(1) If a person enforces KRS 61.805 to 61.850 pursuant to this section, he shall begin enforcement under this subsection before proceeding to enforcement under subsection (2) of this section. 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. If the public agency makes efforts to remedy the alleged violation pursuant to the complaint, efforts to remedy the alleged violation shall not be admissible as evidence of wrongdoing in an administrative or judicial proceeding. An agency's response denying, in whole or in part, the complaint's requirements for remedying the alleged violation shall include a statement of the specific statute or statutes supporting the public agency's denial and a brief explanation of how the statute or statutes apply. The response shall be issued by the presiding officer, or under his authority, and shall constitute final agency action.
(2) If a complaining party wishes the Attorney General to review a public agency's denial, the complaining party shall forward to the Attorney General a copy of the written complaint and a copy of the written denial within sixty (60) days from receipt by that party of the written denial. If the public agency refuses to provide a written denial, a complaining party shall provide a copy of the written complaint within sixty (60) days from the date the written complaint was submitted to the presiding officer of the public agency. The Attorney General shall review the complaint and denial and issue within ten (10) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, a written decision which states whether the agency violated the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850. In arriving at the decision, the Attorney General may request additional documentation from the agency. On the day that the Attorney General renders his decision, he shall mail a copy to the agency and a copy to the person who filed the complaint.
(3) (a) If a public agency agrees to remedy an alleged violation pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, and the person who submitted the written complaint pursuant to subsection (1) of this section believes that the agency's efforts in this regard are inadequate, the person may complain to the Attorney General.
(b) The person shall provide to the Attorney General:
1. The complaint submitted to the public agency;
2. The public agency's response; and
3. A written statement of how the public agency has failed to remedy the alleged violation.
(c) The adjudicatory process set forth in subsection (2) of this section shall govern as if the public agency had denied the original complaint.
(4) (a) A party shall have thirty (30) days from the day that the Attorney General renders his decision to appeal the decision. An appeal within the thirty (30) day time limit shall be treated as if it were an action brought under KRS 61.848.
(b) If an appeal is not filed within the thirty (30) day time limit, the Attorney General's decision, as to whether the agency violated the provisions of KRS 61.805 to 61.850, shall have the force and effect of law and shall be enforceable in the Circuit Court of the county where the public agency has its principal place of business or where the alleged violation occurred.
(5) A public agency shall notify the Attorney General of any actions filed against that agency in Circuit Court regarding enforcement of KRS 61.805 to 61.850. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Created 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 162, sec. 7, effective July 14, 1992.
Notes of Decisions
Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1998).
· cites it 12× “KRS § 61.846 & .848. The procedural safeguards provide a structure under which a party can seek to open a meeting which she feels is within the ambit of the Act.”
Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ratliff, 955 S.W.2d 921 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The three administrators then appealed these actions to the Board by letter dated May 12, 1993, pursuant to KRS 61.846. The letter challenged the validity of using the "personnel" exception to the Open Meetings Act under the circumstances, as well as the power of the Board,…”
Howard v. City of Indep., 199 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “However, we can find no indication in this record that Howard followed the procedures provided in KRS 61.846 and .848 to obtain the relief provided by law.”
Wells v. City of Bowling Green, 344 S.W.3d 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“Second, although not mentioned by the trial court, to challenge the commission’s modification of the hiring procedure for lack of a public vote, Wells should have followed the steps outlined in KRS 61.846(1) which begins with submission of a written complaint to the commission…”
Oliver v. Herrick (E.D. Ky. 2020).
· cites it 9× “Oliver contends that “Hosea violated the proper procedure for submitting a denial in writing in accordance with KRS 61.846(1) or KRS 61.846(2)[,]” and by doing so Hosea “interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of [Oliver’s] 1st amendment right to petition.”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “On November 8, 2018, Bridges then submitted a written complaint to the Board pursuant to KRS 61.846(1) (and copied Stuff’s counsel) alleging the Board’s closed session meeting and resulting decision on October 4, 2018, had violated Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.”
J. Albert Harrison v. Oldham Cnty. Ethics Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Upon learning of the Commission’s decision, Harrison filed a written complaint with the Commission pursuant to KRS 61.846(1) alleging various violations of the OMA.”
Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “-3- On September 21, 2021, counsel for Moellman sent a written Complaint to the Board, pursuant to KRS 61.846(1). Moellman alleged the Board’s mask requirement was an impermissible condition of attendance, which was a violation of KRS 61.”
Oliver v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (E.D. Ky. 2020).
· cites it 2× “12] And she claims that, although her complaint was received on September 23, 2019,2 a decision was not rendered on her complaint until October 8, 2019, which she claims is in violation of KRS 61.846(2)’s requirement that a decision to be mailed within 10 days, which, in turn,…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.846(1) — 6 cases
Wells v. City of Bowling Green, 344 S.W.3d 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
“Second, although not mentioned by the trial court, to challenge the commission’s modification of the hiring procedure for lack of a public vote, Wells should have followed the steps outlined in KRS 61.846(1) which begins with submission of a written complaint to the commission…”
Oliver v. Herrick (E.D. Ky. 2020).
“Oliver contends that “Hosea violated the proper procedure for submitting a denial in writing in accordance with KRS 61.846(1) or KRS 61.846(2)[,]” and by doing so Hosea “interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of [Oliver’s] 1st amendment right to petition.”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“On November 8, 2018, Bridges then submitted a written complaint to the Board pursuant to KRS 61.846(1) (and copied Stuff’s counsel) alleging the Board’s closed session meeting and resulting decision on October 4, 2018, had violated Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act, KRS 61.”
Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“-3- On September 21, 2021, counsel for Moellman sent a written Complaint to the Board, pursuant to KRS 61.846(1). Moellman alleged the Board’s mask requirement was an impermissible condition of attendance, which was a violation of KRS 61.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.846(2) — 5 cases
Oliver v. Herrick (E.D. Ky. 2020).
“Oliver contends that “Hosea violated the proper procedure for submitting a denial in writing in accordance with KRS 61.846(1) or KRS 61.846(2)[,]” and by doing so Hosea “interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of [Oliver’s] 1st amendment right to petition.”
Oliver v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (E.D. Ky. 2020).
“12] And she claims that, although her complaint was received on September 23, 2019,2 a decision was not rendered on her complaint until October 8, 2019, which she claims is in violation of KRS 61.846(2)’s requirement that a decision to be mailed within 10 days, which, in turn,…”
Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ken Moellman, Sr. (Ky. Ct. App. 2023).
“-3- On September 21, 2021, counsel for Moellman sent a written Complaint to the Board, pursuant to KRS 61.846(1). Moellman alleged the Board’s mask requirement was an impermissible condition of attendance, which was a violation of KRS 61.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.846(4)(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.