NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
June 21, 1993
IN RE: K. L. Jones/Merriell Mattingly
OPEN MEETINGS DECISION
This matter comes to the Attorney General as an appeal by Mr. K. L. Jones concerning his letter to Marion County Judge-Executive Merriell Mattingly. Mr. Jones maintains that Mr. Mattingly has not responded in writing to his written complaint.
In a letter to Mr. Mattingly, dated May 24, 1993, Mr. Jones expressed his concern to the County Judge/Executive relative to the 9:00 a.m. week-day meeting time for fiscal court meetings. He cited KRS 61.820 providing in part that meetings of public agencies shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public. He maintained that fiscal court meetings should be held at night or on the weekends. In support of his allegations Mr. Jones attached to his letter to the County Judge-Executive a "Petition to Change Meeting Time" in regard to Marion County Fiscal Court meetings.
In his letter of appeal to the Attorney General, dated June 3, 1993, and received June 7, 1993, Mr. Jones stated that as of the date of his letter he has received no reply from Mr. Mattingly.
KRS 61.846(1) provides in part as follows relative to a complaint under the Open Meetings Act and the response required by the public agency:
The person shall submit a written complaint to the presiding officer of the public agency suspected of the violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850. The complaint shall state the circumstances which constitute an alleged violation of KRS 61.805 to 61.850 and shall state what the public agency
should do to remedy the alleged violation. The public agency shall determine within three (3) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, after the receipt of the complaint whether to remedy the alleged violation pursuant to the complaint and shall notify in writing the person making the complaint, within the three (3) day period, of its decision.
The Marion County Fiscal Court is obviously a public agency (KRS 61.805(1)(c)) and thus subject to the terms and provisions of the Open Meetings Act (KRS 61.805 to KRS 61.850).
The letter of complaint submitted by Mr. Jones, dated May 24, 1993, was sufficient under KRS 61.846(1) to invoke and bring into play the terms and provisions of the Open Meetings Act.
KRS 61.846(1) mandates that the County Judge-Executive respond in writing within three business days after receipt of the complaint to the person submitting the complaint against such a public agency. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The County Judge-Executive should immediately respond in writing to Mr. Jones relative to his complaint of May 24, 1993. See 93-OMD-61, a copy of which is enclosed.
The County Judge-Executive or the Fiscal Court may challenge this decision by filing an appeal with the appropriate circuit court within thirty days from the date of this decision. See KRS 61.846(4)(a) and KRS 61.848.
THOMAS R. EMERSON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Copies of this decision
have been mailed to:
Mr. K. L. Jones
Route 1, Box 236A
Bradfordsville, Kentucky 40009
Hon. Merriell Mattingly
Marion County Judge-Executive
Lebanon, Kentucky 40033