Beech Tree News Network

A  May 26 special meeting of the Butler County Fiscal Court meeting was not conducted in violation of Kentucky's open meeting laws (KRS 61.823-3), according to the office of the Kentucky Attorney General (OAG). 
The OAG opinion is in response to a complaint filed by Robert D. Cron, who alleged the county violated the law by "failing to limit discussion and action to the items listed on the agenda in the special meeting notice." 
Listed on that agenda was the "2015-16 budget 1st reading.    The lengthly, controversial meeting included much discussion after the proposed budget was rejected by magistrates.  Cron alleges that revisions that took place afterwards were illegal because they did not fall within the meeting agenda. 
Butler County Attorney Richard "Dick" Deye rejected Cron's claims and issued the following rebuttal in response to his complaints:
"I understand your concern to be that the court took actions on matters which were outside the agenda.  As stated on the agenda, one matter was to have the first reading of a budget.  While I am certain we will disagree, all actions taken at the meeting pertained to the budget and ultimately culminated in the passage of the first reading of the budget.  Many people gave public comment concerning different provisions of the budget.  To the best of my recollection, all comments from all citizens pertained to matters and provisions contained in the budget.  I certainly don’t disagree that the first version of the budget did not pass.  Upon further discussion and comment, a revised budget was put on the floor for consideration.  The revised budget thereafter passed.  The matter on the agenda of the meeting was to have a first reading of a budget.  All public comments and all actions of the Fiscal Court culminated in the passage of a first reading of the budget.  We can view the budget as a budget ordinance much like the passage of any other ordinance.  An ordinance is subject to being revised prior to passage at the will of the legislative body.  The Fiscal Court took no action that was not contemplated on the agenda."
Citing examples reached in other similar open meeting decision, the Attorney General found that no violation occurred.
Stating that the special meeting was confined to the 2015-16 budget, the Attorney General rejected Cron's complaint.
"We agree with the fiscal court in its view that it could not envision every possible scenario that might unfold at the special meeting in order to frame the agenda item with the specificity Mr. Cron demands," stated the OAG opinion.  "Further, we agree that “[t]he agenda indicated that the fiscal court was going to have a first reading of a budget and that is exactly what took place."  
The May 26 meeting in question was actually "redone" upon advice from the Department of Local Government after that agency received a complaint about whether or not the agenda was followed correctly.  The OAG decision clears the county of violating the open meeting laws at the May 26 meeting.