Skip to main content

24-OMD-160

July 9, 2024

In re: Robert Mattheu/Cassidy Elementary School-Based

Decision-Making Council

Summary: The Cassidy Elementary School-Based Decision-Making
Council (“the Council”) violated the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”) when
it failed to properly document votes taken at its February 26 and March
25, 2024, meetings.

Open Meetings Decision

On May 14, 2024, Robert Mattheu (“the Appellant”) submitted a complaint to
the Superintendent of the Fayette County Public Schools, claiming the Council
violated the Act at its February 26 and March 25, 2024, meetings when it conducted
two anonymous votes regarding the removal of a subject from the school curriculum.
As a remedy, the Appellant proposed that the Council “revisit their decision” and “go
on the record with their discussion and vote and . . . properly document the votes in
their meeting minutes.”1 The Office determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
that complaint because it was not first submitted to the presiding officer of the
Council.2

Subsequently, on June 22, 2024, the presiding officer of the Council responded
to the Appellant’s original complaint, stating it “grants each of [the Appellant’s]
requests to the extent discussed below,” explaining that the Council had revisited its
February 26 vote at its March 25 meeting, that it “agrees to amend its minutes to
reflect that each member of [the Council] voted to uphold the February decision,” and
that it would “conduct additional training on open meeting and open records for its
members. Moreover, the Council stated that its “substantive decision will remain
unchanged.” The Appellant initiated a new appeal from the Council’s June 22
response.

1
The Appellant also proposed that all Fayette County School-Based Decision-Making Councils “be
properly trained in both open meetings and open records law to avoid future violations.”
2
See 24-OMD-133.If an agency agrees to remedy the alleged violation, and the complainant
believes those attempts are “inadequate,” KRS 61.846(3), the Appellant may seek this
Office’s review “as if the public agency had denied the original complaint,” KRS
61.846(3)(c) (emphasis added). Under KRS 61.835, “The minutes of action taken at
every meeting of any such public agency, setting forth an accurate record of votes and
actions at such meetings, shall be promptly recorded . . . .” (emphasis added). The
Office has previously held that, “when final action is taken by a public agency in open
session the vote cannot be by secret ballot and it must be recorded in the minutes
how each member voted. OAG 82-341. Here, the Council agrees it “should not have
used an anonymous vote” and states that it will “amend its minutes to reflect that
each member of the [Council] voted to uphold that February decision.” Thus, the
Council violated the Act when it used anonymous votes and did not accurately record
its votes in its meeting minutes.3

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/ Zachary M. Zimmerer

Zachary M. Zimmerer

Assistant Attorney General

3
On appeal, the Council reaffirms that it has implemented the Appellant’s proposed remedies.
Although the Act allows a complainant who believes an agency’s remedies are “inadequate,” to proceed
to seek the Office’s review “as if the public agency had denied the original complaint,” the Act still
limits the Office’s role in adjudicating a dispute arising under the Act to determining “whether the
agency violated the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850.” See KRS 61.846(2). Simply put, the Office “is
not empowered to declare void action taken at an illegal meeting, impose penalties for violation of the
Act, or compel an agency to implement the remedial measures proposed.” 19-OMD-082 n.5 (emphasis
added).#282

Distributed to:

Robert Mattheu
Andria Jackson
Demetrus Liggins
Alex Garcia
Carmine Iaccarino

LLM Summary
In 24-OMD-160, the Cassidy Elementary School-Based Decision-Making Council was found to have violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to properly document votes during its meetings. The decision clarifies procedural requirements for filing complaints and the limitations of the Office's role in adjudicating disputes under the Act. It also emphasizes the legal requirement for public agencies to record votes transparently in meeting minutes.
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:
Robert Mattheu
Agency:
Cassidy Elementary School-Based Decision-Making Council
Type:
Open Meetings Decision
Neighbors

Support Our Work

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