Kentucky Open Government Coalition
Courier Journal reporter Krista Johnson examines the arguments in the open meetings lawsuit filed by the newpaper against the Jefferson County Board of Education on June 27. The dispute centers on whether the board violated the law by conducting an illegal final vote in closed session to select Dr. Brian Yearwood as superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education. The Courier argues that the board “illegally decided on Harold Brian Yearwood in a closed session before the public vote.”
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/2025/06/30/courier…
The exception the board relied on to conduct closed session discussion of the qualifications of candidates, KRS 61.810(1)(f), permits “Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student [to be conducted in closed session] without restricting that employee’s, member’s, or student’s right to a public hearing if requested . This exception shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters in secret.”
https://kyopengov.org/law/61810
This will be an interesting — and important — case to watch for several reasons.
• Superintendent retirements are much in the news these days, and a precedent clearly defining the duties of school boards when appointing a new superintendent —and by extension , other executive officers — is timely and much needed. The fiasco that preceded Dr. Gerry Bradley’s appointment as current president of the University of Louisville — during the same closed session in which then- President Schatzel tendered her resignation — generated a similar controversy.
https://www.lpm.org/investigate/2025-04-22/resign-or-be-terminated-inte…
• And although there is, at least, some authority supporting the Jefferson County Board of Education’s closed session selection of Yearwood as the finalist with whom to begin contract negotiations before final appointment, the fact that both Yearwood’s identity and that of the other finalist had been disclosed militates against the policies supporting these authorities. The reputational harm which the exception for closed session discussion of candidates in closed session supports is undermined by prior disclosure of the candidates’ identities.
The open meetings decisions supporting this view are based on the premise that contract negotiations may break down between the agency and the preferred finalist, and the agency may be forced to pursue a second candidate. A 1991 opinion, and a 1996 open meetings decision extending protection to a finalist’s name until contract negotiations are concluded, a contract executed, and a final vote taken was extended to renegotiations with a sitting office holder in 2024.
https://kyopengov.org/law/ag/1991/oag-91-144
https://share.google/PVCWZnSsF6t2Nu45y
https://kyopengov.org/law/ag/2024/24-omd-222
(As we have often noted, these agency arguments have been disputed by open government experts, but Kentucky law does not yet recognize this current interpretation of the law.)
https://theithacan.org/28000/opinion/commentary/commentary-closed-searc…
https://kyopengov.org/blog/secrecy-breeds-secrecy-world-closed-universi…
• Then, there is the problem created by former Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s radical departure from decades of internal precedent for his office requiring strict compliance with KRS 61.815. Cameron declared that this statute — governing the mechanics for going into closed session and expressly prohibiting final action in a closed session — was permissive rather than mandatory. Under this theory, a public agency could elect to take final action in closed session.
https://kyopengov.org/law/61815
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-OMD-187.pdf
The case was appealed to circuit court, and that court rejected Cameron’s extremely dangerous interpretation of the law. The circuit court was affirmed on other grounds by the Court of Appeals in a 2024 unpublished opinion. That appellate opinion represents the last word on the subject, but a more emphatic endorsement of the principle that no final action may be taken in closed session would be welcomed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2024/2023-ca-079…
From this perspective, the Courier’s argument is not a slam dunk. But like other ambiguities in the law created in recent years, this case may provide the opportunity for much needed clarification.
Since the identities of Yearwood and the other finalist for JCPS superintendent were known to the public, it is possible that the facts will override the policy supporting the board’s reliance on KRS 61.810(1)(f). Given the caliber of the attorney representing the Courier, widely recognized open records and meetings authority Michael Abate, the newspaper may even succeed in securing reversal of the old decisions relating to contract negotiations and renegotiation. But there is a good faith argument that the board may make based on past legal authority, and it is unlikely that the Courier will be awarded attorneys fees should it prevail.
For now, it’s wait and see.
Republished from Kentucky Open Government Coalition under CC-BY-SA 4.0
https://kyopengov.org/blog/divided-authority-and-specific-facts-courier-journal-v-jefferson-county-board-education-may
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.
Wed, July 2, 2025
Commentary
Amye Bensenhaver
Kentucky Open Government Coalition
Courier Journal reporter Krista Johnson examines the arguments in the open meetings lawsuit filed by the newpaper against the Jefferson County Board of Education on June 27. The dispute centers on whether the board violated the law by conducting an illegal final vote in closed session to select Dr. Brian Yearwood as superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education. The Courier argues that the board “illegally decided on Harold Brian Yearwood in a closed session before the public vote.”
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/2025/06/30/courier…
The exception the board relied on to conduct closed session discussion of the qualifications of candidates, KRS 61.810(1)(f), permits “Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student [to be conducted in closed session] without restricting that employee’s, member’s, or student’s right to a public hearing if requested . This exception shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters in secret.”
https://kyopengov.org/law/61810
This will be an interesting — and important — case to watch for several reasons.
• Superintendent retirements are much in the news these days, and a precedent clearly defining the duties of school boards when appointing a new superintendent —and by extension , other executive officers — is timely and much needed. The fiasco that preceded Dr. Gerry Bradley’s appointment as current president of the University of Louisville — during the same closed session in which then- President Schatzel tendered her resignation — generated a similar controversy.
https://www.lpm.org/investigate/2025-04-22/resign-or-be-terminated-inte…
• And although there is, at least, some authority supporting the Jefferson County Board of Education’s closed session selection of Yearwood as the finalist with whom to begin contract negotiations before final appointment, the fact that both Yearwood’s identity and that of the other finalist had been disclosed militates against the policies supporting these authorities. The reputational harm which the exception for closed session discussion of candidates in closed session supports is undermined by prior disclosure of the candidates’ identities.
The open meetings decisions supporting this view are based on the premise that contract negotiations may break down between the agency and the preferred finalist, and the agency may be forced to pursue a second candidate. A 1991 opinion, and a 1996 open meetings decision extending protection to a finalist’s name until contract negotiations are concluded, a contract executed, and a final vote taken was extended to renegotiations with a sitting office holder in 2024.
https://kyopengov.org/law/ag/1991/oag-91-144
https://share.google/PVCWZnSsF6t2Nu45y
https://kyopengov.org/law/ag/2024/24-omd-222
(As we have often noted, these agency arguments have been disputed by open government experts, but Kentucky law does not yet recognize this current interpretation of the law.)
https://theithacan.org/28000/opinion/commentary/commentary-closed-searc…
https://kyopengov.org/blog/secrecy-breeds-secrecy-world-closed-universi…
• Then, there is the problem created by former Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s radical departure from decades of internal precedent for his office requiring strict compliance with KRS 61.815. Cameron declared that this statute — governing the mechanics for going into closed session and expressly prohibiting final action in a closed session — was permissive rather than mandatory. Under this theory, a public agency could elect to take final action in closed session.
https://kyopengov.org/law/61815
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2022/22-OMD-187.pdf
The case was appealed to circuit court, and that court rejected Cameron’s extremely dangerous interpretation of the law. The circuit court was affirmed on other grounds by the Court of Appeals in a 2024 unpublished opinion. That appellate opinion represents the last word on the subject, but a more emphatic endorsement of the principle that no final action may be taken in closed session would be welcomed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2024/2023-ca-079…
From this perspective, the Courier’s argument is not a slam dunk. But like other ambiguities in the law created in recent years, this case may provide the opportunity for much needed clarification.
Since the identities of Yearwood and the other finalist for JCPS superintendent were known to the public, it is possible that the facts will override the policy supporting the board’s reliance on KRS 61.810(1)(f). Given the caliber of the attorney representing the Courier, widely recognized open records and meetings authority Michael Abate, the newspaper may even succeed in securing reversal of the old decisions relating to contract negotiations and renegotiation. But there is a good faith argument that the board may make based on past legal authority, and it is unlikely that the Courier will be awarded attorneys fees should it prevail.
For now, it’s wait and see.
Republished from Kentucky Open Government Coalition under CC-BY-SA 4.0
https://kyopengov.org/blog/divided-authority-and-specific-facts-courier-journal-v-jefferson-county-board-education-may
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.