Woods County judge accepts guilty plea in his chambers, not in packed courtroom

A Woods County judge refused to explain why a guilty plea in a first-degree murder case was accepted in his chambers Wednesday instead of in the courtroom packed with family and friends of the victim, The Enid News and Eagle reported Thursday.

“Wherever I am is open court,” Judge Ray Dean Linder told the newspaper. “The attorneys for both sides and the defendant all agreed to do it in chambers. It became an auxiliary courtroom."

To say that his chambers had become an open court is an insult to the family and friends of the victim and to the general public.

If his chambers had become an open court, why didn’t he conduct the proceeding in the Alva courtroom described as standing room only?

How would the public have known that his chambers had become an open court? Did he or a bailiff announce that to those in the courtroom?

What would have happened if all the people in the courtroom had wanted to attend the proceeding taking place in his chambers? How many people could have fit into that room?

The courtroom doesn’t belong to the prosecutor, defendant or even a judge who's served on the bench since 1967. It belongs to the public — those folks who were sitting in the courtroom wondering what was going on when the judge was supposed to be hearing some 40 motions in the case.

That more than 60 people would attend just to observe motions being heard demonstrates how important this case was to the community. (KOCO reported that more than 85 people showed up at the courthouse to support the victim's family.)

Witnessing first-hand that justice is served has a significant therapeutic effect on communities. (See Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 570-71 (1980))

But on Wednesday, the victim's family and friends were left with asking questions of District Attorney Hollis Thorp and Assistant District Attorney Westline Ritter after the guilty plea was announced.

“I know it was disappointing to the victim’s family,” Ritter said. “The state ordered transcripts so the family could read the guilty plea. There was so much support for (murder victim) Nathan Lyon there. He was a football player at Waynoka. They even had football players from other schools there to support him. His sister, Korbi, wore his football jersey from when he was chosen to be on the eight-man all-star team.”

If it were only a matter of knowing the outcome of a proceeding or trial, then our judicial system would operate behind closed doors. But it doesn’t.

Linder, 75, is one of the longest-sitting trial judges in the state, having served on the bench for 43 years, according to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

He's running unopposed for his seat in the November general election.

Linder's undoubtably popular in the area, having served as the radio play-by-play man for Northwestern Oklahoma State University sports for 28 years, hosted a local TV sports program from NWOSU, and as a member of NWOSU’s Sports Hall of Fame, sought-after public speaker and an admired jewelry maker.

He's an award-winning judge described by the OBA as a leader in northwestern Oklahoma and the state's judiciary.

But Woods County residents should be questioning his decision to accept a guilty plea to first-degree murder in his private chambers rather than in their courtroom.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Democratic candidate for House District 36 pledges to support open government

The Democratic candidate for House District 36 has pledged to "support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit" of Oklahoma's open government laws if elected in November.

Greg Brown of Skiatook will face Republican Sean Roberts of Hominey in the Nov. 2 general election. Republican incumbent Eddie Fields is seeking the Senate District 10 seat.

By signing FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge, Brown 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."

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites other legislative candidates and those running for statewide and county offices to sign the pledge.

Instructions and a list of signers for the 2010 elections can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s website.

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 Media and Strategic Communication

Tulsa County assessor makes property records available online for free searching

Tulsa County property records can be searched online for free on the county assessor's new website unveiled this week.

Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel noted that the records could previously be searched only at public terminals in the assessor’s office and at public libraries.

The website also includes a calculator for estimating property taxes for individual properties.

The changes to the assessor's website were approved by the Tulsa County Budget Board on Monday.

Yazel is seeking his third term as assessor and has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media and Communication

Only GOP candidate for House District 44 signs Open Government Pledge

The only Republican candidate for House District 44 has pledged to "support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit" of Oklahoma's open government laws if elected in November.

Norman businessman Kent Hunt joins Democratic candidates Tom Kovach, Isaiah McCaslin and Emily Virgin in signing FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

The House District 44 seat is being vacated by Democrat Bill Nations, who is term-limited. Nations signed the pledge in 2008.

By signing the pledge, Hunt 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."

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites other legislative candidates and those running for statewide and county offices to sign the pledge.

Instructions and a list of signers for the 2010 elections can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s website.

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 Media and Strategic Communication

Norman City Council cleared of Open Meeting Act allegations

An executive session discussion on how to finance the purchase of right-of-way for a road project did not violate the Open Meeting Act, the Payne County district attorney has concluded.

According to media reports, Rob Hudson said the Norman City Council's discussion of financing options for property associated with the Rock Creek Road overpass project was allowed under the exemption for the "purchase or appraisal of real property."

Hudson concluded that talking about funding sources “is a natural and normal aspect of purchasing real property,” The Norman Transcript reported.

Hudson also indicated that the councilors were protected because City Attorney Jeff Bryant participated in the executive session and should have told them that the discussion was potentially illegal.

The OSBI investigation into the June 2009 meeting was requested by Norman City Councilman Tom Kovach, who is a Democratic candidate for House District 44.

Perhaps because of the OSBI investigation, open government seemed to be a campaign issue in Norman's municipal election this past spring. Among the four candidates who signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge were Mayor Cindy Rosenthal and Ward 4 Councilor Carol Dillingham, both of whom were re-elected.

For background on the legal issues surrounding the executive session: OSBI investigating complaint that Norman City Council violated Open Meeting Act

For more coverage of Hudson's decision not to prosecute: Norman council members cleared of allegation they violated Open Meeting Act, Jane Glenn Cannon, The Oklahoman, July 14, 2010.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Lawsuit accuses Tulsa City Council of violating Open Meeting Act

A lawsuit filed today accuses the Tulsa City Council of violating the state Open Meeting Act during an executive session last month to discuss a criminal investigation of the mayor's chief of staff.

According to the lawsuit, the Council violated the law on June 17 by:

• Meeting in executive session to discuss "pending litigation" when there was none.
• Voting during executive session to exclude Mayor Dewey Bartlett from the closed-door meeting.

The plaintiffs also challenged the Council's authority to conduct a criminal investigation.

Tulsa residents Nancy Rothman, Burt B. Holmes and Henryetta McIntosh filed the suit in Tulsa District Court.

Rothman is an attorney and president of The Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County. Holmes co-founded the Quiktrip Corp.

Their attorney, Paul DeMuro, told the Tulsa World that the lawsuit is not about the allegations made in the independent investigator's report to the Council or about "defending the mayor."

“This is really about restoring transparency to the City Council,” DeMuro said. “It is centered on the premise that the government needs to follow its own rules.

"It’s very obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Open Meetings Act that the violations by the City Council were blatant and numerous,” he said.

The Council's agenda for a special meeting June 17 called for an executive session "concerning an investigation into statements made by the Mayor’s Administration to the Tulsa City Council and to federal agencies regarding the use or repurposing of Justice Administration Grant funds for police officer salaries."

According to the minutes of the meeting, the Council's attorney, Drew Rees, recommended the executive session "for the purpose of discussing the pending litigation...."

The lawsuit contends that was misleading because "there was no pending litigation."

The Open Meeting Act permits a public body to meet in executive session with its attorney to discuss "confidential communications ... concerning a pending investigation, claim, or action if the public body, with the advice of its attorney, determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public body to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation, or proceeding in the public interest. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(4))

“A ‘pending’ claim can refer to litigation or an administrative action which either presently exists or is merely potential or anticipated,” state Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in 2005. (2005 OK AG 29, ¶ 13)

We note at the outset that ‘pending’ investigations, claims, and actions must refer to a wider class of things than those already in existence; otherwise, the term ‘pending’ would be superfluous.

‘Pending’ is not defined in the OMA or elsewhere in the Oklahoma Statutes. In such cases, the ordinary meaning of a word is used. The dictionary defines ‘pending’ as "not yet decided : in continuance: in suspense’ or ‘until the occurrence or completion of : while awaiting.’ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1669 (3d ed. 1993). The first definition connotes something already in existence, while the second includes things not yet existing.

Thus, ‘pending’ can refer to an investigation, claim or action which either presently exists or is merely potential or anticipated. (Id. ¶ 9)

The lawsuit accuses the Council of also violating the law by voting during the executive session to exclude the mayor.

"There was no public vote on the question of whether the Mayor should be excluded from the executive session, nor was any public record made memorializing the vote which was taken in executive session," the lawsuit states.

In a commentary on that meeting, the FOI Oklahoma Blog noted that under the Open Meeting Act, "any vote or action on any item of business considered in an executive session shall be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3))

Another provision of the statute also requires that "[i]n all meetings of public bodies, the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. 25, § 305)

The lawsuit also challenges the Council's authority to conduct a criminal investigation.

"The City Charter only give the Council the authority to 'investigate the conduct of the city government,' in which case the City Council 'may make appraisals, comments, and recommendations to the Mayor on the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of administrative practices, methods, systems, and controls,'" the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the executive session illegal, invalidate any action taken during the meeting, and require the Council to make public all records related to the executive session.

They also ask the court to grant a permanent order "compelling" the councilors "to prospectively comply with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act."

The lawsuit can be read at the Tulsa World website: Tulsa councilors sued for Open Meeting Act violations

For additional commentary on the meeting: Tulsa City Council's attorney says executive session starts when 'door is closed'; Experts disagree

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Legislative leaders defend secrecy at Capitol

Oklahoma's legislators must be exempt from the state's open government laws in order to avoid releasing personal or confidential information revealed in constituent e-mails or letters, the author of the state Open Records Act told KWTV.

"If you don't allow citizens the right to communicate on sensitive matters such as family members having AIDS, possibilities of child abuse or other things (then) it would be a mistake," said Stratton Taylor, who served as Senate president pro tempore from 1995 to 2003.

However, legislators could abide by the Open Records Act while exempting such confidential information from disclosure. In fact, medical records and many others are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies. (See, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 36 O.S. § 6927; 43A O.S. § 2-224; 63 O.S. §, 1-729; 63 O.S. § 1-738c; 63 O.S. § 5051.5; 10 O.S. §. 620.1)

Even so, the same load of horse excrement was shoveled by the current Senate president pro tem.

"The staff and members of the Oklahoma legislature deal with numerous inquiries and communications from constituents, fellow members and others who have concerns about state government, and who would need their privacy protected for any number of legitimate reasons," said Glen Coffee.

The Oklahoma City Republican cannot seek re-election this fall because of term limits. The same is true for House Speaker Chris Benge, who also defended the need for secrecy at the state Capitol.

"The long-standing principle of legislative immunity is aimed at protecting a legislator's (and his or her agent while performing legislative functions) ability to deliberate and communicate in confidence to discharge his or her duty as a representative of the public," the Tulsa Republican told KWTV. "Such protection is essential to the functioning of the House."

Yes, unfortunately, secrecy seems to be at the core of how the House and Senate conduct the public's business. And that secrecy has bred incompetency and corruption at the state Capitol.

KWTV said its report was prompted by accusations of political corruption at the Capitol. Its reporters wanted to know who in the last days of the session had added to a bill some language creating a high-paying job at the state Medical Examiner's Office.

(Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater is investigating whether Rep. Randy Terrill conspired with Sen. Debbe Leftwich to give up her Oklahoma City seat so Rep. Mike Christian could run for it and Leftwich would get the job at the Medical Examiner's Office in exchange.)

KWTV's request for notes, e-mails and other information related to the legislation was denied by the bill's author -- none other than Glen Coffee.

At a press conference in June, Coffee denied knowing who had added the language but admitted to signing the conference committee report that included the new job in the bill.

KWTV also looked at how the conference committees -- particularly in the rushed finals days of a session -- create a situation fertile for abuse.

Despite the name "committee," the station reported, most don't actually meet to reconcile the differences between House and Senate versions of bills.

"No, it's a piece of paper that has signature lines on it," said Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole.

KWTV noted that the author of a bill sent to a conference committee needs only to get signatures from a majority of the committee members to bring it back for a floor vote.

Kiesel said the system allows unscrupulous legislators to insert self-serving language and then use personal or political persuasion to get enough committee members to agree.

Any notion of real legislative transparency is "out the window," he told the station.

At the press conference, Coffee had dodged the question of whether the conference committee system should be fixed.

"I am a term-limited legislator, and the next Legislature will have the opportunity to address those sort of issues if they choose," he told reporters.

Coffee, Benge and Stratton seem to think the rest of us are stupid. We're expected to believe that legitimate needs for privacy and confidentiality preclude other records or meetings from being open to the public.

But not even other legislators like the smell of that fertilizer.

"The confidentiality issue is just a bad excuse for saying that this law shouldn't apply to the Legislature. That's easily accounted for by a clear set of laws (exemptions) that everyone would follow," Rep. Jason Murphey told KWTV.

Since March when Benge refused media requests for video showing legislators switching portraits of Gov. Brad Henry and President Barack Obama, Murphey has said he will introduce a bill next session to remove the Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

"I think we need to look at how other states do it and basically find some of the best practices and apply them here," the Guthrie Republican told KWTV.

(All six announced gubernatorial candidates have said they also support removing the exemption.)

If Murphey follows through on his promise, we'll get to see which legislators truly believe in the Open Records Act's founding principle:

It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

In the meantime, we -- the voters -- can provide Murphey with some support for next session.

Ask legislative candidates to sign FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge just as Murphey and 11 other House members have done.

Then expect those who are elected to operate with the same public scrutiny required of our other state and local officials.

