The council voted unanimously to move into closed quarters for its discussions, citing an exception to the opening meetings law, namely KRS 61.810(1)(f) which allows for private discussions or hearings that might lead to the appointment, dismissal, or discipline of an individual employee, member, or student.
However, general personnel matters may not be discussed in private.
According to a precedent Kentucky case, Floyd County Bd. of Ed. v. Ratliff, “The personnel exemption...does not allow a general discussion...when it involves multiple employees.”
There appears to be a couple of problems with the council’s handling of this closed session. First, the so-called personnel exemption does not permit the discussion of general personnel matters in closed session. Instead, the council can have a closed session under this exemption only if it involves a discussion which may lead to the hiring, firing or discipline of a particular employee. Whether to provide raises to a class of employees, or its general pay plan, is a policy matter and the public, not to mention that group of employees, has an interest and right to observe the discussion.
There were three (non-elected) city employees in attendance at the meeting. Those employees are normally at council meeting because of their jobs.
The Crittenden Press questioned whether this was a legitimate use of the exemption and will explore it further.
The city's website was subsequently changed at some point following the meeting to reflect the appropriate time.
For more on this matter and further details from Monday’s city council meeting, see this week’s printed edition of The Crittenden Press.
