Kentucky Open Meetings Act Violated?
- Thread starter CutaneousHorn
- Start date
Lot of weird handles squawking over nonsense.
It is not. I was a school board member for 2 terms, and the open meetings laws are for when more than two members are present. Members can phone each other and discuss issues, get members opinions, etc. They just cannot meet as a group, and discuss board business, without notice.
Yeah, it's amazing that with all the laws and NCAA rules that have been broken, UL fans still want to deflect and point to an open meetings law, which, btw, was not violated. They still can't see the forest for the trees. That is how they got into this mess, in the first place. If they would just admit all the wrongdoings, and start over, with the intention of doing things properly, they may eventually, become respected, once more, and not be the laughing stock of the entire country.
Man caught in the act of a bank robbery: “hey!! That guy over there on the highway is speeding!! Don’t you wanna give him a ticket??!!”
That's not entirely accurate. If enough of the members are involved in an email chain or series of phone calls, then it is possible that a violation has occurred. Depends on the circumstances and how many members were contacted.
Does the Open Meetings Act cover "personnel actions"? I have been to several open meetings where they go into Executive session to discuss personnel...
I beg to differ. If he called them, one at a time, to get their opinion, there was no violation, period. Even if they called a special meeting to discuss it, they would have gone into closed session, to discuss personnel. When they came out, of closed session, they would have adjourned, since they could not act, per Pitino's contract 10 days. They only have to vote in open session.
True but the board didn't really take any action. They will meet in October for regular meeting unless they have a special called meeting to deal with it.
Again, it depends on what was said during the conversations. If he called them one-by-one and specifically asked them how they intended to vote on the matter, then it's problematic. If it was simply an information sharing phone call and nothing more, then likely not a problem. So, without knowing exactly what was said, it is impossible to state one way or the other.
And just because something is allowed to be discussed in closed session does not dispense with the requirement of convening in an open session and then voting to go into closed session.
Below is an AG Opinion that would also apply to phone conversations:
A county fiscal court violated the statute when a judge conducted a series of separate meetings with other individual members of the court to discuss newly received information regarding a jail site, even if no collective decision was reached through these meetings, as it was apparent that the matters discussed in the meetings influenced the court’s ultimate decision in some manner and were, therefore, the public’s business. OAG 00-OMD-63.
A county fiscal court violated the statute when a judge conducted a series of separate meetings with other individual members of the court to discuss newly received information regarding a jail site, even if no collective decision was reached through these meetings, as it was apparent that the matters discussed in the meetings influenced the court’s ultimate decision in some manner and were, therefore, the public’s business. OAG 00-OMD-63.
First time I've seen an OAG opinion cited on here. Well done sir.
Totally different. This was a personnel matter and the Chairman called them, by phone, and did not meet personally, to notify them of the President's action. The Chairman said they were 100% in agreement, meaning no phone call objected to the President's decision. Completely different circumstances and trying to use that OAG to make a determination on this event, is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. They were not meeting, and they were not taking action. It was not a violation. Let it go to the AG and we'll see who is incorrect.
Here is what KRS 61.810 says.
Exceptions to Open Meetings
1) All meetings of a quorum of the members of an public agency at which any public business is disclosed or at which any action is taken by the agency, shall be public meetings, open to the public at all times, except for the following.
f) Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, disciplining, of dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student, without restricting that employee's, member's, or student's right to a public hearing, if requested. This exception shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters, in secret.
He had every right to call the members to notify them of the President's action.
Exceptions to Open Meetings
1) All meetings of a quorum of the members of an public agency at which any public business is disclosed or at which any action is taken by the agency, shall be public meetings, open to the public at all times, except for the following.
f) Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, disciplining, of dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student, without restricting that employee's, member's, or student's right to a public hearing, if requested. This exception shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters, in secret.
He had every right to call the members to notify them of the President's action.
In person or on the phone makes absolutely no difference. And unless you were privy to the phone conversations, you have no idea what was said. The fact that it was personnel does not dispense with the requirement of convening in open session and then voting to go into closed session.
And you are an attorney.....where? Read the KRS, and quit trying to read circumstances into your opinion.
You are the one who is apparently confident enough to state with certainty what was said during phone calls. Information calls only? OK.But if there was discussions on how the board members were going to vote on the matter, then that is problematic.
Similar threads
