Suspended Jenks head football coach being paid more than $94,000 to work at elementary school

Suspended football coach Allan Trimble was reassigned to Jenks East Elementary School, the Tulsa World reported Saturday.

Trimble's duties include helping students who might have discipline issues, coordinating and supervising a daily morning outdoor run for students and coordinating and supervising a planning committee for the school's new playground equipment, according to the newspaper.

Trimble also is starting a mentoring program to help students who need academic support, the newspaper reported.

Two weeks ago, the school district refused to say where Trimble had been reassigned or what he was doing to earn his salary. At the time, district spokeswoman Tara Thompson told the Tulsa World that no documentation was created that explained Trimble’s new assignment or duties. Thompson would say only that he was "assisting with administrative duties and special projects at a Jenks Public Schools site." (Read FOI Oklahoma Blog related posting.)

The newspaper on Saturday didn't explain why the school district had decided to reveal Trimble's new job and duties.

Trimble was suspended Oct. 2 following an investigation that exposed multiple recruiting violations.

The Tulsa World's reporting Saturday focused on football booster club payments to Trimble that violated district policy. Reimbursements to Trimble for in-state travel violated district policy because he already receives a $2,400 car allowance as part of his contract with the district.

The Tulsa World discovered the payments when it reviewed booster club financial records released by the district to the newspaper.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

In a digital world, government officials should be putting “all the law” in online databases everyone may view for free

(Essay by Doug Wilson, an FOI Oklahoma Inc. board member and attorney)

What price justice?

In America, when government officials adopt a mentality of "us vs. them," the rule of men tramples underfoot the rule of law and democracy fails.

In a lawsuit brought by a client under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, I recently took the sworn deposition of a gentleman who has worked for the State of Oklahoma for more than 25 years. At the time of his deposition, he was employed by the Ad Valorem Division of the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

Being uncertain of just exactly what I was asking, he responded with a question of his own. After I clarified my question for him, his response took me by surprise:

25-year State Employee: But you're saying John Q. Public comes in and asks and he says, "I want this information." Okay? Am I understanding your question?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, sir. Under the Open Records Act, the government of the people by the people for the people.

25-year State Employee: Where's that government at?

In his defense, maybe he intended his comment to be tongue-in-cheek, but it didn't strike me that way. The phrase, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," comes from the last line of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not
have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a
new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

In America, government should never be "us versus them," but simply "US." When it's just US, it's not hard to understand why the state's digital database(s) of court information is made available at cost to anyone. It's just US.

Money should never stand between a person and justice. Equal Justice for all is worth dying for. Equal Justice for those who can afford it, not so much.

Many people have heard the oft-repeated judicial refrain: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

In the digital world in which we live, when we can store entire libraries inside a laptop, those in government should be tripping over each other trying to put "all the law" in one big digital database where every person can view it without charge and find whatever help he or she needs to stay on course.

When a government body in these United States of America charges people more than cost just to see and copy the law, somewhere, Abraham Lincoln most surely weeps.


Douglas A. Wilson
Attorney and Counselor at Law
521 South Hafner Street, Suite B
Stillwater, OK 74074-3980

Will a state Supreme Court official decide which Oklahomans are entitled to obtain digital records of multiple court cases?

Comments this week by the state Supreme Court’s chief justice haven’t clarified how the court will handle requests from the general public and press for bulk copies of digital court records.

James Edmondson told The Oklahoman on Tuesday the court would comply with requests from noncommercial entities and the media on an individual basis.

But on the same day, Edmondson also told the Tulsa World the court “will honor media and public requests for information."

Did he mean all or just some?

Edmondson told both newspapers the court’s new prohibition on requests for bulk case data was intended to apply only to commercial entities.

However, the court’s administrative directive, passed unanimously by the justices on Oct. 8, makes no distinction between commercial and noncommercial requests. Nor does it mention requests from the public and press being decided individually by a court official. (SCAD-2009-92)

That the court would deny requests from companies is troubling enough. More disturbing would be a court official deciding which Oklahomans are worthy of receiving digital court records for more than one case at a time.

Edmondson told the Tulsa World this week, "The Supreme Court will comply with the Open Records laws and other laws affecting public records.”

But that law doesn’t allow a sheriff, police chief, mayor, or state agency director to decide who can and who cannot have access to the government records in their possession. For good reason: Government officials have a tendency to shield from public view the documents that embarrass them.

Edmondson’s brother, state Attorney General Drew Edmondson, said a decade ago that requesters can be asked for only enough information to determine if a search fee should be charged because the records request is for a commercial purpose.

Otherwise, he emphasized in a written opinion, “In no event could a public body or public official ever require a requestor to provide the reason for a request for access to records. . . .” (1999 OK AG 55, ¶¶ 18-19)

ALL Oklahomans “are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

That includes our courts.

To put such a decision in the hands of a bureaucrat would abrogate the intent and purpose of the Oklahoma Open Records Act: “Ensure and facilitate the public’s right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power.” (Id.)

Concerns over the court’s administrative directive perhaps could have been avoided if the justices had included the public in their decision-making.

After all, these records belong to the public.

All we can hope for now is that the court will either rescind or substantially revise its rule.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Barring bulk copies of electronic court records connected to plan to consolidate all such records online?

The Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision to bar bulk distribution of electronic court records apparently is connected to a plan to consolidate court records from all 77 counties onto one Web site with free access by the public, according to newspaper coverage Wednesday.

Until then, district court records will be available for free on the state-run Oklahoma State Courts Network and the privately owned On Demand Court Records, The Oklahoman reported.

The newspaper reported the Supreme Court signed a $1 million contract in August with KellPro Inc., the operator of On Demand Court Records, to get data from the courts it serves ready for conversion to the new system.

The administrative directive barring bulk distribution resulted from a request by Edmond-based INAD Data Service LLC for electronic copies of all district court and workers' compensation court case information, reported The Oklahoman and Tulsa World on Wednesday.

Chief Justice James Edmondson told the Tulsa World that the court "did not have a specific rule to determine how to handle this request, which could have cost the (requester) an estimated $20,000 to $40,000 to have the request filled."

So the decision was to bar such requests?

Edmondson told the newspaper that media requests for bulk copies should not be affected by the new rule.

However, the directive, which the justices unanimously approved on Oct. 8., states, "Bulk distribution of any electronic case data by a software provider is not allowed.

"Electronic access is available only to the electronic case information of a particular case. When a search for electronic case information for an individual case returns multiple results, each result may be viewed only individually." (SCAD-2009-92)

No mention of exceptions for requests made in the public interest.

Edmondson said the court would "comply with the Open Records laws and other laws affecting public records."

But the directive seems to carve an exception from the Open Records Act. It's an exemption that certainly wouldn't be tolerated in regard to other government records.

The justices are to be applauded for wanting to make district court records from all 77 counties available online for free.

But what does barring bulk distribution have to do with that plan?

Perhaps the justices intend to remove the restriction once the new system is in place. We don't know because they haven't explained their plan to the public.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Oklahoma Supreme Court bars bulk distribution of electronic case information

Meaningful analysis of the state's court systems would be nearly impossible under an Oklahoma Supreme Court plan to bar bulk distribution of electronic case information, say FOI Oklahoma Inc. members who conduct database reporting.

An administrative directive released Oct. 8 by the court states, "Bulk distribution of electronic case information is not allowed." (SCAD-2009-92)

The justices provided no explanation or justification for the rule. They unanimously approved the directive.

Under the directive, "electronic access is available only to the electronic case information of a particular case. When a search for electronic case information for an individual case returns multiple results, each result may be viewed only individually."

"Bulk distribution of any electronic case data by a software provider is not allowed," according to the directive.

The state Supreme Court earned FOI Oklahoma's inaugural Black Hole Award in 2008 after justices limited online access to court dockets only. The justices also restricted which information the public could obtain from the paper copies of legal documents filed with court clerks.

Following public outcry over the rules, the court rescinded them.

Justice Yvonne Kauger dissented from the original order, saying: "The court made this decision with input only from the court clerks. Others directly affected by the decision — the bar, the bench, the Legislature, the public — were not consulted.”

Seems like they've done that again.

Thank you to FOI Oklahoma board member Doug Wilson for alerting us.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Court clerks may charge up to $1 for the first page and 50 cents for each subsequent page for copies of any “instrument of record or on file”

County court clerks may charge more than the 25-cent limit for uncertified copies set by the Oklahoma Open Records Act, according to a recent attorney general opinion.

Instead, court clerks may charge up to $1 for the first page and 50 cents for each subsequent page for copying any “instrument of record or on file” as allowed by another state statute, according to the written opinion released Oct 7. (2009 OK AG 27)

“Both [statutes] address many of the same records to be copied, such as a divorce decree or a petition in a civil lawsuit,” the opinion noted. (¶ 8)

However, court clerks should follow the statute setting the fee schedule for court records because it “prescribes fees in specific circumstances applicable to a specific official” and was amended more recently than the Open Records Act to reflect the Legislature’s intent regarding the fees, reasoned Attorney General Drew Edmondson in the opinion.

The opinion was in response to a question posed by state Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid.

“Whether a court clerk may follow the fee schedule set out in the ‘Fees of Court Clerks’ statute at [OKLA. STAT. tit. 28, § 31] or must follow the ORA, has not been directly answered in an Attorney General Opinion or court decision,” wrote Edmondson. “Thus we address it today for guidance not only to court clerks but to other public officials.”

The Open Records Act states, “Notwithstanding any state or local provision to the contrary, in no instance shall the record copying fee exceed twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page . . . .” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))

The statute setting the court fees states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the clerk of the district court, or the clerk of any other court of record, shall charge and collect the following fees for services by them respectively rendered and none others, except as otherwise provided by law: Making copy of an instrument of record or on file, first page $1.00 … subsequent pages (each)."

“Thus, we are faced with two statutes, both of which purport to make their provisions applicable in spite of any other law,” wrote Edmondson. “Which controls? (2009 OK AG 27, ¶ 3)

“If a conflict exists, as one does here, the two principles of statutory construction ... apply. Generally, a specific statute controls over a general statute. An amendment to a statute enacted later in time controls over an earlier conflicting statute.” (Id. at ¶9)

Legislators amended the Open Records Act in 1992 “to provide that the $0.25 limitation applies "[n]otwithstanding any state or local provision to the contrary." (Id. at ¶ 6)

One year later, the statute regarding court clerk fees was amended to include the limitation "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.” (Id. at ¶ 7)

The opinion applies only to fees that may be charged for copies of instruments of record or on file. For other public records a court clerk could be asked to copy, “the fees charged are subject to the Open Records Act." (Id. at ¶ 13)

“Whether a document is 'an instrument of record or on file' is a question of fact that cannot be answered in an Attorney General's Opinion.” (Id.)


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Another Open Government Pledge signer elected to Oklahoma House

Republican Todd Russ was elected to represent House District 55 in a special election on Tuesday.

Russ joins 11 other House members who have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

The seven Republicans and five Democrats have pledged “to support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.”

They also promised “to support at every opportunity the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power.”

Signers are listed on the FOI Oklahoma Web site, where the pledge form is available for download.

FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in spring 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Jenks Public Schools won’t say where suspended football coach has been reassigned or what he is doing to earn $94,000 salary

A Jenks Public Schools District official says no documentation was created that explains suspended football coach Allan Trimble’s current assignment or duties, The Tulsa World reported today.

“These matters were conveyed to him orally,” district spokeswoman Tara Thompson wrote in an e-mail response to the newspaper’s request for such a record.

The state Open Records Act specifically makes available a public employee’s title or position. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.7(B)(3))

Jenks district officials will say only that Trimble is "assisting with administrative duties and special projects at a Jenks Public Schools site."

Trimble was recently suspended following an investigation that exposed multiple recruiting violations.

Thompson said the district is not required to create a document clarifying Trimble’s current job and, therefore, won’t.

How, in the name of good government, can the Jenks Public Schools District not have in Trimble’s personnel file a record of where he’s working and what he’s supposed to be doing?

How could he be evaluated on his job performance without such documentation?

How could anyone other than the official who conveyed that information to Trimble know what his job expectations are?

Does the school district not keep such records for any of its employees?

Hiding the information only raises suspicions that Trimble isn’t doing much, if anything at all, to earn his more than $94,000 salary.

If Jenks school officials want this story to go away, they should be forthcoming with taxpayers and quit trying to find clever ways around the state’s Open Records Act.

After all, Oklahomans “are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

That's because, "as the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people." The purpose of the Oklahoma Open Records Act is “to ensure and facilitate the public’s right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power.” (Id.)

Jenks Superintendent Kirby Lehman and the Jenks Public Schools Board of Education should make the information available.

If they don’t, voters might want to consider more open-government-minded candidates when they next elect school board members. According to the district Web site, School Board President Jon Phillips and member Ron Barber are up for re-election in 2010.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

OHP releases trooper reports but not complaint

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol on Friday released the incident report on an Oct. 3 arrest in Holdenville that led to two troopers being put on paid administrative leave, the Tulsa World reported Friday night.

OHP refused to release a copy of the complaint filed against the troopers, saying it is part of the investigation and not a public document, the newspaper reported.

The Tulsa World had requested the records on Monday.

Other media, including the Associated Press and FOX23, also obtained copies of the records Friday.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

OHP slow to release incident report of a traffic stop in which troopers are accused of behaving improperly

The Tulsa World requested on Monday but had not received by late Thursday the incident report dealing with a weekend arrest that led to two state troopers being placed on paid administrative leave, the newspaper reported today.

The newspaper also hadn't received requested copies of the complaint filed against the troopers and the videotapes taken from the dashboard cameras on the troopers' cars.

Police incident reports are public information under the state Open Records Act. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8)

The Tulsa World reported having being told by Oklahoma Highway Patrol Capt. Chris West that the incident report and complaint record might be released Thursday. They weren't.

The good news: West said OHP will release copies of the videotape to reporters when investigators are through with them. Thanks to state legislators, OHP dashcam videos have been exempted from the state Open Records Act since 2005.

Access to OHP dashcam videos became news in June after a scuffle between a trooper and a Creek Nation paramedic. After repeatedly refusing to do so, OHP officials released the video, saying "it was in the best interest of the public" to do so. By that time, a cell phone video of the incident had been posted on YouTube.

The OHP trooper involved in that scuffle is one of the two troopers placed on administrative leave pending an internal affairs probe into the arrest on Saturday in Holdenville.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Apparent Open Meeting Act violations by the Alva City Council

Alva's City Council meeting on Monday night seemed to violate state law in four ways.

Possible Violation No. 1: Vague agenda items failing to give the public actual notice of the business to be discussed and acted upon.

Possible Violation No. 2: During executive session, discussing business not listed on the agenda for the executive session.

Possible Violation No. 3: Taking action on business not listed on the agenda.

Possible Violation No. 4: Failing to post agendas.

Agendas should be worded in “plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting, in order to give the public actual notice,” the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said. (Haworth Bd. of Ed., 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 9)

But Alva City Council agendas didn’t “give the public actual notice.” For example, its second item of business on Monday was “Council consideration and action on the approval of claims.”

Council members approved more than half-a-million dollars in claims -- a near-record amount -- under that agenda item, reported Helen Barrett of the Alva Review-Courier.

The more than $536,500 in claims included more than $320,000 to Dobson Construction for work done at the airport, more than $48,000 to the Oklahoma Municipal Group insurance plan, and nearly $22,000 to the Alva Utility Authority.

But the public couldn’t have known that by reading the agenda prior to the meeting.

The purpose of the Open Meeting Act “to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems . . . is defeated if the required notice is deceptively worded or materially obscures the stated purpose of the meeting,” the Court of Civil Appeals said. (Haworth, ¶ 8)

At an open government workshop in September, public officials were cautioned against “cryptic” agenda language. A public body should not try to hide what it will be doing at a meeting, said Gay Tudor, chief of the Attorney General's General Counsel Section.

Another item on the Council’s agenda Monday was “Business Manager’s Report Items.” No information was listed under the report.

Last month, though, Tudor said the Attorney General’s Office prefers for such reports “to have bulleted points for items under the report.”

“Don’t try to hide items of business by putting it under ‘report,’” she warned.

The incomplete nature of Alva City Council agendas became apparent when Barrett contacted me about an action taken in apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act.

Barrett noted that the council, meeting as the Alva Utility Authority, entered into an executive session “to discuss the appraisal of 35 acres located in the Industrial Park” as noted on the agenda.

After returning to open session, however, Councilman Roger Hardaway made the motion to “authorize the city manager to continue negotiation with Mr. Ryerson on the property at the airport and the 35 acres at the industrial park.”

Barrett, a member of the FOI Oklahoma board of directors, challenged the legality of the executive session if the airport land had been discussed because that property wasn’t listed anywhere on the agenda.

According to Barrett’s article, Alva City Attorney Rick Cunningham said at the meeting that the vote on the airport property was under Agenda Item No. 5.

But, as Barrett correctly noted, that agenda item doesn’t mention Richard Ryerson’s airport property. It states, “Board consideration and action on the disposition of 35 acres located in the Industrial Park.”

The Open Meeting Act requires that each agenda “identify all items of business to be transacted” by the public body at the meeting. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(1))

Alva's agendas didn’t do that.

Why require that agendas provide the public with actual notice of the business to be discussed and the action to be taken?

Because “without such information,” Attorney General Drew Edmondson has said, “the public is deprived of its right to be present and to know when decisions affecting the public are being made.” (2000 OK AG 7, ¶ 27)

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said any act or omission that “has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting” would be a “willful” violation of the Open Meeting Act. That includes any action exceeding the scope of action defined by the notice. (Haworth, ¶ 8)

A violation of the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500 and/or up to one year in the county jail for each count. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 314)

To top off matters, the city also violated a state statute requiring that agendas for regular meetings be posted on the city’s Web site. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 74, § 3106.2(A))

To respond to Barrett’s complaint, I had download the council and utility authority agendas. All I got were blank .pdf’s. A city official told Barrett the blank agendas were a technical glitch.

All in all, not a stellar night for open government in Alva.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Norman City Council and Planning Commission meetings to be streamed on Web

Norman City Council and Planning Commission meetings should be available for live viewing and viewing on demand via the Internet by January, The Oklahoman reported today.

The city is paying more than $49,500 to Granicas Inc. for the Webcasting/video streaming software and more than $1,600 a month to the company for hosting and management services.

The Oklahoman story provides more details on the arrangement with Granicas and also about a $48,000 automated agenda management program being purchased by the city.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor

Guilty plea but no remorse from former Boynton official for violating state Open Records Act

Former Boynton Clerk/Treasurer Pauline Osburn pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of violating the state’s Open Records Act, The Muskogee Phoenix reported today.

But the 73-year-old Osburn didn’t seem to understand that she was wrong to refuse town trustees access to the town's water records in May. She indicated to the judge she would likely do it again given the same circumstances, the newspaper reported.

Once officials had the records in hand, they learned the town had about $15,000 in the bank but more than $40,000 in debts. At the same time, the city was owed thousands of dollars for delinquent water bills. One resident owed more than $8,000, The Muskogee Phoenix reported.

On Monday, Osburn told the Muskogee District Court judge, “We had a bunch of people who had caused problems” – apparently referring to the other town officials who wanted to see the public records.

Osburn was given a one-year suspended sentence for each count. She must pay a $250 fine on each count, plus court costs and a monthly probation supervision fee of $40 per month. The Muskogee Phoenix reported the court costs were nearly $800 as of Monday morning.

Osburn faced a maximum sentence of one year in the county jail and a $500 fine for each of the two misdemeanors. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.17(A))

A jury trial for Osburn had been scheduled for Oct. 26. She resigned in May.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Attorney-client privilege: Which public records are exempted from the state Open Records Act?

Question from the public: The city attorney advised the mayor that the mayor may take a second job. I requested a copy of the memo but was told it’s covered by attorney-client privilege. Is it?

The state Open Records Act does not apply to government documents “protected by a state evidentiary privilege such as the attorney-client privilege, the work product immunity from discovery and the identity of informer privileges.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(1)(a))

But to what extent may governments claim attorney-client privilege?

In 1981, the state Supreme Court noted that the privilege “is not generally available to” public bodies. (State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Indus. Auth., 1981 OK 47, ¶ 32).

“Under the provisions of 12 O.S. § 2502 (D) of this State's new evidence code, there is no attorney-client privilege ‘As to a communication between a public officer or agency and its attorney unless the communication concerns a pending investigation, claim or action and the court determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest,’” the court said. (Id.)(emphasis added)

That statute remains in effect.

“There is no privilege under this section: … As to a communication between a public officer or agency and its attorney unless the communication concerns a pending investigation, claim or action and the court determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest.” (OKLA. STATE. tit. 12, § 2502 (D)(7))

Therefore, a public body or official could claim attorney-client privilege only if the document “concerns a pending investigation, claim or action.”

Even then, the document could be kept confidential only if a court said disclosure would “seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest.”

If you know of a court decision, attorney general opinion or other statute to the contrary, please let me know.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism