National education reporter questions claim by OSU, OU that FERPA prohibits release of campus parking ticket data

Claims by two Oklahoma universities that releasing campus parking ticket data would violate student privacy laws were questioned by a top education reporter at a recent national conference.

Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma last spring both refused requests to release parking ticket data. OSU alone issued more than 18,000 tickets from Aug. 1, 2009, to April 9, 2010, The Daily O'Collegian reported.

Officials for OSU and OU say releasing names of ticket recipients would violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal statute passed to protect specific student records, such as grades.

“I don’t see how that argument could ever stand up,” said Kathryn Masterson, a reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Masterson made her comments during a panel discussion on higher education at the Investigative Reporters and Editors national conference in June. More than 800 journalists attended.

“My question might be why? Are they pulling in more money from parking tickets?” Masterson asked.

The universities made the argument in response to a request by a student journalist at Oklahoma State University.

Universities that use FERPA to deny access to campus parking ticket information were called “obstructionist” by the Student Press Law Center.

FERPA is one of the most widely used --- and abused --- excuses for universities seeking to withhold records that would otherwise be public under state sunshine laws. Courts have repeatedly struck down such broad interpretations.

“And yet colleges persist in defining any piece of paper in their possession as an ‘educational record’ when nondisclosure suits their purposes,” the SPLC said in a press release last May.

Universities have even used FERPA to refuse public access to college athletic departments’ airplane passenger manifests and complimentary ticket lists, a 2009 report by The Columbus Dispatch showed. The newspaper also showed that FERPA has been used to block parents from getting life-saving information about their own children’s medical conditions.

In another case, a Wisconsin university provided an “almost completely erased” tape recording of a university committee meeting to a campus newspaper. The university argued the voices of students at the public meeting are shielded by FERPA, the SPLC reported.

Northwestern Oklahoma State University's claim in June that FERPA prohibits it from disclosing which students receive scholarships funded by Alva's sales taxes is another example of why the statute is "broken," said the SPLC executive director.

Former U.S. Sen. James L. Buckley of New York, the primary FERPA author, has said the law “needs to be revamped” because of abuses by colleges and universities.


Ryan McNeill
Computer-Assisted Reporting Editor
Dallas Morning News

OU student government not posting agendas online or filing meeting notices as required by state law

The UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress hasn't been posting meeting notices and agendas on its website or filing meeting notices as required by state law, The Oklahoma Daily reported Thursday.

Until being questioned by a reporter, the Student Congress had not posted meeting agendas since November, the student-run newspaper reported.

The newspaper noted that agendas were being added at press time Wednesday night.

The newspaper also reported that the list of Student Congress representatives was from last school year.

State law requires that public bodies with websites post at least the names of their members. The same statute also requires these public bodies to post their meeting notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings. The same information for special and emergency meetings should be posted "[w]hen reasonably possible." (Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 3106.2(A))

Student Congress Chairman Brett Stidham told the newspaper that the public body's website is under construction so members can easily update it.

The newspaper also reported that the Student Congress had not filed its meeting notices with the Cleveland County Clerk by the deadline required by the state Open Meeting Act.

Under the statute, public bodies that "exist under the auspices of a state institution of higher education, but a majority of whose members are not members of the institution's governing board, shall give such notice to the county clerk of the county wherein the institution is principally located." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(6))

Notice of regular meetings must be filed with the county clerk by Dec. 15 of the preceding year. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(1))

But the Student Congress did not file the notice of its fall meetings until Aug. 10, the newspaper found.

Providing the public with proper notices and agendas for public meetings is at the “very heart” of the Open Meeting Act, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals said in 1981.  (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57)

Student government associations at public universities are subject to the Open Meeting Act if they are sub-entities of a board of higher education and have actual or de facto decision-making authority, according to a 1979 state Attorney General Opinion. (1979 OK AG 134, ¶ 3)

Speaking specifically about Oklahoma State University’s Student Government and Residence Halls associations, the opinion stated:

These two bodies have the authority to make decisions concerning the student population of the University from which no student may be exempted and also make decisions concerning the dispersement [sic] of funds collected.

With that power, it should be added, comes a responsibility to abide by both the letter and spirit of the law whose purpose is “to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)

The citizenry even includes college students wanting to know what their student government is doing.



Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Decision to drop investigation of mayor's aide comes after Tulsa City Council chairman meets privately with other councilors

Tulsa City Council Chairman Rick Westcott says a decision to end an investigation into a mayor's aide came after he met individually with other councilors, the Tulsa World reported Wednesday afternoon.

Westcott told a reporter he met one-on-one with a majority of the council.

(So who among the nine councilors was left out of the decision-making process?)

One-on-one discussions by a majority of the council to come to that decision would be a serious violation of the Open Meeting Act.

A 1981 state attorney general opinion prohibits such serial meetings among the members of a public body – and for good reason.

“Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed,” said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

Even Councilor G.T. Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, recently warned the council against using small group meetings to mediate issues with the mayor, saying such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA.”

“In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public,” he told them.

The same principle applies to the decision to drop the investigation into the mayor’s aide. That was a decision reached after, the council chairman told the newspaper, he had met individually with a majority of his fellow council members.

The council should not have come to any such decision outside of a public meeting abiding by the notice and agenda requirements of the Open Meeting Act.

“If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1978. (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, ¶ 10)

Or, as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reiterated in 1981, “Sunshine legislation reaches, not just ‘formal’ meetings, but the ‘entire decision-making process.’” (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 6 )

Or, as Cartwright explained a year later:

[I]f government officials use their private or social time to discuss agenda items and, even more importantly, to determine how they will vote, the purpose of the open meeting law will have been circumvented. Public access to a mere ‘rubber stamp’ vote is all but useless. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 7)

Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the “discussion stage” to be covered by the Open Meeting Act.

“[I]t is clear that, when members of a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body, regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act,” he concluded. (Id. ¶ 11)

Despite these admonitions, some Tulsa city councilors persist in the belief that they may meet one-on-one or in small groups to decide the public’s business.

In late July, six of the nine councilors jointly filed a response to a lawsuit accusing them of violating the Open Meeting Act during an executive session in June. A Tulsa reporter was told that an attorney spoke to some of the six council members individually and some in groups of three.

In other words, they purposefully met in groups smaller than a majority with the intent of not triggering the Open Meeting Act. Westcott and the other five council members must have thought they were conducting public business if they thought it necessary to avoid meeting as one group.

The defense put forth by Westcott and the others against that lawsuit was that Oklahomans have no right to file lawsuits to enforce their state's Open Meeting Act. A nonsensical – and insulting – claim given that just a month earlier the state Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Pitcher residents in their Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the Tar Creek relocation trust.

But let’s humor Westcott and the other councilors this time. No lawsuit. After all, members of the public shouldn’t have to dig into their pocketbooks to pay for what their tax dollars already pay the police and county district attorney to do: Enforce the law.

Violating the Open Meeting Act is a crime – a misdemeanor that can be punished by up to one year in the county jail and a fine of up to $500.

So it’s up to you, Tulsans. File a complaint with the police and demand an investigation, or get comfortable with your elected representatives deciding your business in private.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Stillwater City Council removes 'new business' as agenda item

Stillwater City Council agendas will no longer include the item "new business," under an ordinance that councilors unanimously approved Monday.

The decision reportedly was to stop residents from addressing the council on issues not listed on the agenda.

It's not clear why such a change was needed because the term "new business" has a statutory definition that doesn't include public comment.

The state Open Meeting Act defines "new business" as “any matter not known about or which could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of posting.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(9))

Council members had expressed concern that "new business" had become a catch-all for speaking time on any subject, the Stillwater NewsPress reported.

But the statutory definition doesn't seem to give the public any right to speak at a council meeting because a 1999 attorney general opinion said audience members do not have a right under the Open Meeting Act or the First Amendment to speak on issues as part of a public meeting. (1998 OK AG 45. See also 2002 OK AG 44, ¶ 3)

The statute “nowhere provides for or guarantees citizens a right to participate in the governmental decisions being made at an open meeting,” state Attorney General Drew Edmondson said.

“The Act is designed to enable citizens to be present and view the workings of government at open meetings, but does not require that citizens become participants at an open meeting or that they have a right to be heard at an open meeting,” he said. (1998 OK AG 45, ¶ 2)

Stillwater City Attorney John Dorman said that in 20 years on the job, he had seen the statutory definition of "new business" met only once.

That's good. Because if news reports about the new ordinance are correct, the council won't be able address or decide any public business that legitimately arises in the 24 hours after the agenda is posted.

I'm relying on the media reports because the council agenda gave only this explanation:

Ordinance No. 3110: An ordinance amending Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Commission, Division 1, Generally, of the Stillwater City Code, to amend Section 2-20, Order of the Business and Section 2-25, Public Addressing the Commission, declaring an emergency.

But agendas should be worded in “plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting, in order to give the public actual notice. The language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence,” the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said.

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 said. (Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

In the spirit of open government, the Stillwater City Council should explain to voters in plain language what it's doing rather than relying only legalize in agenda items.

For other coverage of the council's decision: Council removes option to speak, Kenneth Higgs, The Daily O'Collegian, 9.21.10

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

First Amendment Congress, essay contest for high school students

Oklahoma high school students can win up to $300 in the

2010 Zach Taylor First Amendment Congress Essay Contest.

This year's theme:

Does incivility within the news media endanger our First Amendment Rights?

In writing the essay, students should consider all rights guaranteed in the First Amendment and consider all news sources – newspapers and other print publications, broadcast and cable reports, and Internet reporting sources.

Winners will be recognized and receive their prizes during the 12th Annual First Amendment Congress on Nov. 10 at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond.

The theme for this year's First Amendment Congress is Mean Speech: Emotion + Words and the First Amendment.

The congress will explore the increasing lack of civility in our political and civil discourse and ask whether it threatens our larger values and freedoms as America.

For details about the congress and the essay contest, visit the FOI Oklahoma website.

Tulsa mayor says no public meetings to hash out differences with City Council, insists on private talks 1v1

Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. refuses to publicly mediate disputes with the City Council, insisting instead on private discussions with each councilor, the Tulsa World reported this week.

Bartlett's reason for secret meetings? He's afraid that councilors might "posture or politicize things."

"Especially if someone gets irritated or gets mad, things could be said in the heat of the moment," he said. "For us to have very frank conversations, that's what needs to happen."

In other words, something might be said that Bartlett doesn't want the public to hear.

So much for the Open Government Pledge that Bartlett signed when he ran for office only a year ago.

In putting his name to that paper, Bartlett pledged “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.”

But for a third time, Bartlett's actions indicate he either doesn't understand the promise he made to fellow Tulsans or had no intention of living up to it when he signed the document.

Last September, just a day or so after FOI Oklahoma Inc. received Bartlett's signed Open Government Pledge, he got a Tulsa County judge to seal his divorce case, which had been filed in public court seven years earlier. Bartlett wanted the documents closed after a small portion of the case file was posted on the conservative blog Batesline.

In March, Bartlett said open meetings would hamper frank discussions of a city-county committee looking for ways to save taxpayer money.

But the pledge that Bartlett signed isn't conditional. It contains no exemption for "frank discussions" only behind closed doors.

On Tuesday when Bartlett nixed the idea of public mediation with the council, he took a shot at the Tulsa World, which has editorialized in favor of open discussions.

"I know the media loves this," he said. "I feel like we all should get royalties off the newspapers that have been sold."

No, Mr. Mayor, your problem isn't with the news media.

It's with the spirit of our state's open government laws, which you endorsed when you signed that pledge. Here is a reminder: "The purpose of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws [is] to ensure and facilitate the public's understanding of governmental processes and problems."

That understanding occurs best when the public observes frank and open discussions by its elected officials.

As our state Supreme Court said, “If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed." (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59)

Tulsa city councilors, to their credit, seem to be taking that sentiment to heart, having twice rejected pressure from Bartlett to conduct these talks behind closed doors. I urge them to do so again.

In the meantime, FOI Oklahoma is asking state and local candidates on this November's ballot to sign the Open Government Pledge -- but with one caveat. Don't sign if you don't believe in and won't support the inherent right of Oklahomans to know and be fully informed about what their government does.

This is one campaign promise we won't let you ignore.

For more coverage of this issue:

• The feud, Tulsa World editorial, 9.16.10.
• Mayor's 'Mr. Positive' approach in speech gets mixed reviews, Brian Barber, Tulsa World, 9.16.10

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council cancels closed meetings with mayor, facilitator

Tulsa city councilors won't meet privately Tuesday with the mayor and a facilitator to set the ground rules and topics for public meetings aimed at mediating disputes with the mayor.

Instead, Council Chairman Rick Westcott said Friday he will call for a special meeting -- likely on Thursday -- to publicly decide how the subsequent public meetings, hosted by the Tulsa Metro Chamber, will be conducted, the Tulsa World reported.

This blog had warned Thursday that meeting in groups of less than a quorum to decide the public's business would violate the Open Meeting Act.

Westcott told the newspaper that the council wants to make sure that it "not only complies with the letter of the Open Meeting Act, but also with the spirit and intent of the Open Meeting Act."

A sincere thank you to Westcott and the other city councilors for opting to discuss and decide the public's business in full view of the public.

Operating in the open is certainly not always the most convenient or easiest way to do their job. But in a democracy, it's the right way.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Boynton officials under investigation for open records, meeting violations close City Hall

Boynton officials are being investigated by the Muskogee County sheriff and district attorney for violating the state’s Open Records and Meeting laws, The Muskogee Phoenix reports.

Town officials are accused of locking the public out of a public meeting in order to keep refreshments from being eaten and of ending three trustee meetings rather than letting sheriff’s deputies record the meetings as allowed by state law. Boynton police threatened to arrest one deputy if he didn’t turn off the recorder, Sheriff Charles Pearson told the newspaper.

Public records have been denied not only to residents but also to District Attorney Larry Moore.

“We have requested certain council meeting minutes and understand the mayor took those meeting records, that some have been returned and others have been lost or may no longer exist,” Moore told the newspaper.

Mayor Marie Wilson also refused to release public records on Tuesday, the newspaper said.

Other allegations under investigation include nepotism, police writing unlawful traffic tickets, and the three town trustees not calling a required election to fill two empty seats.

Two of the three trustees are sister and brother: Marie (Lang) Wilson and Clairborne Lang. Wilson was elected while her brother was appointed. Boynton Police Officer Martin Lang is their brother, the newspaper reported.

Town Administrator Melvin Easiley of Tulsa told the Tulsa World that it’s difficult to comply with nepotism rules because “over 98 percent” of Boynton's residents are related.

Easiley told the newspaper he thinks the criticism of the predominantly black town is racially-motivated.

“This is about some black people running City Hall,” he said.

But Pearson apparently sees it differently, telling The Muskogee Phoenix:

Boynton residents are getting tired of the long arm of the Langs. Boynton is becoming a nation unto itself.

Just when it seemed that the situation couldn't get any stranger, Wilson ordered City Hall closed for Wednesday and the rest of the week, the newspaper reported.

Meaning that because of the Labor Day Holiday on Monday, residents won't be able to pay their water bills until Tuesday.

How ironic, given that Pauline Osburn, the town’s clerk/treasurer, was arrested in May 2009 after refusing town trustees access to the town’s water records.

Once officials had the records in hand, they learned the town of fewer than 300 residents 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 had reported.

Last October, Osborn pleaded guilty to two counts of violating the state’s Open Records Act. She was given a suspended one-year sentence for each count and required to pay a $250 fine on each count, plus about $800 in court costs and a monthly probation supervision fee of $40 per month, The Muskogee Phoenix had reported.

But the 73-year-old Osburn didn’t seem to understand that she had done anything wrong, indicating to the judge she would likely do it again given the same circumstances, The Muskogee Phoenix had reported.

So we shouldn’t be too surprised by the current attitude of town officials toward open government.

This time, however, Moore should refuse any plea agreements if he decides to bring charges. If Boynton officials are convicted of violating of the Open Records and Meeting acts, he should push for the maximum punishment of one year in jail and a $500 fine for each count.

Maybe that will send a message that no matter how small the town, all locally elected officials are expected to know and abide by our open government laws.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council considering private meetings with mayor to set ground rules, topics for public discussions

Less than a week after voting not to mediate disputes with the mayor in an executive session, members of the Tulsa City Council are saying they’ll divide into smaller groups to meet privately with him and a facilitator on Tuesday at the request of the Tulsa Metro Chamber, the Tulsa World reported today.

The closed-door meetings are to “set the ground rules and discuss how we are going to go about all of this” to hold chamber-facilitated public meetings later, a council member said.

Tuesday's meetings reportedly would include deciding which topics will be discussed during the public meetings.

Councilors Roscoe Turner, Maria Barnes and Jim Mautino said they likely would not participate unless the meetings are open from the beginning, the Tulsa World reported.

Good. Because setting ground rules and agreeing to topics will require council members to vote or otherwise come to a consensus regarding public business -- something they are not entitled to do outside of a public meeting.

In the proposed meetings Tuesday, the facilitator hired by the chamber essentially becomes a go-between for the city councilors.

But a 1981 state attorney general opinion prohibits such serial meetings among the members of a public body.

“Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed,” said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

In other words, members of a public body cannot meet secretly in groups smaller than a quorum to decide public business.

That prohibition on obtaining a consensus through informal discussions also applies to the assistants of members of public bodies, Oklahoma County commissioners were warned in 2005.

While there was “nothing inherently wrong with [the commissioners’] chief deputies getting together with one another in order to acquaint themselves with” agenda items, “there is a clear prohibition of any chief deputy binding his or her commissioner to how he or she will vote on the matter,” then-District Attorney C. Wesley Lane II told commissioners.

“Chief deputies cannot promise, bind or commit their commissioner to any action on any particular agenda item or public business decision. To do so would be in violation of the [Open Meeting] Act. Thus, no chief deputy can announce at any gathering held between other chief deputies that his or her commissioner will vote a particular way on an issue,” Lane said.

That reasoning would apply to Tulsa city councilors telling the facilitator what ground rules and topics they will agree to for public meetings.

The persistent belief by some council members that they can meet in small groups to decide the public’s business is an absolute outrage. Their admission that they’re using this ploy in an attempt to avoid the Open Meeting Act’s requirements shows a willful intent to violate the law.

Even Councilor G.T. Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, had recently warned the council against using small group meetings to mediate issues with the mayor, saying such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA.”

“In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public,” he told them.

Council members are using the Open Meeting Act's definition of a meeting as a loophole. The statute defines a meeting as “the conducting of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or . . . together pursuant to a videoconference." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 304(2))

So council members -- as other public bodies have done -- figure that they can meet in groups of less than a quorum to conduct -- or at least discuss -- the public's business.

But they should keep in mind this admonition from then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright:

The Open Meeting Act should be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose ... [and] should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid establishing potential evasion loopholes. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 13)

Better yet, state legislators should improve the Open Meeting Act by simply prohibiting two members of a public body from even discussing public business outside of a public meeting of that body.

Announcing these closed meetings on Tuesday with the mayor does not absolve the council members of their obligations under the law.

And the concern is about more than the city council making decisions behind closed doors.

“If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1978. (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, 577 P.2d 1310, 1313-14)

The stated purpose of the Open Meeting Act is “to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems.” (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 302)

A 1980 attorney general opinion requires that the statute "be given a construction which will effectuate and not subvert the intention of the Legislature in facilitating an informed citizenry’s right to participate in government and understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken.” (1980 OK AG 215, ¶ 12)

Only an open deliberative process reveals which alternatives are rejected and why, both of which the public is entitled to know. (See 1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 5)

If Tulsa City Council members and the mayor can’t abide by not only the letter but also the spirit of our open government laws, then they should quit public office and stick with the private sector.

It’s a heaping pile of horse excrement to claim that elected officials must meet in secret because otherwise some would not be candid or others would posture in front of the public. That they cannot act like responsible adults is not an exemption to our Open Meeting Act.

Political cowardice on the part of elected officials is not an excuse for secret discussions of the public’s business.

If these elected officials are afraid to speak openly, honestly and candidly in front of the public, then Tulsa voters should hire replacements in the next election – or sooner.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications