Owasso agrees to release police officer lapel camera video, audio materials after family files Open Records Act lawsuit

Owasso city officials have agreed to provide the police officer lapel camera video and audio materials sought by the family of a Tulsa man who died Oct. 27 in the Tulsa County jail, the Owasso Reporter reported Thursday.

The family had filed an Open Records Act lawsuit against Owasso after the police department would release only an arrest report, a radio log and a computer-aided dispatch report.

In the lawsuit, the family argued that the lapel video and other materials were "essential in determining the events which transpired during the arrest," the Tulsa World reported.

An attorney for the city had told the family that the video and audio materials were "in my opinion outside the scope of documents you are entitled to under the Open Records Act," the Owasso Reporter said.

In November, Owasso City Manager Rodney J. Ray refused requests by the Owasso Reporter and Tulsa World for a copy of lapel camera video showing a police lieutenant using excessive force for which he was fired.

Ray said arrest videos are not included in the eight categories of law enforcement records that must be released under the state Open Record Act. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))

The statute allows police departments to deny access to other law enforcement records "except where a court finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(B))

But Ray said the public interest in releasing the lapel camera video of the police lieutenant using excessive force didn't outweigh protecting his right to appeal his firing.

In August, a Rogers County judge held that the Claremore Police Department's dash-cam recordings are not public records under the state Open Records Act.

But Associate District Judge Sheila A. Condren's ruling on the status of police videos runs contrary to relevant cases and to common practice in the state.

In 2005, an Oklahoma County district judge barred "the Oklahoma Highway Patrol from keeping videotapes of traffic arrests secret." (That ruling spurred legislators that year into exempting all Department of Public Safety dash-cam audio and video recordings.)

A year earlier, the state Supreme Court had held that Department of Public Safety recordings of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses were public under the Open Records Act. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)

The Supreme Court said the requested tapes contained facts concerning arrests and therefore were open under the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 14)

The statute makes public the "facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(2))

"By this statute," the Supreme Court said, "DPS is required to make available for public inspection facts concerning the arrest. Fabian asserts that the requested tapes contain the facts concerning the arrest and therefore § 24A.8(A)(2) requires the tapes to be open for public inspection. We agree."

Owasso city officials apparently agreed that the lapel video should be public after the family forced them into court on the issue.


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

Emails reveal likely members of calendar committee, raise doubts about Stillwater school district's open records response

Emails sent from a Stillwater public school official to a calendar committee reveal the likely identities of members omitted from the district's response to an Open Records Act request.

The emails were sent from Annie Needham, administrative assistant for educational services, to committee members on Nov. 10 and Nov. 11.

The recipient lists include johnh@meridiantech.edu, candace.thrasher@okstate.edu, jscott@stillwater.org, stwymcachildcare@gmail.com and toniwolfe@renkids.com.

According to organizational websites, those are the email addresses for:

• John Howell, assistant superintendent of Meridian Technology Center in Stillwater;
• Candace Thrasher, manager of outreach education for the OSU College of Education;
• Jim Scott, operations manager for the Stillwater Parks and Recreation Department;
• Sarah Alleman, child care director for the Stillwater YMCA; and
• Toni L. Wolfe, director of The Renaissance School at Sangre in Stillwater.

Wolfe provided the emails to Stillwater parent Mitsi Andrews, who last week requested the names of the school district committee that had proposed a controversial school calendar.

Wolfe said Stillwater Superintendent Ann Caine asked her to serve on the committee.

The emails raise additional serious doubts about the sincerity of the district's response to Andrews' request.

An attorney for the district said it had only one document with the names of the committee members and that the record was only a "partial list of members."

Missing are the names of representatives from OSU, Meridian Technology Center, the city of Stillwater and local childcare providers that Caine said were on the committee.

But Needham's emails include the full names for Candace Thrasher and Toni Wolfe. Why weren't these emails included in the district's response?

For that matter, how could Needham have sent emails to the committee if she didn't have a membership list of some kind?

And how could the district contact the non-employee members -- as the attorney said it would do -- to ask for their committee-related emails, text messages and other correspondence also requested by Andrews? (Read related posting on search fee the district wants to charge Andrews.)

And how could Caine reconvene the committee in January, as she told the school board she would do, if she doesn't have their names?

The statutory definition of public record is "all documents, including, but not limited to any book, paper, photograph, microfilm, data files created by or used with computer software, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, film recording, video record or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic,..." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.3(1))

That definition "is broad enough to include any method of memorializing information," the state Supreme Court said in 2004. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67, ¶ 10)

The purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records...." Facilitate means to make easier, to bring about.

Public agencies also must comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of the Open Records Act, which says Oklahomans "are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

Even though Caine had made it clear to Andrews that she didn't want the committee member names disclosed, Stillwater residents are entitled to know who helped shaped public school policy.

And now the question is whether the school district fulfilled its obligation under the Open Records Act when it responded to Andrews' request.


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.

Stillwater school district charges search fee, $250 deposit to inspect emails of committee that proposed controversial school year calendar

A Stillwater parent wants to read the emails, text messages and other correspondence in which members of a school district committee discussed a controversial calendar that the school board appears ready to adopt for 2013.

Mitsi Andrews asked to inspect the emails after being told by Superintendent Ann Caine that no minutes existed for the committee's meetings.

Caine and the district won't even tell Andrews the names of all the committee members. (Read the related posting.)

And an attorney for the district now says Andrews has to pay a $250 deposit before the district will begin compiling the emails for her inspection.

And the cost includes a search fee, said Kent B. Rainey of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.

Yes. Another school district represented by this Tulsa law firm wants to charge a search fee to disclose records clearly in the public interest -- even though the state Open Records Act clearly prohibits such a fee in such circumstances.

In a letter to Andrews, Rainey said a search of archived emails from July 1 to Dec. 8 found 897 with "calendar committee" in the body. Nearly 21,000 emails were found with "calendar" in the body.

Rainey said the district doesn't archive employee text messages so the 36 district employees on the committee will have to be asked for such messages. He said a method of retrieving the messages would have to be determined.

Rainey said 15 non-district employees serve on the committee. He said those members will have to be asked for emails, text messages and other correspondence that they exchanged among themselves but not with district employees.

(How could the district contact those non-employees if it doesn't have a record of their names?)

All the collected documents will have to be reviewed by district personnel or his law firm for exempted material, he said.

For these reasons, Rainey said, "The District believes your ORA request would clearly cause excessive disruption of the District's essential functions."

Therefore, he said, Andrews will be charged a "fee to recover the direct cost of the document search."

But the Open Records Act prohibits a search fee in these circumstances, stating:

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 the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))

Andrews' request certainly fits within this provision. She has requested records that can reveal the pros and cons discussed by the committee, and which, if any, alternatives were rejected and for what reasons.

In June 2010, another school district represented by Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold tried to charge a $90 search fee for copies of the district’s itemized legal bills.

The Broken Arrow Public Schools superintendent at the time considered the records request to be "an excessive disruption of the business of the school" because Rainey charged the district for the three hours to redact exempted information from 17 legal bills submitted during a seven-month period.

Current BAPS Superintendent Jarod Mendenhal not only rescinded the search fee when he took office a week later but also agreed that one shouldn't have been charged in the first place. A district spokesman said:

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.

Most requests fall under that description meaning a search fee can’t and won’t be charged. 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.

Because the Stillwater school district is represented by Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold, it is useful to review legal arguments made by the Broken Arrow superintendent who tried justify a search fee.

Gary Gerber had pointed to this comment by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in a 1995 case:

We observe that the public interest is as equally well served by public agencies performing their essential services without burdensome, disruptive records requests as in providing release of information to tax payers. (McVarish v. New Horizons Cmty. Counseling and Mental Health Servs. Inc., 1995 OK CIV APP 145, ¶ 3)

In McVarish, the court had quoted with apparent approval the trial judge’s conclusion that "whether or not there's any public purpose or whether it's a matter of a private vendetta ... I think what the legislature was perhaps trying to say was if there's going to be some sort of substantial disruption of business of the public agency then a fee is not improper."

But the trial court had "clearly overstepped its judicial authority" with its interpretation, said an attorney serving on the FOI Oklahoma Inc. board of directors in 2010.

"Clearly, § 24A.5 says no such thing," said Doug Wilson, who won several Open Records Act cases before becoming an assistant district attorney for Tulsa County.

Indeed, McVarish was not mentioned in subsequent attorney general opinions on the meaning of "In no case, shall a search fee be charged when...."

In a 1996 opinion, state Attorney General Drew Edmondson described that language as a "legislative warning," saying:

Should a public body choose to charge a search fee it should proceed with caution in view of the legislative warning set forth in the Act which provides in pertinent part: 'In no case shall a search fee be charged when the release of said documents 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 the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants.' (1996 OK AG 26, ¶ 13 (quoting OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))

Using absolute terms of his own in a 1999 opinion, Edmondson said, "Further, a search fee cannot be charged when release of public records is in the public interest, such as release to the news media, scholars, authors or taxpayers seeking to determine if government affairs are being properly performed." (1999 OK AG 55, ¶ 15)

Legislative intent also had been "quite clear" to then-Attorney General Robert H. Henry in 1988, when he said public bodies could not charge a search fee to reporters investigating government operations.

"[T]here is no situation under which a member of the news media may be lawfully charged a search fee by a public body," he said. "51 O.S. 24A.5(3) … is quite clear on that point when it decrees 'in no case' may such search fees be assessed in such circumstances." (1988 OK AG 35, ¶ 6 (citing OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))

That prohibition on search fees would seem to apply to Andrews' request given that the same sentence in the statute includes both the news media and "taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants."


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.

Stillwater school district won't disclose all members of committee that shaped school calendar policy

For two months, a committee of Stillwater school district employees and others from the community discussed -- and then proposed -- a controversial calendar for next school year.

No public notice. No agendas. No meeting minutes.

Now, an attorney for the district says only one document with the names of the committee members exists and it's only "a partial list of members."

And a district parent wanting to inspect the committee's emails will have to pay a search fee because the request "would clearly cause excessive disruption of the District's essential functions," said Kent B. Rainey of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.

(A later posting on this blog will address why the Open Records Act prohibits a search fee from being charged to the parent.)

Rainey also told Mitsi Andrews that she would have to pay a $250 deposit before the district would begin compiling the emails for her inspection.

Andrews received two letters from Rainey on Wednesday evening, the day after the school board voted to keep the traditional school calendar for 2012-13. But a continuous learning academic calendar will be up for consideration again next year, the Stillwater NewsPress reported.

School Superintendent Ann Caine told the board she had proposed the expanded calendar idea to the district’s annual calendar committee.

District parents learned of the continuous learning calendar proposal in an email from the "SPS Calendar Committee" at 4:10 p.m. on Dec. 2. They were given four days to respond to an online survey about the proposal.

According to that email, the committee consists of a teacher, parent, support staff member and administrator from each school site.

"Additionally, representatives from Oklahoma State University, Meridian Technology Center, the City of Stillwater, and local childcare providers also participated and provided valuable input," the email said.

"As a result of the deliberations of the committee, a proposal is being put forth to move the district to a continuous learning calendar," the email said.

Andrews said that was the first she had heard of the committee and the proposed change for the next school year, so she telephoned and emailed Caine asking for a list of the Calendar Committee members, and agendas and minutes of its meetings.

In an email Dec. 7, Caine responded, "We do not have an agenda or minutes from our committee meetings."

Caine's administrative assistant had told Andrews the committee was not appointed by the school board.

If the committee wasn't appointed by the board, then it isn't subject to the state Open Meeting Act. But no agendas? No minutes? No notes of any kind? How did members know what they were considering from meeting to meeting?

As for the names of the committee members, Caine responded, "I do not feel comfortable releasing the names of the committee because I do not have permission from them to do so."

Andrews asked again but used a more formal request letter.

Rainey responded on behalf of the district. He said the committee has about 51 members, of which 36 are district employees.

The "partial list" of 43 members includes only district employees, parents and Board Member Debra Vincent.

Missing are the names of representatives from OSU, Meridian Technology Center, the city of Stillwater and local childcare providers.

How convenient given Caine's refusal to identify those members. And it's difficult to believe for the same reason.

Caine and other district officials know, of course, who the other members are. They know whom they invited to participate. Certainly, they know who accepted. Didn't the district have sign-in sheets for the meetings?

And how else could Caine reconvene the committee in January -- as she told the school board she would -- to begin drafting another proposal to go into effect in 2013.

But in Rainey's letter, he emphasized, "The District is not required to respond to questions or interrogatories, only to provide documents that are in existence."

In other words, don't bother asking because we aren't going to tell you.

But the public is entitled to know who helps shape public school policy.

The Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)

Oklahoma’s Open Records Act starts with the following statement of principle:

As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is 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. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

The stated purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."

These important principles apply even in Stillwater.


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.

Oklahoma Supreme Court supports public's need to know by not limiting personal information in court records

Oklahoma Supreme Court justices on Monday unanimously agreed not to ban complete dates of birth and street addresses from criminal and civil court records.

That's a surprise given the majority's ruling in late July denying public access to government employees' birth dates and worker identification numbers in personnel files. The majority said no valid public interest existed in knowing the information.

Just two months later, the court proposed requiring that filers remove all but the year from dates of birth, the street addresses from home addresses, the names of minor children, all but the last four digits of Social Security, drivers license, taxpayer identification and "other personal identification numbers" from court records in criminal and civil cases.

But the rule released Monday leaves complete dates of birth and street addresses in court records.

And it permits -- but doesn't require -- filers to keep confidential all but the last four digits in Social Security, taxpayer identification, financial account and driver's license numbers.

As Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor said in a concurrence:

This rule affirms the doctrine that (other than those sealed or closed by long-established law) every document filed with the Court Clerk is a public record. And this rule does not prohibit the inclusion of any information in any filed document.

Taylor's concurrence was joined by Justice Yvonne Kauger. She and Taylor had dissented in the government employees' date of birth ruling.

Under the rule released Monday, filers are responsible for following the guidelines. District court clerks are not responsible for reviewing documents for compliance. A document filed with the court clerk "become a public record as filed" even if it contains Social Security, taxpayer identification, financial account and driver's license numbers, dates of birth, street addresses "or other sensitive information."

The rule does not apply to felony, misdemeanor, traffic ticket or other cases where statutes or Court of Criminal Appeals rules "require the inclusion of the complete personal identifier number."

FOI Oklahoma Inc. and a number of other organizations and individuals had urged the court to reconsider its proposed limit on information in court records.

The court's decision Monday is a victory for the public's need to know in Oklahoma. The public has an interest in identifying elected officials, government employees and public figures involved in court actions. Oklahomans also have an interest in knowing more about the people in their lives, including those they do business with and those chosen to care for children.

The decision also helps individual Oklahomans distinguish themselves from others with similar names who are involved in court actions. In that way, the rule protects the privacy of Oklahomans.


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.

Update: Owasso officials making 'work session' documents available to public prior to meetings

Owasso residents can now read staff memoranda and other documents that form the basis for policy discussions by the City Council during its monthly "work sessions."

City officials had been withholding the documents, claiming they were drafts exempted under the state Open Records Act.

But the statute contains no provision allowing governments to keep "drafts" secret from the public.

Instead, the statute permits governments to keep confidential "personal notes and personally created materials . . . prepared as an aid to memory or research leading to the adoption of a public policy or the implementation of a public project."

The exemption applies only prior to the official "taking action, including making a recommendation or issuing a report." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.9)

In late October, City Manager Rodney Ray agreed to release those "work session" documents to the Owasso Reporter even though he disagreed that the Open Records Act required him to do so.

The Owasso Reporter asked City Attorney Julie Lombardi if the work session documents would be made available to the general public, too.

In November, the city began making the documents available to the general public.

Ray's administrative assistant, Juliann M. Stevens, emailed the September agenda packet to Jennifer Gray, who was a student in my media law course and also an Owasso resident.

The city also is posting the agenda packets for "work sessions" online. See the Nov. 8 packet and the one for tomorrow (Dec. 13).

Thank you to the Owasso city officials for making the documents easily available to the public.

Kudos to the Owasso Reporter for sticking up for not just its need to know but for the public's as well.


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.