24-OMD-030
February 6, 2024
In re: Adam Sulfridge/Williamsburg Board of Zoning Adjustment
Summary: The Williamsburg Board of Zoning Adjustment (“the Board”)
violated the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a
written response to a complaint within three business days and when it
conducted a meeting under the Act without adequate acoustics.
However, the Office cannot resolve the factual dispute concerning
whether the Board divided into subgroups to discuss public business in
private.
Open Meetings Decision
On December 29, 2023, Adam Sulfridge (“Appellant”) submitted a written
complaint to the presiding officer of the Board1 alleging it violated the Act at its
December 4, 2023, meeting by discussing public business in secret and by having
“inadequate acoustics” when it discussed public business, which the Appellant says
“frustrated” the ability of those in attendance “to hear public business being
discussed.” Having received no response from the Board by January 25, 2024, the
Appellant initiated this appeal.
Upon receiving a complaint alleging a violation of the Act, a “public agency shall
determine within three (3) [business] days . . . 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.” KRS 61.846(1). On appeal, the Board admits it failed to respond to the
Appellant’s complaint. Thus, the Board violated the Act.
1
The officer that presided over the meeting resigned shortly thereafter. It is not clear from this
record whether the presiding officer resigned before or after the Appellant submitted his complaint.
Nevertheless, the Appellant addressed his complaint to the presiding officer of the Board, and
therefore, the Board has a duty to timely respond to the complaint.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[.]” Furthermore,
KRS 61.810(2) provides:
Any series of less than quorum meetings, where the members attending
one (1) or more of the meetings collectively constitute at least a quorum
of the members of the public agency and where the meetings are held
for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of subsection (1) of this
section, shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (1) of this
section. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit
discussions between individual members where the purpose of the
discussions is to educate the members on specific issues.
Thus, the Act not only prohibits a quorum from taking action in private, but also
“prohibits a quorum from discussing public business in private or meeting in number
less than a quorum for the express purpose of avoiding the open meeting requirement
of the Act.” Yeoman v. Commonwealth, Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459, 474 (Ky.
1998) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court defined “public business” to include “the
discussion of the various alternatives to a given issue about which the board has the
option to take action.” Id.
Here, the Appellant alleged the Board violated the Act when it “divided into
subgroups to conduct sidebar conversations.” On appeal, the Board denies the
Appellant’s allegation that it “divided into subgroups” because it claims its members
were seated in a “squared U seating the whole time.” In appeals under the Act, the
Office cannot resolve factual disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 22-OMD-236; 19-
OMD-187; 12-OMD-080. Similarly, here, the Office cannot resolve the dispute
between the parties as to whether the Board “divided into subgroups” to discuss
public business in private.
However, when a public agency conducts a meeting under the Act, it is required
to “provide meeting room conditions, including adequate space, seating, and
acoustics, which insofar as is feasible allow effective public observation of the public
meeting.” KRS 61.840 (emphasis added). Here, the Appellant alleged the Board
violated the Act during the meeting because the inadequacy of the acoustics
prevented him from hearing conversations between Board members. On appeal, the
Board does not directly dispute the Appellant’s allegation. From the record on appeal,
it appears members of the Board engaged in conversations that the Appellant couldnot hear, and the Board does not deny that its members may have engaged in
separate conversations amongst themselves while in full public view at the “U-
shaped” table. Thus, while the Office cannot find that the Board intentionally
engaged in private conversations “for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of”
the Act, KRS 61.810(2), the Board does not deny that some of its conversations may
have been inaudible to the public in attendance. As a result, the Board violated the
Act when it conducted a meeting under the Act with inadequate acoustics.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#027
Distributed to:
Adam Sulfridge
Kimberly J. Frost Wilson
Roddy Harrison