Stanford calls emergency meeting
Published 11:56 am Friday, August 4, 2017
- Stanford City Council members gather for an emergency meeting July 27. From left to right are council members Scottie Ernst, John Sallee, Peggy Hester and Sara Givens.
Editors Note: The original story stated that the city council called the emergency meeting. City Attorney Christopher Reed called the meeting. This story has been updated to reflect that information.
STANFORD – An emergency meeting for Stanford City Council members was called earlier this month but the reason for the meeting is still unknown. The meeting was called by City Attorney Christopher Reed.
An executive session to discuss “pending litigation” was the item listed on the agenda for the July 27 meeting.
The council voted to enter into a closed session shortly after opening the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and remained in the secret session for about 35 minutes before returning to open session.
When asked for details about the discussion, City Attorney Christopher Reed said the meeting was called to discuss pending litigation.
The Interior Journal filed an open meetings complaint on Aug. 2, which alleges the council violated at least two provisions of the state’s open meetings laws.
The complaint states that an emergency meeting was called without giving any reason for the emergency, which prevented them from complying with other aspects of the law.
“KRS. 61.823 (5) states that under emergency circumstances ‘At the beginning of the emergency meeting, the person chairing the meeting shall briefly describe for the record the emergency circumstances preventing compliance…These comments shall appear in the minutes. Discussion and actions at the emergency meeting shall be limited to the emergency for which the meeting was called,'” The Interior Journal argued. “No explanation for the meeting was given other than ‘pending litigation.'”
The complaint also alleges that the council went into a closed session without stating the general nature of business to be discussed. “Pending litigation” was again, the only reason stated for going into a secret session.
The city has three days to respond to the open meetings complaint.
