A public agency that holds meetings must allow the public to
be present unless there is a valid exemption claimed by the agency to allow it to meet without the public present.
On Oct. 4, 2016, Attorney General Andy Beshear issued an opinion
in the Open Meetings appeal of In re: Ray
Gough/Calloway County Board of Assessment Appeals, 16-OMD-214.
Gough submitted a written complaint to Ryan Stanger, chairman of Calloway County
Board of Assessment Appeals on Aug 26. In the
complaint, he said that he had been present at the meeting but was ordered
to leave until called back in, to which he objected.
He said he was not allowed in the room during various portions
of the meeting.
He included proposed remedies to the violation. The board did not respond, which prompted Gough to appeal on Sept. 20, 2016.
In response to the appeal, the board stated that the only
portion Gough was excluded from was the training and orientation of new
members, acting on the directions of a representative of the Department of
Revenue, and no business took place.
The board also noted that it felt that that portion of the meeting
was not subject to the Open Meetings Act.
It also added that it thought Gough left voluntarily after making his
presentation and was not asked to leave.
Gough pointed to the minutes of the meeting, which stated that
appeals would be heard individually and those appealing property assessments would have to stay in the hall until
their case was heard. He also cited KRS 61.810(1) which says open meetings are
any meeting with a quorum where public business is discussed.
Beshear said a quorum of the board
was present in a closed meeting with the property valuation administrator to
receive training. Citing a previous opinion, 03-OMD-178, Beshear found that a training
session is not just procedural and does constitute public business.
Because the meeting contained public business, the board
violated the Open Meetings Act by excluding Gough and the rest of the public
from it.
Finally, Beshear stated that from the minutes and record he
had, there was not enough evidence about when Gough was asked to leave, but
could have been another violation. This also applied to the swearing in of
members and the selection of a chairman, which would be a further violation if
they had excluded the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment