Butler County loses another Open Meetings appeal

Butler County Fiscal Court has violated the Open Meetings Law again; this time, the court failed to distribute an agenda to fiscal court members for its September 14 special meeting 24 hours before the meeting.

The Open Meetings Law requires public agencies to deliver a special meeting notice consisting of the date, time, and place of the special meeting and the agenda for the special meeting at least 24 hours before a special meeting.

In this case, fiscal court members received a copy of the agenda minutes before the meeting began. The fiscal court argued that this was a mere technical violation because there was reference to the special meeting on the September 12th regular meeting agenda. The fiscal court, through County Attorney Richard J. Deye, reasoned that this reference gave adequate notice of when the special meeting would be and what its purpose was.

In its response issued Nov. 1, the Office of the Attorney General restated two important principles:

"The [Open Meetings] Act does not recognize a class of violations of lesser gravity than the remaining violations and therefore capable of being dismissed as merely “technical.”

“The failure to comply with the strict letter of the law in conducting meetings of a public agency violated the public good.”

In a letter to the attorney general, County Attorney Deye argued, “[t]he only provision of the Open Meetings Law that was violated is that the magistrates did not receive a piece of paper twenty-four hours in advance . . . . One must struggle to discern how the actions of the Butler County Fiscal Court compromised the citizens of Butler County.”

The attorney general's office answered that claim in the opinion, "Neither this office nor the Butler County Fiscal Court need 'struggle to discern' how the interests of the citizens of Butler County were compromised by the Fiscal Court’s failure to comply with the express requirements of the Open Meetings Law. The law recognizes harm any time an agency acts in derogation of these requirements regardless of how inconsequential its actions may appear to the agency."

The opinion also noted that the law does not empower the attorney general to impose fines or negate actions because of Open Meetings Law violations, but the law does allow a circuit court judge to impose penalties.

Agencies told their forms are improper

The office of Attorney General Jack Conway issued two opinions last week criticizing public bodies for denying records inappropriately.

The city of Carrollton violated the Open Records Law when it required a citizen seeking public records to fill out a city form for the request.

Salome Frances Spenneberg Kist in February requested records concerning specific properties in the city. The opinion, issued May 23, said the city cannot require requesters to use a city form. The opinion also criticized the city for failing to respond to Ms. Kist within three days, as the law requires.

The decision quoted a 1994 Attorney General’s opinion: “While the public agency may require a written application, as opposed to an oral request, there is nothing in the (open records) statute which authorizes a public agency to reject a request simply because the requester did not use the specific form devised by the public agency. A particular form may be desired or suggested by a public agency but failure to use that form cannot be the basis for rejecting a request to inspect records.”

In a separate opinion, the office held that the Housing Authority of Morgantown, Butler County, violated the law by asking Robert Cron why he was requesting records and by requiring him to fill out a form.

The opinion quotes a 2006 opinion of the attorney general which held “KRS 61.872(2) does not authorize public agencies to inquire into a requester’s motives in seeking access to public records, or to consider those motives in determining whether the records should be released.”

The office also ruled against a state prisoner who requested legal statutes from the Kentucky State Law Library. The attorney general’s office has previously held that the court system, including the law library, is not bound by the provisions of the Open Records Act.

Butler County Fiscal Court loses open meetings appeal

Butler Circuit Court Judge Ronnie Dortch has denied an appeal filed by the county's fiscal court on an open meetings case originally filed by local citizen activist Robert Cron.

Cron had appealed to the state attorney general over a series of private meetings between four members of the fiscal court and Sheriff Joe Gaddie last year to discuss the budget for the sheriff's department.

The attorney general's office ruled in March that the meetings violated the state's Open Meetings Act. The fiscal court appealed the ruling to the circuit court, which in a brief statement turned down the appeal. However, Dortch said he found no willful intent to violate state law by the fiscal court. That precluded any award of attorney's fees or court costs.

Cron ran an unsuccessful campaign for judge-executive in the recent election.

This is not the first time Butler County Fiscal Court has disregarded its obligation to the law and to the residents of the county by holding secret meetings. In January 2009, the attorney general held that the fiscal court's finance committee had violated the open meetings law by not giving public notice of its meetings.