25-OMD-117
May 5, 2025
In re: Robin Vessels/Oldham County Fiscal Court
Summary: The Oldham County Fiscal Court (“the Fiscal Court”)
violated the Open Meetings Act (“the Act”) when it discussed public
business in closed session. KRS 61.810(1)(g) does not authorize closed
discussions of a proposal from a business entity, on the grounds that
open discussions would jeopardize the siting of the business, when the
location of the project is already known to the public.
Open Meetings Decision
On April 2, 2025, in a written complaint submitted under KRS 61.846(1), Robin
Vessels (“the Appellant”) alleged that the Fiscal Court had violated the Act at its
regular meeting on April 1, 2025, when it held a closed session under
KRS 61.810(1)(g) to discuss a proposal by Western Hospitality Partners, Kentucky,
LLC (“Western Hospitality”) to construct a data center on a site in Oldham County.
Specifically, the Appellant claimed the exception to the Act under KRS 61.810(1)(g)
did not apply because the siting of the business “had already been disclosed to the
public through a press release to the Oldham Era” prior to the meeting. As a remedy
for the alleged violation, the Appellant requested that the Fiscal Court declare null
and void any action taken in closed session and repeat its discussions in public at its
next regular meeting. In a timely response, the Fiscal Court denied that it had
violated the Act. 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,” subject to certain
exceptions. Among these exceptions is KRS 61.810(1)(g), which exempts
“[d]iscussions between a public agency and a representative of a business entity and
discussions concerning a specific proposal, if open discussions would jeopardize the
siting, retention, expansion, or upgrading of the business.” Here, the Appellant
argues the conditions were not present for KRS 61.810(1)(g) to apply because the
Fiscal Court has not shown how “open discussions would jeopardize the siting,retention, expansion, or upgrading of the business.” The Appellant has provided
documentation showing the public’s awareness of the project location prior to the
meeting. This documentation includes an Application for Technical Review
Committee filed with Oldham County Planning and Development Services on March
19, 2025, and a March 28, 2025, news article from the Oldham Era stating the exact
location proposed for the data center.
Under KRS 61.800, “the exceptions provided for by KRS 61.810 or otherwise
provided for by law shall be strictly construed.” Accordingly, the Office has
consistently interpreted KRS 61.810(1)(g) as applicable “only if open discussion would
jeopardize the business entity’s undisclosed interest in siting, retention, expansion,
and/or upgrading of the business” in a certain location. 05-OMD-148 (emphasis
added); see also 03-OMD-089. Thus, discussions may not be held in closed session
under KRS 61.810(1)(g) when “the public knows the project’s location.” 22-OMD-057.
Here, the Appellant has provided ample evidence that the planned location of the
data center was already known to the general public.
Furthermore, the same action by the Fiscal Court was the subject of a prior
open meetings appeal. In 25-OMD-103, the Office found the Fiscal Court violated the
Act by conducting discussions of the project in closed session because the location of
the proposed data center was known to the public and KRS 61.810(1)(g) does not
apply when the location of the project is publicly known. Here, the Fiscal Court has
presented no basis to support a contrary finding.1 Accordingly, the Office finds that
the Fiscal Court violated the Act when it discussed public business in closed session
without specific authority under the Act.
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/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
1 In this appeal, the Fiscal Court restated the same arguments it made in 25-OMD-103.#166
Distribution:
Ms. Robin Vessels
David Berry Baxter, Esq.
Hon. David Voegele