of public agency meetings. We find that 98-OMD-119, 04-OMD-072, 05-OMD-188, and 06-OMD-170, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, are controlling insofar as these decisions hold that when a public agency concedes the open meetings error alleged, the issue upon which the appeal is based becomes moot. 2 The Eastern Kentucky University Parking Appeals Committee having previously acknowledged its error and agreed to corrective measures, we find that the issue which forms the basis of Mr. Dean's open meeting appeal is moot, and that no further analysis of this issue is warranted.
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 proceedings.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 The Parking Appeals Committee disputes receipt of a proper open meetings complaint, noting that Mr. Dean first leveled his objections in the Spring semester of 2006 and that the Committee responded by agreeing to certain remedial action. With reference to his January 26, 2007, letter, the Committee focuses on Mr. Dean's failure to identify a particular violation or propose a specific remedy, as required by KRS 61.846(1). While we agree that Mr. Dean tends to obfuscate in his written communications, we believe that his January 9, 2007, letter to Alex Combs, Chairperson of the Parking Appeals Committee, contains a vaguely alleged violation that the Committee "fail[ed] to keep appropriate documentation at [its December 2004(?)] meetings [sic]." It also contains a proposed remedy, albeit a remedy that is unrelated to the conduct of Committee meetings under the Open Meeting Act, but is instead aimed at "a resolution of [his] appeal, . . . [and the] refunding of the penalty previously forcibly paid." Given the Committee's earlier acknowledgment of error and commitment to conform its conduct to the requirements of the Act, its failure to treat the January 9, 2007, letter as an open meetings complaint is entirely understandable if not entirely excusable. We urge the Committee to review its obligations under KRS 61.846(1) to insure that timely, written responses are issued to all complaints, and not just those to which no previous response has been made, even if its subsequent responses serve only to remind the complainant that the matter has been fully addressed and resolved.
2 The term "moot" is defined as "[w]ithout legal significance through having been previously decided or settled." American Heritage College Dictionary, 903 (4th Ed. 2002).