Court Opinion

ID: 9775346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:54:50.137006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.318567
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would reverse. Any discussion of specific personnel matters and litigation is exempt from the Kentucky Open Meetings Act. Simply because an attorney was not present in the closed meeting, does not justify an inference that litigation was not discussed. Furthermore, prior to the meeting, appellee’s did threaten a lawsuit.
Although there was no formal hearing, relative to the open meeting exception, the trial court did have evidence upon which to base its finding of fact. It is clear to me, as it was clear to the trial court, that even though the closed session was called primarily to discuss personnel matters, the threatened lawsuit was also discussed.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the ruling of the trial court.