Legislator says he opposed bill expanding attorney-client privilege for government

Rep. Earl Sears says he doesn't know how his vote against HB 1559 ended up being recorded as a vote for the bill, which would have expanded the attorney-client privilege for governments in Oklahoma.

"I do not support HB 1559 and voted No and saw it as a RED NO," the Bartlesville Republican told the FOI Oklahoma Blog. "How it got green I will never know.

"I support open government 100 percent," said Sears in an email. "The public has the right to know what we are doing at all times when we are doing the people's business."

Click here to read more about HB 1559.

The House rejected the bill by a 35-64 vote on May 17.

Sears said he didn't know his vote had been recorded as one of the 35 for HB 1559 until he was contacted by a constituent.

"I do not agree with Rep. [Fred] Jordan, the author of this bill," Sears told the constituent in an email. "As a public official I should not hide anything from the public.

"I am glad this bill is dead, and I wish my vote was recorded as No, but it's a Yes," he said. "All I can tell you is I don't support this bill in anyway."


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

Sunspots in Oklahoma

Sunspots in Oklahoma, an online map, pinpoints complaints of Oklahoma governments and other public entities not abiding by the letter or the spirit of the state's sunshine laws.

A YELLOW pin means the issue has been resolved in favor of the public's right and need to know. A RED pin indicates a conflict remains or the decision was contrary to the purposes of the Open Meeting and Records laws.

The map is based on reports to FOI Oklahoma Inc.

Suggestions for improving the map are welcomed. Updates on particular instances also would be appreciated.


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

Catoosa, Claremore sued for police audio, video recordings

A Vinita attorney is asking a Rogers County judge to force Catoosa and Claremore city officials to make public their police departments' audio and video recordings.

Josh D. Lee of Ward & Lee, which specializes in drunken-driving cases, filed the lawsuits on Tuesday.

A hearing before Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren has been scheduled for June 22.

Lee's co-counsel is Stephen G. Fabian Jr. of Oklahoma City.

Fabian, who also specializes in DUI cases, successfully sued the state Department of Public Safety in 2005 after the Oklahoma Highway Patrol began refusing to release videotapes of traffic arrests.

"We continue to find that many officers make up evidence and exaggerate their testimony about the events. These tapes are extremely important to a citizen who is wrongly accused," Fabian told The Oklahoman at the time.

Fabian had used the Open Records Act to gather hundreds of such videotapes from OHP and police departments.

However, state legislators curtailed public access to DPS's audio and video recordings in May 2005 after an Oklahoma County judge ruled in Fabian's favor against DPS.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Moore police release name of man fatally shot by officers, identify officers involved in two shootings, but refuse to identify 17-year-old wounded by police

Dax Buck Anthony Minor, 30, of New Caney, Texas, was the man fatally shot by Moore police last week, officials told The Oklahoman on Tuesday.

But Moore police officials still refuse to identify a 17-year-old shot by an officer in another incident more than a week ago. They told the newspaper that state law prevents them from identifying the teen unless he is arrested or charged in connection with a felony.

That seems likely given that police previously said the teen was driving a stolen car when he tried to elude officers and was shot in the stomach when he left the car and tried to run.

But if he's not, does that mean the public will never know who was shot by a police officer? That's absurd.

Though if he's not arrested, a federal lawsuit featuring the teen as the plaintiff would seem probable.

Police told The Oklahoman that no gun was found on the teenager or in the car. Sgt. Jason Landrum, a six-year veteran Moore officer, was involved in the shooting, officials told the newspaper.

The Oklahoman also reports that no weapon was found on Minor or in his pickup truck.

Sgt. Ernest Lockett, an eight-year veteran, and Sgt. Rick Bentley, a six-year veteran, were identified as the officers involved in that shooting.

All three officers are on administrative leave pending investigations into the shootings.

Moore police officials on Tuesday released more information about the shootings in response to an open records request by The Oklahoman. The details can be found in the newspaper's story.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Moore police won't identify people shot by officers, refuse to release incident reports

Moore police shot two people last week -- one fatally -- but the department won't release their names or the reports on the separate incidents, The Oklahoman reports this morning.

At this point, Moore police officials aren't telling the public much about the shootings. A 17-year-old was driving a stolen car a week ago when he tried to elude officers. He was shot in the stomach when he left the car and tried to run. The Oklahoman reports that police won't say if he threatened officers, if he was armed or why they shot him.

We also don't know much about the fatal shooting on Friday. Police got a call about a suicidal man, found him driving on Interstate 35, and chased him. He was shot when the pursuit ended. How did the pursuit end? Did he have a gun? Why did officers shoot him? Officials won't say.

Police Capt. Todd Strickland said the 17-year-old will never be identified by the department because he is a minor.

That policy and reasoning are unacceptable. We don't live in a society in which police may shoot somebody and keep the name secret simply because the person is under age 18. Instead, that should be even more reason for the name to be made public.

Strickland said the department won't release the name of the man fatally shot Friday because his relatives haven't been notified. More nonsensical reasoning from the Moore Police Department.

The Open Records Act doesn't require notification of relatives before police can identify a person shot and killed by officers. What if the man has no next-of-kin, or police can't find them? His identify just remains a secret? That's absurd.

Strickland also refused to identify the officers involved in the shootings. They've been placed on administrative leave while the shootings are investigated, Strickland said.

A public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute "a 'final' or 'disciplinary' action, nor a 'final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination,'" Edmondson said in a 2009 opinion. (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 29)

But once the investigation is complete and a final disciplinary action occurs, "the record(s) indicating that action must be available for public inspection and copying," he said.

Edmondson noted that the Open Records Act does not mention "administrative leave with pay." That oversight should be rectified by legislators next year.

In Moore, even if police officials determine that no disciplinary action should occur, the names of the officers should be made public as part of the incident reports -- which the department is refusing to release.

Strickland told the newspaper it's against department policy to release the incident reports.

That policy contradicts the state Open Records Act, which says the department "shall make available for public inspection ... A chronological list of all incidents, including initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(3))

Department policy doesn't get to trump the public's right to know. Or, particularly in this case, the need to know. (2006 OK AG 35, ¶ 29)

Yes, the public needs to know what happened. Being open in these situations also benefits the Moore Police Department. Being secretive to the point of violating state law sends the message that the department has something to hide. That undermines public trust in the department. It's also unfair to the officers involved.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

11 representatives live up to Open Government Pledge as House rejects bill expanding attorney-client privilege for government

Eleven House members lived up to their Open Government Pledge on Tuesday by voting against legislation that would have expanded the attorney-client privilege for government.

The House rejected HB 1559 by a 35-64 vote. The Tulsa World reports that its sponsor, Republican Fred Jordan of Jenks, kept the bill alive by sending it back to the House conference committee.

However, the Oklahoma Press Association official who lobbied against the measure said he believes it is dead for this session.

"Jordan told me he was through with the bill and would not be bringing it back up this session," said Mark Thomas, OPA executive vice president.

Unfortunately, among the voters for a bill that would have restricted the public's right to know were two pledge signers, Democrats Al McAffrey of Oklahoma City and Jeannie McDaniel of Tulsa.

As candidates for the House, McAffrey and McDaniel each 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."

McAffrey and McDaniel violated that pledge on Tuesday.

The bill they voted for would give local governments more power to keep documents confidential because it would erase statutory language limiting the circumstances under which public bodies may declare records protected by attorney-client privilege.

Specifically, HB 1559 seeks to amend a state statute that permits the attorney-client privilege for government records only when "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))

The bill would remove that language, allowing the attorney-client privilege to be overcome only if the documents were sought by a multi-county grand jury.

The Oklahoma Municipal League supported the bill. The Oklahoma Press Association opposed it.

The bill also was opposed by councilmen Steve Harrison of McAlester and Tom Kovach of Norman, each of whom has signed the Open Government Pledge.

But credit for defeating this poorly written and wrong-headed legislation should go to the OPA's Thomas, who also is a member of the FOI Oklahoma board of directors.

Thomas, in turn, praised pledge signer Harold Wright of Weatherford for passionately imploring his fellow House members to kill the bill, calling it "bad public policy."

The expanded attorney-client privilege would be exploited by city councils and school boards, predicted Wright, who is a radio station owner, OPA member and former mayor.

Joining Wright in voting against HB 1559 were fellow pledge signers:

• John Bennett, R-Sallisaw
• David Dank, R-Oklahoma City
• Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City
• Randy McDaniel, R-Oklahoma City
• Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie
• Todd Russ, R-Cordell
• Mike Sanders, R-Kingfisher
• Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa
• Emily Virgin, D-Norman
• Weldon Watson, R-Tulsa

Too bad Al McAffrey and Jeannie McDaniel didn't live up to their promise by doing so as well.

Here is the list of which House members voted for and against HB 1559.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

OHP did NOT tell Nowata County sheriff to withhold information

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol didn't order the Nowata County Sheriff's Office to withhold from the public the bail amount or the mugshot of a man arrested and jailed in connection with a hit-and-run fatality, contrary to what was reported a week ago.

Last Monday, the Tulsa World said Nowata County Sheriff’s Sgt. Donald Lynn declined to release the bail amount or a mugshot of Roy Dale Cheatham, 46, of Delaware, Okla., upon orders of the OHP local division.

But Tulsa World news editor Mike Strain said that turned out not to be the situation.

According to Strain, OHP Capt. Chris West told the newspaper that no such order was issued and, indeed, that the Highway Patrol doesn't have any authority over that information.

Meanwhile, Nowata County Sheriff's officials told the newspaper there had been a misunderstanding and released the information Tuesday, Strain said Wednesday.


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

House Committee passes bill expanding attorney-client privilege for government, restricting public's right to know

Without questions or discussion, a House Conference Committee on Thursday passed HB 1559, which limits the public's right to know by expanding the attorney-client privilege for public bodies.

The bill would give state and local governments more power to keep documents confidential because it wipes out statutory language limiting the circumstances under which public bodies can declare records protected by attorney-client privilege.

If a Senate Conference Committee approves the bill, it could be heard on the floors of the Senate and House early next week.

Representatives voting YES to allow the bill out of conference on Thursday were Sue Tibbs (R-Tulsa); Fred Jordan (R-Jenks); Steve Martin (R-Bartlesville); Lewis Moore (R-Arcadia); Dustin Roberts (R-Durant); Dan Sullivan (R-Tulsa); Paul Wesselhoft (R-Moore); and Corey Williams (D-Stillwater).

Refusing to sign the bill out of committee were Republican Mark McCullough of Sapulpa and Democrats Ben Sherrer of Choteau and Richard Morrissette of Oklahoma City.

Absent were Colby Schwartz (R-Yukon) and Paul Roan (D-Tishomingo).

The bill seeks to amend a state statute that permits the attorney-client privilege for government records only when "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))

The bill would remove that language, allowing the attorney-client privilege to be overcome only if the documents were sought by a multi-county grand jury.

The Oklahoma Municipal League is lobbying for the bill. But the Oklahoma Press Association opposes "removing the language because it takes the court review out of the process if there is suspected abuse or corruption between public officials and their attorney," said Mark Thomas, OPA executive vice president.

"As citizens, we MUST have some confidence that corruption is not happening. Having the ability to ask the court to review the attorney-client communications should remain in the law," said Thomas.

"Why does the Tulsa Public School attorney want this changed so badly? Why does the City of Jenks attorney want this changed? Why does the Oklahoma Municipal League want to change this law?" asked Thomas.

The bill goes to a Senate Conference Committee for a vote.

The Senate Conference Committee members will be Republicans Dan Newberry of Tulsa, who sponsored the bill in the Senate; Brian Crain of Tulsa, Jonathan Nichols of Norman and Anthony Sykes of Moore.

Democrats on the committee are Charlie Laster of Shawnee and John Sparks of Norman.

The OPA is urging Oklahomans to ask their state senators and representatives to vote against the bill.

The Press Association should be able to count on 16 legislators who have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

House members who signed the pledge are:

• John Bennett, R-Sallisaw
• David Dank, R-Oklahoma City
• Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City
• Al McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City
• Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa
• Randy McDaniel, R-Oklahoma City
• Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie
• Todd Russ, R-Cordell
• Mike Sanders, R-Kingfisher
• Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa
• Emily Virgin, D-Norman
• Weldon Watson, R-Tulsa
• Harold Wright, R-Weatherford

In the Senate, Josh Breechen, R-Coalgate, Roger Ballenger, D-Okmulgee, and minority leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, signed the pledge.

Gov. Mary Fallin also signed the pledge as a candidate, so the OPA should be able count on her to veto the bill if it arrives on her desk.

Each of these politicians 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."

If you contact one of these elected officials, please remind them of that pledge.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

OML lobbies for bill expanding attorney-client privilege for government, restricting public's right to know

The Oklahoma Municipal League wants city officials statewide to tell members of a House Conference Committee to vote for a bill expanding the attorney-client privilege for government and, consequently, limiting the public's right to know in those instances.

"Public sector elected officials and municipal staff should be provided with the legal counsel similar to that granted to private entitles," an OML official said in an action alert e-mailed to OML members on Wednesday.

The House Conference Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary is scheduled to vote on HB 1559 at its 9 a.m. Thursday meeting.

The Oklahoma Press Association opposes the amended bill.

"It basically wipes out the limited privilege for public bodies and replaces it with a multi-county grand jury privilege limitation," OPA Executive Vice President Mark Thomas told the FOI Oklahoma Blog on Wednesday afternoon.

Thomas had previously said of the bill:

Public bodies currently have a limited attorney-client privilege. We think that limitation should stay in place. This bill removes the limitation. Public bodies could hide anything behind their attorney-client privilege.

This bill puts attorneys in charge of everything. That is bad public policy, and we are opposed to it.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has noted that under state law, the attorney-client privilege "is not generally available to" public bodies. (State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Indus. Auth., 1981 OK 47, ¶ 32).

According to the statute: “There is no 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.” (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."

Thomas said HB 1559 eliminates the limiting language in the statute.

"Which means public bodies can hide behind conversations with their attorney over anything! The ONLY exception in the bill – public bodies can't use the privilege when called before a grand jury," Thomas said Wednesday.

The members of the House Conference Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary are

Republicans:

Jordan, Fred (405)557-7331 fred.jordan@okhouse.gov
Martin, Steve (405)557-7402 stevemartin@okhouse.gov
McCullough, Mark (405)557-7414 mark.mccullough@okhouse.gov
Moore, Lewis (405)557-7400 lewis.moore@okhouse.gov
Schwartz, Colby (405)557-7352 colby.schwartz@okhouse.gov
Roberts, Dustin (405)557-7366 dustin.roberts@okhouse.gov
Sullivan, Daniel (405)557-7361 danielsullivan@okhouse.gov
Tibbs, Sue (405)557-7379 suetibbs@okhouse.gov
Wesselhoft, Paul (405)557-7343 paulwesselhoft@okhouse.gov

and Democrats:

Morrissette, Richard (405)557-7404 richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov
Roan, Paul D. (405)557-7308 paulroan@okhouse.gov
Sherrer, Ben (405)557-7364 bensherrer@okhouse.gov
Williams, Cory T. (405)557-7411 cory.williams@okhouse.gov

Thomas said he is calling on those committee members to stop the bill.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

OHP orders Nowata County sheriff not to release bail amount, mugshot of man arrested in connection with hit-and-run fatality

The Oklahoma Highway Patrol ordered the Nowata County sheriff not to release the bail amount or the mugshot of a man arrested and jailed in connection with a hit-and-run in which a pedestrian was killed, the Tulsa World reported early Monday evening.

The OHP's explanation for why such information should be kept secret and under what statute OHP has the authority to issue such an order were not explained in the story.

The Tulsa World said only that Nowata County Sheriff’s Sgt. Donald Lynn declined to release the bail amount or a mugshot of Roy Dale Cheatham, 46, of Delaware, Okla., upon orders of the OHP local division.

NewsOn6 and KTUL each used a previous mug shot of Cheatham in their stories posted online.


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

BRTA refuses to settle open government lawsuits

The Bartlesville Redevelopment Trust Authority has refused two offers to settle open government lawsuits filed against it, the local newspaper reported Wednesday.

The BRTA filed an amended motion Wednesday to dismiss the Open Meeting Act lawsuit, according to court records.

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reported that under the settlement offer, the BRTA would issue a statement fully describing what occurred during an Aug. 11 executive session and would hold a meeting during which the public could ask what was discussed during that closed session.

The lawsuit, filed by Joel Rabin and Sharon Hurst, alleges that the BRTA purposefully misled the public about the purpose of its Aug. 11 executive session, the real subject of which was not permitted in an executive session.

The agenda for the meeting said the closed-door session would be to "Discuss Pending and/or Impending Investigations, Claims or Actions Affecting the BRTA." However, the agenda did not identify the specific item of business to be discussed in the executive session.

In an e-mail sent a day earlier, BRTA Downtown Development Director Patrick Treadway told the seven members of the authority:

You will note that the first item on the agenda is an Executive Session which seems to indicate an investigation. There is not an investigation. This is on the agenda to allow Dan to give you information which he believes you need to have for future projects. Dan purposefully provided the language for this agenda item.

Dan is BRTA attorney Dan McMahan of Oklahoma City.

The lawsuit also has uncovered that despite an Open Meeting Act requirement, the BRTA does not keep minutes of its executive sessions. (See Deposition of Patrick Treadway at 21-25 (Dec. 8, 2010)).

In addition to the Open Meeting Act lawsuit, Hurst and Rabin also filed an Open Records Act lawsuit against the BRTA in October.

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reported that the BRTA did not take action on a settlement offer at its meeting Monday and rejected a previous offer during its April 13 meeting.

McMahan told the newspaper that the settlement offers would require BRTA trustees to say "they did things that they didn’t do.”

"It’s not something the trustees were willing to do," he said.

McMahan said the settlement offers also "asks for attorneys’ fees in the Open Records case, as well as the Open Meetings case, in amounts that are greater than what a court could order."

The court could not authorize any attorney fees in the Open Meeting Act lawsuit, he said.

That's correct. Unlike the Open Records Act, the Open Meeting Act lacks a specific provision authorizing successful plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorney fees. Thus, such plaintiffs are not entitled to payment for attorney fees because the state follows the American rule regarding their recovery. (Crutchfield v. Marine Power Engine Co., 2009 OK 27, ¶ 26)

“It provides that each litigant pay for legal representation and that courts are without authority to assess attorney fees in the absence of a specific statute or contract. Exceptions to this rule are narrowly defined because attorney fee awards against the non-prevailing party have a chilling effect on open access to the courts. For an award of attorney fees to be authorized under a particular statute, the authorization must be found within the strict confines of the statute,” the state Supreme Court explained in 2009. (Id.)

A successful plaintiff, though, could recover court costs at the discretion of the judge.

In January, the FOI Oklahoma Inc. board of directors approved a $1,000 grant to Rabin and Hurst, who are FOI Oklahoma members, to help support their costs of the Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the BRTA.

In March, the Bartlesville City Council allocated $30,000 to help pay the BRTA's legal expenses in the lawsuits.

Also of interest in the Examiner-Enterprise story Wednesday was McMahan's claim that attorneys’ billing statements may be kept secret under the Open Records Act as part of a litigation file.

"With the exception of a dispute of attorneys' billing statements, we believe that we have 100 percent delivered every record that's been requested by the plaintiffs," McMahan told the newspaper.

McMahan said the BRTA may keep any attorney records as confidential in its litigation file and noted that billing statements are a way attorneys communicate with a client.

"If the lawsuit were to go away, we would have no basis for objecting to turning over our attorneys' records," he said.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Will state Senate stand in way of truly open conference committee process?

It was a smart move by Speaker Kris Steele when he got the House to pass a rule opening up House conference committee meetings. But the next few weeks will demonstrate how well the new openness works.

The Senate has not passed such a rule calling for openness in conference committee meetings. Therefore, the public will not be privy to what happens when bills go to Senate conference committees.

A joint conference committee has both House and Senate members who need to approve a measure before it goes to the full House and Senate.

So how will they do this? How can the House meet in the open and the Senate not abide by the same rule?

It appears the result will be that only half the process will be open to the public, that is the activity on the House side.

"Conference committees were previously closed meetings," Steele's communications director John Estus noted Wednesday. "In reality, the meetings often never occurred. Votes were taken instead via signature."

The Senate will apparently continue conducting its conference committee deal-making in closed session.

A House conference committee met publicly last Wednesday for the first time and approved a bill to prohibit people younger than 18 from being featured in state lottery advertisements.

Steele heralded the House action in a press release, stating, "Today's meeting was a landmark step in the House's effort to increase transparency."

But no senators were present. So the public may never be privy to discussion and negotations in Senate conference committee meetings.

....
Under the House rules:

• All meetings of standing conference committees shall be open to the public, subject to the authority of the chairperson to maintain order and decorum. (Rule 7.15)
• All standing conference committees shall provide reasonable, public notice of a meeting. (Rule 7.16)
• The notice shall state the date, time and place of a meeting.
• The notice shall include a listing and sufficient title for identification of the bills to be considered by the standing conference committee holding the meeting.
• Standing conference committees shall meet at the call of the chairperson within the dates, times and locations designated by the Speaker. (Rule 7.17)
• No standing conference committee shall sit during a floor session of the House without special leave from the Speaker.
• All votes cast in standing conference committees shall be conducted in open, public meetings. (Rule 7.18)
• In a standing conference committee, only the vote to recommend adoption of the conference committee report shall be recorded.
.....

Mick Hinton
Freelance Journalist
FOI Oklahoma Inc. Member


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.