OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF KANSAS Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney August 21,2012 Mr. Michel Merriam 700 SW Jackson, Roof Garden Suite Topeka, KS Re: Topeka Capital-Journal request for KOMA investigation Dear Mr. Merriam: Enclosed you will find a ten page report detailing the findings of my office following our investigation into the concerns you raised in your letter dated January 31, Based on our investigation, we did confirm that there were occasions during the dinners specified in your Jetter where a majority of a public body were present or participated in a discussion about business that was or would be brought before that body; however, we could not conclude that any one of the attending legislators committed a substantive violation of KOMA. As a result of our investigation, we are recommending the Topeka Capital-Journal and the legislature's administration develop protocols for triggering and complying with the predicates of KOMA. We are also recommending that all members of the legislature receive comprehensive training on KOMA and how it applies to their roles as legislators. While my office now considers this matter close, if you have any questions or concerns about our findings or our recommendations, please don't hesitate to contact me. CJT:kjb Enclosure cc: Michael O'Neil, Speaker of the House Steve Morris, President of the Senate Paul Davis, House Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, Senate Minority Leader Derek Schmidt, Attorney General Shawnee County Courthouse 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 214 Topeka, Kansas {785) Ext

2 MICHAEL W. MERRIAM LAWYER 700 SW Jackson, Roof Garden Suite Topeka, Kansas Telephone (785) Facsimile (785) Cellular (785) Janumy 31,2012 Mr. Chad Taylor Shawnee County District Attorney 200 SE 7'h St, Room 214 Topeka KS Hand-delivered Re: Topeka Capital-Journal request for KOMA investigation Dear Mr. Taylor, I represent the Topeka Capital-Journal and am requesting that you investigate recent meetings of the Kansas House of Representatives and Senate committee meetings with Governor Brownback. As the newspaper has reported, the governor apparently has invited a majority of the members of several committees of the legislature to private gatherings at the governor's house without such committees complying with the Kansas Open Meetings Act. We are aware that the governor's office contends the. meetings are social occasions, but also aware that many legislators admit that the business of the legislature was discussed in nearly all instances. Indeed, it is difficult to see any legislative reason for a majority of any legislative committee to meet with the governor, especially during the legislative session with the governor's political agenda pending before such committees. Other hair-splitting excuses have been offered, but we believe that any court which interprets KO"MA liberally as is required by law would find this practice to violate the law. My client has published information on this matter which I believe is sufficient for your purposes. I would appreciate it if you will keep me and the Topeka Capital-Journal updated on the requested investigation. Very truly yours, cc: Mr. Greg Ireland Ms. Tomari Quinn IVW~ Michael W. Merriam

3 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF KANSAS Chadwick]. Taylor, District Attorney J. Todd Hiatt Senior Assistant District Attorney Shawnee County Courthouse 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 2J.I Topeka, Kansas 6660a August 17,2012 Chad Taylor District Attorney for the Third Judicial District 200 SE 7 1 h Street, Suite 214 Topeka, KS In re: Action Pursuant to Open Meetings Act; 12U160 Mr. Taylor: On January 31, 2012, this office received a complaint from the Topeka Capital-Journal alleging potential violations of the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA or the Act). These potential violations were alleged to have occurred when Republican state legislators were invited to Cedar Crest to attend several dinners hosted by Governor Brownback in January of2012. While previous administrations have held similar dinners, these dinners were unique in that Republican legislators were invited to attend by committee memberships. The complaint lodged by the Topeka Capital-Journal was specifically limited to the legislative dinners held in January of 2012, and alleged that a public body or bodies subject to KOMA attended a prearranged gathering wherein "business of the legislature was discussed in nearly all instances." As with any alleged KOMA violations occurring in Shawnee County, our office shares jurisdiction with the Office of the Attorney General. In this case, either office had authority to investigate the Capital-Journal's complaints. After discussing all options with the Attorney General, it was decided that our office should conduct the investigation. Because the alleged wrongdoing was committed by up to 90 state legislators, if the Attorney General's office handled the investigation, the State could have been forced to use taxpayer dollars to hire private counsel to defend all legislators requesting legal representation. The legal fees associated with representing these legislators could have been substantial. Instead, with our office handling the investigation, the Attorney General was able to provide an attorney for those legislators who requested legal assistance at no cost to the taxpayer. In the end, over 40 legislators used the legal services provided by the Attorney General's office. Once the decision was made for our office to conduct the investigation, Matt Patterson and I were assigned to the case. Our investigation commenced in earnest in early February of2012. Ph: (785) ,!330

4 During the course of the investigation, we interviewed nearly 50 legislators. Following your discussions with the Attorney General and the House and Senate leadership, the bulk of the legislators met with us willingly. Almost all of these interviews were conducted between the hours of 4:00p.m. and 8:00p.m. on weekdays in order to accommodate the legislators' schedules as well as our own ongoing litigation of pending criminal cases. During these interviews, most legislators were represented by Michael Smith with the AG's Office, a few chose to appear without representation, and one utilized private counsel. Seven legislators refused to meet with us willingly or failed to respond to our invitations to appear. Subpoenas were issued compelling these representatives to testify. All representatives who received a subpoena appeared and gave testimony or provided an affidavit sufficient to justify releasing them from their obligation to testify. We also interviewed several members of the governor's staff as well as the Secretary of Revenue, Nick Jordan. All members of the Executive Branch appeared willingly and cooperated fully with the investigation. Finally, we contacted various government officials by telephone and exchanged limited correspondence with the Topeka Capital-Joumal. In this letter, I will review KOMA and the applicable legal standard utilized during the course of the investigation, I will provide a summary of the facts provided by the representatives and executive branch employees intel'viewed, and I will set out the conclusions and recommendations for corrective action as determined by Mr. Patterson and myself. Brief Statement oft he Nature of the Complaint In January of 2012, Governor Brown back invited several representatives to Cedar Crest for a series of legislative dinners. This is a common practice. Every administration in recent history has hosted these types of social events at the start of the legislative session. What marked these dinners as different is that representatives were invited based on their committee membership. For example, the invitation to the January 17,2012, legislative dinner was specifically "for the House Tax & Commerce Committee." The invitation for the January 9, 20 I 2, legislative dinner was directed toward the "KPERS Committee." Tim Shallenberger, a member of the governor's staff, made the decision to invite members according to their committee membership in order to avoid conflicts with committee events or dinners hosted by others. Apparently, this had been a problem during the previous year and there was a desire to have as many invited legislators attend as possible. However, by inviting the representatives in this manner, the governor held several legislative dinners where individuals subject to KOMA were gathered as a majority of their legislative committee. The dinners themselves were unremarkable. Legislators met at Cedar Crest and informally ate dinner surrounded primarily by their fellow committee members. Toward the end of each dinner, the governor stood and addressed the committee attendees. This was then followed by a question-and-answer (Q&A) session with the attendees. While beginning these presentations with an overview of his agenda for the coming legislative session, the governor also tailored remarks to each group based on the attendees' committee membership. The purpose was to make a "direct pitch from the governor to legislators who 2

5 [would be] considering his agenda[.]" For example, during the dinner for the education committees, the governor spoke about the need to enact legislation ahead of the brewing lawsuit regarding school funding. He discussed his desire to revamp the funding formula and talked about the importance of property tax equalization. During the KPERS committee dinner, the governor spoke of his preference for a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. During the tax committee, the governor presented the initial principles of his soon-to-be proposed tax plan. More significantly for the application of KOMA, at the end of each presentation, the governor opened the floor for a Q&A session with the legislators in order to "answer any questions that they might have" about the governor's agenda for their committee. These sessions inevitably arose from the governor's remarks and invariably dealt with the governor's agenda as it would pertain to the specific committee present. The governor and his staff were aware of the risk posed by hosting dinners in this manner. In an effort to steer clear of any violations of KOMA, the governor's remarks began with a warning to the attendees to be mindful of KOMA. Relying on his staff and/or the legislators themselves to monitor the Q&A sessions, the governor would give his remarks and then open the floor for questions. The Topeka Capital-Journal's January 31, 2012, complaint specifically alleged that the governor hosted "a majority of members of several committees" to Cedar Crest where "business of the legislature was discussed." At also opined that "any court which interprets KOMA liberally as is required by law would find this practice to violate the law." Based on this complaint, our investigation was limited to the legislative dinners held at Cedar Crest in January of Our goal was to determine if a majority of a legislative committee met during or after these dinners and, if so, whether the affairs or business of those committees was discussed among the majority. If such a discussion took place among a majority of members, we would then need to determine whether the scope of the discussion exceeded that permitted by KOMA. Finally, should we be able to determine all this was true, we would then have to determine the appropriate penalties and/or remedies pursuant to KOMA. The Kansas Open Meetings Act The Kansas Open Meetings Act is found at K.S.A et seq. According to this act, it is the policy of the State of Kansas that meetings for the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of government business should be open to the public. This statutory declaration affirming transparency in government has been examined and reaffirmed by the judiciary, which has stated that KOMA was "enacted for the public benefit." As such, KOMA is subject to broad construction and should always be construed in favor of the public in order ensure that our government remains open and transparent. See Stevens v. City of Hutchinson, II Kan.App.2d 290 (1986) and State ex rei. Murray v. Palmgren, 23 I Kan 524 (1982). Bodies subject to KOMA KOMA applies to "all legislative and administrative bodies and agencies of the state and political and taxing subdivisions thereof, including boards, commissions, authorities, councils, committees, subcommittees and other subordinate groups thereof, receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by public funds." K.S.A By definition KOMA does not apply to the Executive branch. ld. It can also be suspended by rules enacted by the Kansas 3

6 Senate or House of Representatives. I d. In investigating the legislative dinners held at Cedar Crest, we found no evidence that any rule enacted by the House or Senate exempted these dinners. Meetings as defined by KOMA As used in KOMA, "meeting" means any gathering or assembly in person or through the use of a telephone or any other medium for interactive communication by a majority of the membership of a body or agency subject to this act for the purpose of discussing the business or affairs of the body or agency. K.S.A a. This language has also been examined and interpreted over the years both by the judiciary as well as by the AG's office. According to Palmgren, a meeting is any prearranged gathering of a public body where the purpose is to "discuss, conduct, or transact the business or the affairs of the body or agency" subject to KOMA. This can be a formal committee hearing held in the statehouse or, under the right circumstances, it can be at an ice cream social hosted by the local school district. For example, in Matter of University of Kansas Faculty, 2 Kan.App.2s 416 (1978), an administrative body subject to KOMA held an informal gathering prior to its scheduled meeting. The Comt determined that despite being informal this meeting was subject to KOMA- as were all prearranged gatherings at all stages of the decision-making process.ld. at 423. The term "prearranged" has the effect of excluding "chance" encounters of members of a body subject to the Act. The gathering is prearranged if notice is given in writing, personally, via telephone, or is implicitly understood by the membership of the body. Stevens v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Reno County, I 0 Kan. App. 2d 523, 524 (1985). The Kansas Attorney General has interpreted the act to require that its provision extend to include informal caucuses at all stages of the decision-making process, including informal gatherings held prior to, during a recess of, or immediately after a regularly scheduled meeting, unless they are truly "chance" encounters. This may include informal rehashing of business over coffee and rolls after a regular meeting or customary gatherings of the Board before and after regularly scheduled meetings. Obviously, informal gatherings held during a recess cannot be used by members subject to the act to subve1t the intent and purpose of the act. Jd. (internal citations omitted). A broad construction ofkoma made in favor of the public suggests that no gathering, fonnal or informal, can be used by the gathered members to subvert the intent and purpose of KOMA. Construed in favor of the public this is true even where the gathering was not originally intended to include a discussion of business of the body gathered. Quite simply, if our elected representatives are truly committed to an open and transparent government, the intent and purpose of KOMA should not be subverted under any circumstances. Members of the legislature should not meet as a majority of their committee and discuss the affairs or business of the committee. Discussing the business oft he body under KOMA Once a majority of a body subject to KOMA has gathered and the discussion of business becomes the purpose for the gathering, most Attorney General opinions reviewing the meaning 4

7 of "discussion of business" do so in the framework of serial communications. Serial communications are singled out in KOMA and are subject to a different legal analysis. In the case where a simple gathering or assembly occurs, the Attorney General has stated that members of a public body need not transact business by formal motion or vote, but discussion of the "affairs and business of the body is all that is necessary to invoke the provisions of the Act." Atty. Gen. Op. No Notice of a meeting of a public body must be requested Notice of the date, time and place of any meeting of a public body subject to the Act must only be given to people or entities requesting such notice. A public body may require that a request for notice be resubmitted prior to the statt of the subsequent fiscal year; however, even where the public body requires an annual request for notice, if that public body does not notify the requesting party that notice will be discontinued without a renewed request, the duty to notify the party continues. K.S.A (b )(3). In this matter, the Topeka Capital-Journal has asserted that they requested notice around the time the Kansas Open Meetings Act was enacted, but have not requested such notice on an annual basis. Legislative staff could not confirm receiving any request for notice, but neither does the legislature have a practice of notifying requesters that a notice of meetings will be discontinued absent a renewed request for each fiscal year. It appears both the Topeka Capital Journal and the legislature have relied on the custom and practice of the legislature to give notice and publish calendars reflecting such meetings as well as on House Rule However, the requirements of the Kansas Open Meetings Act are not governed by custom, practice, or rules promulgated by the public body. They are statutory in nature. Likewise, our authority to investigate the Topeka Capital-Journal's complaint is statutory in nature and is limited to a breach of the Act, not to any potential breaches of custom, practice, or legislative rules. Substantive versus Technical Violations "Technical violation" is a term of att adopted by courts in discussing KOMA violations. Kansas courts "will look to the spirit of the law, and will overlook mere technical violations where the public body has made a good faith effort to comply and is in substantial compliance with the KOMA, and where no one is prejudiced or the public right to know has not been effectively denied." Stevens v. City of Hutchinson, II Kan. App. 2d 290, ( 1986). All other violations ofkoma are properly categorized as "substantive." Application of KOMA to Govemor Brown back's legislative dinners hosted at Cedar Crest in JanuaJJ' of There were seven legislative dinners hosted by Governor Brownback in January of These were held on January 9, 10, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 25,2012. The committees invited included committees dealing with KPERS, education, tax, agriculture, commerce, appropriations, redistricting, and ways and means. Of these dinners, not all were attended by a majority of the committee in question. Without a majority, the Kansas Open Meetings Act does not apply and no violations could occur regardless of the nature and scope of the discussion. For those dinners that did include a majority of the members of a committee, our investigation focused on the questionand-answer (Q&A) session that followed the presentations by Governor Brown back. 5

8 The Kansas Open Meetings Act is not necessarily implicated where a third party addresses a majority of a body subject to the Act. The Act "only describes and regulates actions of the actual members of a public body or agency." Att. Gen. Op. No (2000). Where a third party addresses a majority of a public body or agency and the members remain passive listeners, it can be generally said that no violation of the Act will occur. There are limits to this proposition, however. Members of a public body or agency "place themselves in a difficult situation" when they participate in such a presentation where business of the body or agency is discussed even though they may intend to remain passive observers.!d. Members in this position "stand at the top of a very steep slippery slope with a KOMA violation at the bottom."!d. For instance, where a public body is holding a public meeting it cannot recess to "passively" listen to a private third pat1y presentation and then resume the public meeting thereafter. Further, where passive listeners become active questioners or otherwise engage the third party presenter, the Act would be violated if the participation crossed the line into a "discussion." ld. Culpability oft he Legislators in Attendance The invitations for the dinners were sent to the official offices of the invited legislators. While these invitations clearly indicated that the legislators were being invited according to their membership in a specific committee, most of the legislators did not handle their own invitations; instead, they allowed their staff to coordinate their calendars and handle scheduling. This meant that some of the legislators we interviewed did not realize that they were attending a legislative dinner limited to their fellow committee members. Fm1her, there was no evidence that any of the legislators attended the dinners with the expectation of discussing the affairs or business of their committee. Almost without exception, the evidence in this matter suggests that the legislators attending these dinners did so with the expectation that it would be a strictly social gathering. On the other hand, the vast majority of legislators we interviewed had a limited understanding of how KOMA applied to their roles as members of a public body. While very few would admit that KOMA may have been violated by these arrangements as orchestrated by the governor's administration, almost none of legislators had read KOMA, the Attorney General opinions defining the contours of KOMA, or the limited training materials supplied to incoming freshmen members that discussed KOMA. Without knowledge of the substance ofkoma, the majority of legislators did not fully apprehend the danger of violating KOMA during the Q&A session hosted by the governor. During the interviews, many legislators characterized the dinners as "social gatherings." They told us these types of gatherings were "normal," "not unusual," or "commonplace." As a matter of fact, we were told that lobbyists have long hosted similar events and conducted similar Q&A sessions with legislative committees. When asked whether they believed KOMA was violated, legislators told us that no official actions were taken, no votes were cast, no strategy discussed, and no debate was had. They told us there was no written agenda for the dinners and that the dinners weren't held in a committee room or other formal setting. According to most of the legislators we interviewed, the dinners were merely social-just like all the legislative dinners that had gone before. The problem with this approach is that none of these assertions- even if true- are a defense to a KOMA violation. A prearranged gathering where the business of the body is discussed by a majority of that body is a violation of KOMA. Of all the legislators we 6

9 interviewed, only a handful understood that KOMA restricted the level of discussion and interaction among the attendees at these particular gatherings hosted at Cedar Crest. In addition to a lack of familiarity with KOMA, most legislators could not remember anything specific about the Q&A sessions. Most would generally admit that legislators posed questions to the governor about his presentation to their committee or discussed issues relating to the presentation, but almost without fail they could not remember the substance of the questions asked or who patticipated in the Q&A sessions. There were a few exceptions. For example, during the course of our investigation two legislators were able to provide a detailed account of the dinner held on January 9, 2012, for Republican members of the KPERS and KPERS Select Committees. While most members in attendance could not remember anything specific about what was said or who spoke during the presentation and Q&A, these two legislators revealed enough to cause us considerable concern. During the governor's presentation to the members of committees working on KPERS, Governor Brownback invited Senator King to talk about the work a small group of KPERS Select committee had done in the off-season in preparing KPERS legislation for the upcoming session. Addressing the group, Senator King discussed the plan his commission was working on, the unfunded liability facing the system, and the work of the committees for the next session, including recommendations that would be put before the committees as they consider KPERS reform. The governor followed Senator King and told the gathered members that he would like a bill on the end of his desk by January because "he was bringing a truckload of legislation" to the legislature. The Governor then opened the floor for questions. During the Q&A that followed, an unknown attendee asked about the strategy for passing the proposed legislation. At that point, Senate President Morris, who had been asked to monitor the conversation for potential KOMA violations, cautioned the group that that type of question strayed too close to the prohibitions ofkoma. Governor Brownback agreed. However, the conversation soon returned to specifics, including discussion about a triggering mechanism for movement of the bill, defined contribution plans as compared to defined benefit plans, and the positions that other states had taken on public employee retirement systems. These are all issues that would be naturally brought before the KPERS committee during the course of the 2012 legislative session. In addition to the dinner for the KPERS committees, some of the governor's staff in attendance at the education committee dinner remembered that the governor tried to impress upon the members the impmtance of bringing his education plan to the floor as a bill. The Q&A following that presentation centered around the need to convince school superintendents to rally behind the plan and questions about property tax equalization, as well as some discussion by Representative Aurand and Senator Vratil regarding the past lawsuit and/or potential for a future lawsuit regarding the education funding formula. Unfmtunately, the dinner held January 9, 2012, is the only dinner for which we have a reasonably detailed account of the substance of the Q&A and those who participated in the Q&A. The rest of the dinners remain shrouded in incomplete recollections and vague memories. Without the attendees having a specific recollection of the substance of the Q&A sessions that followed the governor's remarks as well as the identities of the participants in the Q&A sessions, 7

10 it is impossible for us to determine which legislators, if any, may have violated the tenets of KOMA. In light of the collective inability to remember specifics, we cannot conclude that any particular legislator violated KOMA. What we can conclude is that the legislators attending these dinners went there expecting to have dinner and socialize with the governor and his staff. Most, if not all, of the attending legislators did not attend with the intention of discussing the business of their committee as part of a majority of that committee. Based on our investigation, most of the attending members did not pose any questions to the governor and remained passive observers. For those that did ask questions or participate in a discussion during the Q&A session, the evidence suggests that most attempted to keep their remarks fairly general and not delve too far into the specifics of the governor's presentations. On the other hand, the exceptions raise grave concerns. While we may not be able to identify the specific actors, it appears more probable than not that during the course of the Q&A sessions held during the month of January 2012, the permissible bounds created by KOMA were violated on more than one occasion. This necessarily leads us to examine whether such violations were technical or substantive. Under the guidance provided by the Kansas Court of Appeals, we must "look to the spirit of the law, and... overlook mere technical violations where the public body has made a good faith effort to comply and is in substantial compliance with the KOMA, and where no one is prejudiced or the public right to know has not been effectively denied." Stevens, II Kan. App. 2d at Let's statt with "good faith." For purposes of our investigation, we can define "good faith" as sincerity of intention. But there is also a component of "good faith" that requires a diligence in understanding what is required under the circumstances. There is no doubt that several legislators either cavalierly or unknowingly waded into the Q&A sessions with very limited knowledge of how KOMA applied to their role as a member of a public body. Where they found themselves at the top of a steep slippery slope, they did not step away but instead recklessly danced on the edge of a KOMA violation without any appreciation for the risk involved. In the end, it appears that most legislators in attendance simply lacked the knowledge that would be expected of an elected official under the circumstances. In light of this, we cannot conclude that the legislators participating in the Q&A sessions acted in good faith. We also cannot conclude that the public's right to know was not effectively denied under the circumstances. We know that the Topeka Capital-Journal did not receive notice. We know that a majority of the committees invited attended most of the dinners. And we know that business of the invited committees was discussed even though we do not know the full scope of the discussions. The driving force behind KOMA is a commitment to a transparent government. If requested, KOMA requires notice to the public when a majority of a public body meets to discuss business of the body. We know that the public was not notified of these dinners. Without such notice, the public's right to know was denied. Similarly, we cannot conclude that the legislators in attendance substantially complied with KOMA. That hinges on the scope of the discussions that took place during the Q&A sessions. Because none of the legislators could recall specifics about the Q&A sessions sufficient to 8

11 ascettain the scope of the majority of the discussions that took place, we simply don't have enough information to be able to make any determination at all. We can conclude that no legislator in attendance intended to surreptitiously discuss the business of their committee in violation of KOMA. All legislators agreed that they were committed to a transparent government and they all agreed that members of the legislature could use additional training on how KOMA applied to the activities of the legislators. The violations of KOMA that occurred during these Q&A sessions, if any, were borne of ignorance, not of malicious intent. Because of this, we have concluded that any violations of KOMA that occurred during the governor's legislative dinners are best characterized as being technical in nature rather than a substantive violation of KOMA. However, they are only technical violations by the slimmest margin. Should any of the legislators participate in this sort of discussion in the future, whether hosted by the executive branch, a lobbyist, or any third party, they do so at significant risk of a substantive KOMA violation. Findings and Recommendations It is clear that the governor and his staff wanted a chance to meet with Republican committee members and present an ambitious agenda for the legislature to consider taking up. It is clear the governor and his staff wanted a chance to meet with these members to encourage, if not educate, the members on the perceived impmtance of his plans for each committee. It is also clear the governor and his staff were aware of KOMA and made some attempts to avoid a potential violation; however, the administration's approach relied in large part on a familiarity with KOMA that most attendees did not have. With regard to the attending legislators, it is clear that none attended these dinners with the intent of meeting outside the public view to discuss the business of their committees. Instead, they participated in a Q&A session at the invitation of the governor after being cautioned about the potentially applicability ofkoma. However, almost all attendees did not have the requisite knowledge of KOMA or how it applied to their roles as legislative committee members. The legislators should be intimately familiar with the purpose of and the limits set by KOMA. Almost to a person, they were not. While we can conclude that none of the legislators attending the January 2012 dinners at Cedar Crest appear to have acted in bad faith, we must conclude that the legislators acted out of ignorance of the applicable law. At a minimum, we recommend that all legislators, whether newly elected or returning members, and without regard to party affiliation, receive detailed and specific training on KOMA and its application to their roles as elected members of the Kansas legislature. To the extent that these types of dinners are a common occurrence as hosted by various lobbying groups or by future executive administrations, we recommend that the Attorney General's office be consulted about the legality of such meetings and develop guidelines the House and Senate can enact to ensure that their members comply with the letter and spirit of KOMA. Finally, we recommend that the legislature develop procedures for annually notifying individuals and entities that request notice of meetings that their requests for notice need to be reviewed. 9

12 Sincerely, 10