After all, it's our government. Not their private club.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

NWOSU asks federal education officials if names of discretionary scholarship recipients are public information

Northwestern Oklahoma State University will ask federal education officials if the names of students receiving scholarships funded by Alva sales taxes may be disclosed to the public, NWOSU President Janet Cunningham said in a recent newspaper column.

But the answer might already be "no."

In May 2009, the Education Department advised the University of Central Arkansas at Conway "not to release the names of who got millions of dollars in publicly funded, no-criteria, discretionary scholarships under the UCA president’s auspices," the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.

After the federal official who wrote the letter was fired in February, the newspaper appealed his decision regarding UCA's now-discontinued Presidential Discretionary Scholarship Program.

But in a recent letter, the Education Department's compliance office "stood by its old decision," reporter Debra Hale-Shelton told the FOI Oklahoma Blog.

However, she said, the office "also suggested that certain scholarships not related to financial aid needs were exempt."

"Still, UCA refused to release the information," Hale-Shelton said.

She had asked UCA for the names after learning that "some of the people on that list got these scholarships because they were friends or children of friends of the former president, Lu Hardin," Hale-Shelton told the Student Press Law Center in 2009.

"[The scholarships] were political favors," she said.

In an article this past February, Hale-Shelton noted that "the very thing that made the presidential discretionary scholarships an issue was one reason" the federal official said UCA should not disclose the names.

The then-director of the Family Policy Compliance Office had cited the lack of published criteria as a reason for not disclosing which students received the scholarships.

Some universities include scholarships in the definition of honors and awards received by students, which the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act lets schools disclose unless the student has objected in writing.

But the exception would not apply “in situations where the basis for the scholarship is undefined or could be need-based or related to a student’s financial need,” wrote then-Director Paul Gammill.

“Because the release of this type of scholarship information in personally identifiable form could be potentially harmful or an invasion of privacy, FERPA would preclude the university from disclosing this information without the prior written consent of the recipient,” Gammill wrote.

UCA's scholarships seem similar to those awarded by NWOSU.

NWOSU officials in June refused to disclose who got scholarships funded by the Alva Economic Development Incentive Sales Tax Grant this past spring. The school had made the information public for 10 years under an agreement with the city.

But the general counsel for the Regional University System of Oklahoma told the school that disclosing the names violates FERPA, said NWOSU's president in a column published June 27 in the Alva Review-Courier.

NWOSU distributed $214,000 from the scholarship fund for the spring semester. The money comes from a 1999 city sales tax approved by Alva voters for economic development.

"Half was dedicated to Northwestern to create an incentive for students to attend Northwestern and establish a permanent or part-time residence in Alva," Cunningham wrote in her column. "The charge to Northwestern was simple – use the money in the best way possible to attract the largest number of students."

In January, The Alva Review-Courier raised questions about the distribution of the fall semester scholarships.

Of the $220,222, NWOSU awarded $57,000 to 57 athletes, the newspaper reported. Each received $1,000, which was the largest amount given to students. In contrast, 18 students received valedictorian scholarships of $750 each.

Cunningham said the university "continues to make available to all members of the city council a list of students who receive funds, the amounts they receive, and the purpose of the award – such as participation in an extra-curricular program."

"The people elected to represent us on the city council have access to all information regarding the program," Cunningham said. "However, in Mr. (Charlie) Babb's opinion, FERPA precludes the public disclosure of this information without the student's permission."

Wouldn't disclosing the names to council members be a FERPA violation? If not, why can't the information be released to the public?

Aren't Alva's residents entitled to know if their tax money is being doled out as it was intended?

City leaders thought so in 1999 when NWOSU agreed to disclose the names of recipients, how much each received and why each was chosen to get the scholarship. Didn't university officials determine then if disclosing the names would violate FERPA?

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Newspaper asks judge to lift order stopping release of state workers' birth dates; database editor shows DOBs, personal info readily available on Web

The Oklahoman on Thursday asked a judge to lift a temporary restraining order preventing the release of government workers' dates of birth and to order the state to provide the information.

Oklahoma County Judge Bryan Dixon in early April granted the order sought by the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and the Oklahoma State Troopers Association.

(See CJ-2010-2623, Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management)

OPEA officials have argued that release of the information poses a serious threat of identity theft despite contradictory opinions from privacy experts and the OPEA's inability to provide examples of public records being used to commit identity theft.

In the newspaper's request for a summary judgment, The Oklahoman noted that various government agencies have provided it with birth dates of public employees for the past 10 years.

An attorney general opinion in December said government employee birth dates are presumed open unless the public body can demonstrate that the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

In support of the trooper association's request to join OPEA as a plaintiff was an affidavit by Russell Knoke, second vice president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association, expressing concerns that releasing birth dates could endanger the lives of troopers and their families.

At an April press conference, Knoke said:

Our biggest concern is family and personal safety, the threat represented by an aggrieved member of the public one of our trooper’s may have dealt with in the past. To simply dump all troopers’ birth dates out there without regard to their personal safety is not acceptable.

Knoke seems unaware that the information is already available to the entire world -- a point made clear in The Oklahoman's evidence supporting a summary judgment.

In less than five minutes on the Internet, database editor Paul Monies found Knoke's DOB, home address, home phone number and other personal information.

On the Oklahoma State Troopers Association website, for example, Monies learned:

Russell graduated from the 39th academy in 1982. The areas in which he has worked include, Troop L Rogers County, Inola, and Troop L Rogers County, Catoosa. He currently is assigned to Troop S out of Sallisaw in Sequoyah County.

He graduated from Sallisaw High School and from Oklahoma State University with a bachelor’s of science degree.

Russell is married to his wife, Debbie, and has two sons, Tyler and Max.

On the AnyWho site, Monies found Knoke's home address and phone number.

Monies learned Knoke's birth date from birthdetails.com.

Monies verified the information by using Knoke's voter registration records maintained by the Oklahoma State Election Board.

Point to Monies (a fellow member of the FOI Oklahoma board of directors) and The Oklahoman.

In addition to FOI Oklahoma and the Tulsa World, the amici supporting public disclosure of the DOBs are KWTV, KOTV, KFOR, KOCO, KOKH, KJRH, KTUL, Oklahoma Press Association, Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Radio Television Digital News Association, Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

New BA school superintendent: 'They can see my e-mails if they want. I've got nothing to hide.'

Broken Arrow's new school superintendent on Thursday repeated his promise of a transparent administration.

"Transparency's got to be there," Jarod Mendenhall told more than 100 staffers. "They can look at anything they want. They can see my e-mails if they want. I've got nothing to hide."

Earlier during his first day on the job, Mendenhall waived a $90 search fee authorized by his predecessor and promised that the district "will do all that it can to be open and transparent in its operations."

"That includes doing our very best to follow the spirit and regulations of the Oklahoma Open Records Act," he said in a press release.

To read coverage of his meeting with district staff: Broken Arrow Superintendent Mendenhall starts work, by Sara Plummer, Tulsa World, 7.2.10.

To read more about the search fee: BA's new school superintendent says district will comply with letter, spirit of state Open Records Act, FOI Oklahoma Blog, 7.1.10.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

BA's new school superintendent says district will comply with letter, spirit of state Open Records Act

Broken Arrow's new school superintendent today expressed a commitment to the "spirit of full transparency and openness" by the district's administration and officially waived a $90 search fee for records.

“The Open Records Act is not a theory or hypothesis,” Jarod Mendenhall said in a news release. “It is the law, and we will follow it to the best of our ability.”

Mendenhall's predecessor, Gary Gerber, had authorized the $90 search fee for redacting information from copies of the district's itemized legal bills.

Gerber, who retired Wednesday, had refused to recognize the requester as a taxpayer seeking to ensure that district officials are properly doing their jobs.

Under the state Open Records Act, a search fee cannot be charged to "taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))

Mendenhall agreed that statutory prohibition on search fees applied to this request and waived the $90.

“I want to make it clear that the school district will charge a search fee per Open Records Act allowances if it is determined that the request would cause excessive disruption of the business of the district and cause several people to be taken from their customary jobs and from the business of the people to produce the requested information,” Mendenhall added.

District spokesman Keith Isbell clarified that Mendenhall was referring to commerically motivated records requests, which may be charged a search fee under the Open Records Act.

"Clearly the Act says in 'no' case shall a search fee be charged when the release of records is in the public interest, including but not limited to, release to the news media, scholars, authors and taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with affairs of governments are honestly faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants," Isbell said in an e-mail.

"Most requests fall under that description meaning a search fee can’t and won’t be charged," he said. "If a request for commercial uses causes an excessive disruption of the business of the district, it could be assessed a search/administrative fee per the Open Records Act."

Not charging a search fee to every commercial request is commendable and evidence of Mendenhall's commitment to open government.

"Make no mistake; we work for the taxpayers of this community and this state," Mendenhall said, adding:

People have the right to know and be fully informed about us and all governmental entities, and I can assure you that Broken Arrow Public Schools will do all that it can to be open and transparent in its operations, and that includes doing our very best to follow the spirit and regulations of the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

Mendenhall has certainly talked the talk. So far, he's walking the walk. That's good news for Broken Arrow's students and their parents.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication