23-OMD-267
October 9, 2023
In re: Melissa Goolman/Estill County Fiscal Court
Summary: The Estill County Fiscal Court (“the Fiscal Court”) did not
hold a secret meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”).
Although a quorum of the Fiscal Court was present at the Estill County
Road Department’s building, the members of the Fiscal Court did not
discuss “public business” or take any action.
Open Meetings Decision
In a written complaint submitted on September 14, 2023, Melissa Goolman
(“Appellant”) alleged the Fiscal Court had violated the Act when three of the five
magistrates were together on several occasions at the Estill County Road Department
(“the Department”) between August 4 and September 14, 2023. She alleged the
“meetings were not made public and there were no emergencies in the county during
this time frame.” As a remedy, she requested “[a]ny actions taken during these
quorums shall be declared null and void, until voted upon publicly, and with a
majority vote.”
In a timely response, the Fiscal Court denied any violation of the Act. The
Fiscal Court admitted the three magistrates were present at the Department during
the dates specified in the complaint, but denied the magistrates discussed “public
business” or took any action. Rather, the Fiscal Court claims the magistrates were
present to assist the Department while the “Road Foreman” was on approved leave
and multiple employees “were off and equipment was down.” The Fiscal Court
claimed the only discussions amongst the magistrates and Department employees
involved assistance with the maintenance and repair of county vehicles and mowing
rights-of-way, topics which do not require Fiscal Court approval. This appeal
followed.Under KRS 61.810(1), “[a]ll meetings of a quorum of the members of any public
agency at which any public business is discussed or at which any action is taken by
the agency, shall be public meetings, open to the public at all times,” with certain
enumerated exceptions. Under KRS 61.805(3), “action taken” means “a collective
decision, a commitment or promise to make a positive or negative decision, or an
actual vote by a majority of the members of the governmental body.” For purposes of
the Act, the discussion of “public business” is “not simply any discussion between two
officials of the agency,” but “the discussion of the various alternatives to a given issue
about which the [agency] has the option to take action.” Yeoman v. Commonwealth,
Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459, 474 (Ky. 1998).
In its response to this appeal, the Fiscal Court again states the only discussions
that took place at the Department involved the maintenance and repair of vehicles.
However, decisions regarding which vehicles to repair, and how, “would fall under
the purview of the Road Foreman to authorize without need for Fiscal Court
approval.” One magistrate also would discuss which roads required mowing along the
rights-of-way, and he would then go out and mow those areas.
Because the topics under discussion involved the various options over which
the Road Foreman had the authority to consider, the Fiscal Court did not violate the
Act by discussing these topics. This situation is like that in 17-OMD-208, where a city
manager discussed with a quorum of the city council his intention to rename the river
walk after the outgoing mayor of the city. The city manager also discussed with the
city council the cost for plaques naming the river walk after the mayor, which the city
manager later purchased. The Office found that these topics involved the alternatives
to various options that fell within the authority of the city manager without the need
for the city council’s approval. Likewise, here the topics under discussion involved the
various options that could be taken by the Road Foreman without the Fiscal Court’s
approval (e.g., when and how to repair Department vehicles, and which areas along
the county roads needed to be mowed). Thus, the Fiscal Court did not violate the Act
when a quorum of its members discussed matters that do not constitute “public
business” as interpreted by Yeoman. See, e.g., 17-OMD-208.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.846(4)(a). The Attorney General shall
be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that
action or in any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Marc Manley
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General
#416
Distributed to:
Melissa Goolman
Jason Riley
Donnie Watson