Kentucky Open Government Coalition
Keeping with the theme of legislative contempt for the voters who elected theme to public office, today we learned that “during a media tour of the temporary workspace [necessitated by the Capitol renovations], Senate President Robert Stivers said that a gallery for the public “‘didn’t seem like a relevant expenditure that we wanted to incur’ and that the public would still be able to see what is happening via live-streams in two large rooms in the temporary building.”
https://substack.com/@kentuckyteri/note/p-167053471?r=cbgi&utm_medium=i…
Let’s be completely honest. Lawmakers have never given a thought to attendees standing along the walls of a committee room or lined up outside a committee room hoping to at least overhear some of the committee discussion. Such overflow rooms exist in the Capitol Annex when hearings are conducted, but are rarely if ever used to accommodate overflow crowds.
And this, notwithstanding the fact that in 2013 the legislature codified, at KRS 61.840, the duty of all public agencies — which includes the Kentucky General Assembly — to “provide meeting room conditions, including adequate space, seating, and acoustics, which insofar as is feasible allow effective public observation of the public meetings.“
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42577
Lawmakers were so smitten with the idea of meeting room comfort and acoustics that they included almost identical language in a second statute, KRS 61.820, in the same year:
“All meetings of all public agencies of this state, and any committees or subcommittees thereof, shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public. In considering locations for public meetings, the agency shall evaluate space requirements, seating capacity, and acoustics.”
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42576
Oh! And the legislature framed both statutes in mandatory rather than permissive terms — not “may provide” or “may evaluate,” but “shall provide” and “shall evaluate.” The intent of the open meetings law is to ensure that interested citizens are afforded the opportunity to participate in public agency proceedings. Here, the public is stripped of the opportunity to participate as it has through time. There is “a vast difference between ‘substantial’ compliance and no compliance at all.” Arnett v. Sullivan, 279 Ky. 720, 132 S.W.2d 76 (1939).
Have lawmakers considered the necessity of guardrails to ensure — even in the vastly inferior live video transmission of the proceedings — that public access is not impeded by disruptions in the transmission? How can the public be certain that lobbyist (and others) are excluded from the chamber floor — a problem identified with increasing frequency? What if the observer rooms require their own overflow rooms?
So many questions. So few answers.
The opportunity to correct this architectural omission has long passed. Kentucky’s lawmaker have achieved their desired purpose: to avoid looking at, or listening to, the rabble — to maintain their false calm in the face of opposition and the questionable dignity of the office to which the rabble elected them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
It is lawmakers who are out of their minds when they regularly, and with increasing frequency, treat their constituents (and the voters) as “[ir]relevant expenditure[s].” Each year they heap new insult upon past injuries.
https://www.lpm.org/news/2024-08-01/confidential-hiding-the-cost-of-leg…
Once again, their decision is a violation of the open meetings laws they enacted. It is a direct affront to the voters who elected them. But if they insist on treating their constituents as irritating lodgers, I suggest they eliminate the tiresome introduction of friends and family — often seated in the gallery — and wrap up the long session a month early.
If you can’t stand the heat, fellers, get out of the “temporary workspace.” Such delicate eyes and ears have no place in a participatory democracy.
Republished from Kentucky Open Government Coalition under CC-BY-SA 4.0
https://kyopengov.org/blog/learning-public-was-purposely-excluded-person-attendance-during-legislative-proceedings
Amye Bensenhaver is a retired assistant attorney general who, for twenty-five years, specialized in Kentucky’s open records and meetings laws. She is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition.
Sun, June 29, 2025
Commentary
Amye Bensenhaver
Kentucky Open Government Coalition
Keeping with the theme of legislative contempt for the voters who elected theme to public office, today we learned that “during a media tour of the temporary workspace [necessitated by the Capitol renovations], Senate President Robert Stivers said that a gallery for the public “‘didn’t seem like a relevant expenditure that we wanted to incur’ and that the public would still be able to see what is happening via live-streams in two large rooms in the temporary building.”
https://substack.com/@kentuckyteri/note/p-167053471?r=cbgi&utm_medium=i…
Let’s be completely honest. Lawmakers have never given a thought to attendees standing along the walls of a committee room or lined up outside a committee room hoping to at least overhear some of the committee discussion. Such overflow rooms exist in the Capitol Annex when hearings are conducted, but are rarely if ever used to accommodate overflow crowds.
And this, notwithstanding the fact that in 2013 the legislature codified, at KRS 61.840, the duty of all public agencies — which includes the Kentucky General Assembly — to “provide meeting room conditions, including adequate space, seating, and acoustics, which insofar as is feasible allow effective public observation of the public meetings.“
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42577
Lawmakers were so smitten with the idea of meeting room comfort and acoustics that they included almost identical language in a second statute, KRS 61.820, in the same year:
“All meetings of all public agencies of this state, and any committees or subcommittees thereof, shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public. In considering locations for public meetings, the agency shall evaluate space requirements, seating capacity, and acoustics.”
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42576
Oh! And the legislature framed both statutes in mandatory rather than permissive terms — not “may provide” or “may evaluate,” but “shall provide” and “shall evaluate.” The intent of the open meetings law is to ensure that interested citizens are afforded the opportunity to participate in public agency proceedings. Here, the public is stripped of the opportunity to participate as it has through time. There is “a vast difference between ‘substantial’ compliance and no compliance at all.” Arnett v. Sullivan, 279 Ky. 720, 132 S.W.2d 76 (1939).
Have lawmakers considered the necessity of guardrails to ensure — even in the vastly inferior live video transmission of the proceedings — that public access is not impeded by disruptions in the transmission? How can the public be certain that lobbyist (and others) are excluded from the chamber floor — a problem identified with increasing frequency? What if the observer rooms require their own overflow rooms?
So many questions. So few answers.
The opportunity to correct this architectural omission has long passed. Kentucky’s lawmaker have achieved their desired purpose: to avoid looking at, or listening to, the rabble — to maintain their false calm in the face of opposition and the questionable dignity of the office to which the rabble elected them.
Out of sight, out of mind.
It is lawmakers who are out of their minds when they regularly, and with increasing frequency, treat their constituents (and the voters) as “[ir]relevant expenditure[s].” Each year they heap new insult upon past injuries.
https://www.lpm.org/news/2024-08-01/confidential-hiding-the-cost-of-leg…
Once again, their decision is a violation of the open meetings laws they enacted. It is a direct affront to the voters who elected them. But if they insist on treating their constituents as irritating lodgers, I suggest they eliminate the tiresome introduction of friends and family — often seated in the gallery — and wrap up the long session a month early.
If you can’t stand the heat, fellers, get out of the “temporary workspace.” Such delicate eyes and ears have no place in a participatory democracy.
Republished from Kentucky Open Government Coalition under CC-BY-SA 4.0
https://kyopengov.org/blog/learning-public-was-purposely-excluded-person-attendance-during-legislative-proceedings
Amye Bensenhaver
Amye Bensenhaver is a retired assistant attorney general who, for twenty-five years, specialized in Kentucky’s open records and meetings laws. She is the co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition.