Edgar Co. (ECWd) –
The Village of Kansas President has responded to the Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor regarding alleged Open Meetings Act violations during its July and August regular meetings.
As part of the response, Ross Carroll, the President since April of 2017, claimed 4 members of the board and himself make up a relatively new board.
- “As a relatively new board of 4 + myself, we’re struggling to ingest the often-overwhelming details required to manage a small municipality one night a month for about 2 hours, let alone keep all the OMA details in mind as we move through organizing our agendas and presenters.”
Where does one start with such a bogus statement? Carrol was a board member beginning back in 2013, followed by being elected as the Village President in April of 2017. How can a person who has been a part of the Village board for over 12 years claim he is relatively new and struggling to ingest his obligations?
To complain that trying to manage the village with one night-a-month meeting is nothing more than an excuse. If you can’t do the job with one meeting a month, you might just have to have more meetings to get the job done. A job in which you asked for the people’s vote.
What defines relatively new? Is that an excuse for not complying with the most basic obligations regarding the Open Meetings Act?
- Dylon Rarding, a current board member, was first elected in April of 2019.
- Jim Vail, a current board member, has been on the board since at least April of 2022, and I believe was either elected or appointed to fill a vacancy prior to that.
- Kyle Harrison, a current board member, is believed to have been a board member for at least 2 years.
- Shaun Noel was elected in April of 2025.
While Mr. Ross points to the Village being a 4-member board, the board is actually made of 6 board seats, of which 2 are currently vacant. Considering the Open Meetings Act training takes less than 1 hour, and the law requires elected officials to take the training within 90 days of taking office, those holding office currently have all had more than enough time to learn the most basic obligation of the Open Meetings Act.
The AG PAC is reviewing the allegations and should make a determination shortly. The primary issues were the board taking action on items not on the agenda and conducting a public hearing without any agenda or proper public notice at the location of the public hearing.
We will update this article when the AG PAC provides its determination.
