Norman City Council candidate promises to uphold the letter, spirit of the state’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

A Cleveland County deputy sheriff has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge in his bid for the Norman City Council Ward 8 seat.

The election is Tuesday.

By signing the Open Government Pledge, Steve Lucas promised, "I and the public bodies that I am elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

Lucas 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 all candidates for local and statewide offices as well as legislative seats to sign the pledge. Instructions and lists of signers 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 & 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.

Rogers County Commission hires independent contractor after executive session despite prohibition on such discussions behind closed doors

The Open Meeting Act's personnel exception does not permit closed-door discussions regarding the hiring of independent contractors for professional services, the state attorney general said in 2005.

But Rogers County Commissioners Dan DeLozier, Mike Helm and Kirt Thacker did just that on March 5.

They went into executive session under the personnel exception to discuss the hiring of a public information officer as a salaried employee. They came out and hired a PIO as an independent contractor. (Read the meeting minutes.)

So I asked DeLozier, Helm and Thacker how the executive session and subsequent hiring of an independent contractor were permissible given what the attorney general had said.

Their legal adviser, Assistant District Attorney David T. Iski, responded on their behalf.

Iski said it would be "inaccurate" to conclude that the commission intended to "skirt the Act by intentionally confining its discussions to the hiring of the Public Information Officer (PIO) as an Independent Contractor."

Iski says the commissioners "entered an Executive Session to discuss the hiring of a PIO as an employee of the County."

"The resulting action indicates that the Board determined not to proceed with the position as one of an employer/employee relationship and chose to go another route," he said.

"It may also be helpful for you to know that the Board had not had a PIO previously and was not proceeding in a manner of simply filling an open position," Iski added.

I hadn't assumed that the commissioners intended to skirt the Open Meeting Act. My question was whether their actions violated the statute.

In 2005, then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson had been asked whether a public body could "convene in executive session" under the personnel exception to discuss hiring independent contractors. (2005 OK AG 29)

His answer: "A public body may hold an executive session under the Open Meeting Act only to discuss the 'employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any individual salaried public officer or employee.' Discussing awarding a contract for professional services when the recipient will be an independent contractor, rather than a public officer or employee of the public body, is not a proper subject for an executive session." (¶ 13)

Iski says Rogers County commissioners didn't convene the executive session with the purpose of discussing an independent contractor.

But Edmondson's answer wasn't limited to the intent of the executive session. He said, "If ... the position were found to be that of an independent contractor, rather than an employee, it would be improper ... for the public body to discuss hiring someone to fill that position in an executive session." (¶ 7)

Edmondson's opinion doesn't condone what Rogers County commissioners did, particularly given the state Supreme Court's admonition that the Open Meeting Act "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public" because the statue was "enacted for the public’s benefit." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)

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 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals also has said. (Haworth Bd. of Ed., 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

In that case, the court nullified the hiring of a superintendent because the school board's two posted agendas for the meeting had included only "Hiring principals. Discussion of hiring administrator. Interview a new administrator."

The "School Board's actions were limited by its own notice to 'discussion' and 'interviews,'" the court said. "If, after interviewing [the candidate for superintendent], the School Board decided to hire him, this could only have been done by School Board calling a separate meeting with proper notice being given to the public of its intention to take that action." (Id. ¶ 13)

That Open Meeting Act violation seems no different from the Rogers County Commission hiring an independent contractor after having met in executive session to discuss hiring a salaried employee and having listed on the agenda the hiring of a salaried employee, not an independent contractor.

The Rogers County commissioners could have avoided this Open Meeting Act problem by deciding first whether to hire a public information officer as a county employee or as an independent contractor. That discussion should have been held in public.

But even so, once the commissioners had decided in their March 5 executive session to hire an independent contractor, they should have ended the closed-door session. The hiring of the public information officer as an independent contractor should have been put on the following week's agenda for discussion and action.

Instead, the commissioners voted "to enter into an Independent Contractor's Agreement effective today with a Public Information Officer, Kristen Bergman." (Even though Bergman began working for the county, her contract wasn't approved by the commissioners until Monday.)

Unfortunately, the commission's closed-door discussion of an independent contractor on March 5 wasn't a one-time problem.

On March 19, commissioners went into executive session under the attorney-client privilege exception to discuss "possible official action" regarding a court-ordered $22.5 million judgment (plus attorney fees, court cost and interest that continues to accrue until the debt is paid) against the county.

After the session, they voted to hire a law firm and a financial adviser to provide options to deal with the judgment. The contracts for professional services were approved at this Monday's meeting. (Read the March 19 meeting minutes and the March 26 agenda.)

Johanning & Byrom PC will act as the county's bond attorney, and The Baker Group will serve as its financial adviser, The Claremore Daily Progress reported.

"Our job is to look at all the funding options available for Rogers County," said Greg Nieto of The Baker Group. "We will bring back recommendations and additional information in the next couple of weeks. We are seeking the most economical method to satisfy the ruling."

How could the hiring of these independent contractors have been discussed behind closed doors without violating the Open Meeting Act?

Even ignoring the AG's prohibition on executive session discussions of professional service contracts, how could such a discussion fall under the attorney-client exception? That Iski was included in the executive session would not have been sufficient reason.

"The Legislature did not exempt from public scrutiny every discussion between a public body and its attorney involving a 'pending investigation, claim, or action.' Rather, such issues may be discussed in executive session only if the public body and its attorney determine that disclosure will 'seriously impair' the body's ability to deal with the issues in the public interest. This limitation on the basis for an executive session . . . means a public body may not close a meeting merely to get general legal advice from its attorney that does not meet the standard of serious impairment and injury to the public interest," said Edmondson in the same 2005 opinion. (¶ 11)

In other words, a public discussion of hiring independent contractors to provide options would had to have "seriously impaired" the ability of the commission to process the claim in the public interest. That doesn't seem likely -- at least not if the words "seriously impair" are to have any meaning.

Rather than liberally construing the Open Meeting Act to favor openness, some Rogers County officials are interpreting it so as to justify closed-door discussions that appear to violate the statute.


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.

District attorney asks state Supreme Court for right to appeal district judge's decision releasing surveillance video that led to arrest of Bartlesville police officers

Washington County District Attorney Kevin Buchanan wants the state Supreme Court to grant him the right to appeal a district judge's order that Bartlesville police provide the local newspaper with a copy of hospital surveillance video that led to the arrest of two officers in December.

Buchanan filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court on Friday. (Read Buchanan's brief in support of his petition.)

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 18.

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise had filed an Open Records Act lawsuit against Buchanan, the city and police department on Feb. 3 after city officials said it would take a court order to get a copy of the video that led to two police officers being charged with assaulting a handcuffed patient.

Washington County District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp ruled against the Bartlesville police on March 12. His ruling did not decide whether Buchanan had to release the video.

On March 16, Buchanan asked DeLapp to suspend his order against the police so Buchanan could appeal it. DeLapp refused, saying that Buchanan had no standing because the order didn't apply to him.

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise received a copy of the hospital surveillance video on March 16 after the newspaper agreed not to seek attorney's fees from the city, which in turn agreed not to appeal a judge's order to release the video.

On March 18, the newspaper posted the 44-minute video, which shows a confrontation in a local hospital emergency room between four Bartlesville police officers and a young man who had been brought to the hospital after expressing "suicidal thoughts."

Now, Buchanan wants the state Supreme Court to suspend DeLapp's order and grant him standing to appeal the order.

Buchanan argues that DeLapp's ruling against the police department "jeopardizes" criminal investigations after arrests and subsequent prosecutions by requiring the disclosure of evidence to the news media.

Buchanan and the city had contended that the video was not public under the state Open Records Act because it is not listed among the law enforcement information that must be released.

DeLapp rejected that argument, holding that the video contains "facts concerning the arrest and cause for the arrest" of the two police officers.

The video has no audio. It shows the man "being pushed, choked, slapped and kneed by officers," the newspaper said.

"On the other hand, the patient appears to be constantly making verbal assaults and, in one instance, appears to spit at the officers," the newspaper reported. "There are instances, however, when each of the officers appears to react to something the man says or does — resulting in rough treatment of the patient.

"An especially disturbing episode on the video shows an apparent retaliatory confrontation with the man by [officer Sonya Jean] Worthington — who is seen punching, kneeing and twisting the head of the victim. The attack goes on for nearly a minute before one of the other officers intervenes," the newspaper reported.

Worthington and fellow Bartlesville Police Department officer Stacy Charles Neafus were charged with assault and battery on Dec. 1. They and a third officer, Carey Duniphin, were fired in mid-January. A fourth officer, Josh Patzkowski, was placed on administrative leave following the incident but has returned to active duty, the newspaper reported.


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.

Tulsa city council chairman drops one-on-one meetings after newspaper raises concerns of Open Meeting Act violation

Tulsa City Council Chairman G.T. Bynum decided against one-on-one meetings with other councilors last week to discuss a personnel issue regarding Council Administrator Drew Rees, the Tulsa World reported.

Instead, the council discussed Rees' job performance in executive session during Thursday's meeting. No action was taken afterward, the newspaper reported. His probation period as council administrator has passed and a review is due, the newspaper said.

An executive session had been scheduled the previous week but was pulled because no name or unique title was listed on the agenda as is required for closed-door sessions on personnel issues.

Rather than reschedule the executive session with the required information, Bynum said he would instead meet individually with councilors to inform them of the personnel issue.

Bad idea.

The council may not meet one-on-one to decide an issue. That’s well-established law.

"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 2010, Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, 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."

Durbin told them:

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.

The council members really shouldn't be meeting one-on-one to discuss any issues. Tulsans are entitled to witness the council's discussions of policy.

Meeting one-on-one doesn't demonstrate a commitment to open government and erodes public trust. It would have been a bad habit for the new council to start.

What subject would have been next for such meetings? How long before council members were coming to a consensus through such meetings.

Bynum avoided a lot of headaches down the road by starting off on the right foot.

He told the Tulsa World that the one-on-one meetings were dropped in favor of a properly posted executive session on Thursday out of "an abundance of caution, and to avoid any appearance of impropriety."

Good.

The Open Meeting Act "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public" because the statute was "enacted for the public's benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1981. (Int'l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)

The principle is "very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals said that year. "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 18)

Sound advice for all public bodies.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Profesor
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.

Bartlesville newspaper posts hospital surveillance video that led to assault charges against two police officers

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise received a copy of a hospital surveillance video on Friday after the newspaper agreed not to seek attorney's fees from the city, which in turn agreed not to appeal a judge's order to release the video.

The newspaper on Sunday posted the 44-minute video, which shows a confrontation in a local hospital emergency room between four Bartlesville police officers and a young man who had been brought to the hospital after expressing "suicidal thoughts."

The video has no audio. It shows the man "being pushed, choked, slapped and kneed by officers," the newspaper said.

"On the other hand, the patient appears to be constantly making verbal assaults and, in one instance, appears to spit at the officers," the newspaper reported. "There are instances, however, when each of the officers appears to react to something the man says or does — resulting in rough treatment of the patient.

"An especially disturbing episode on the video shows an apparent retaliatory confrontation with the man by [officer Sonya Jean] Worthington — who is seen punching, kneeing and twisting the head of the victim. The attack goes on for nearly a minute before one of the other officers intervenes," the newspaper reported.

Worthington and fellow Bartlesville Police Department officer Stacy Charles Neafus were charged with assault and battery on Dec. 1. They and a third officer, Carey Duniphin, were fired in mid-January. A fourth officer, Josh Patzkowski, was placed on administrative leave following the incident but has returned to active duty, the newspaper reported.

City officials had refused to release the video to the newspaper without a court order.

On March 12, District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp ordered Bartlesville police to provide the newspaper with a copy.

DeLapp said the video apparently "does not depict the administration of mental health treatment, mental health treatment information or the receiving of mental health treatment."

The judge noted that even if the video did contain such information, the patient had provided the newspaper with a waiver of his rights to confidentiality.

DeLapp also held that the video was public under the state Open Records Act because it contains "facts concerning the arrest and cause for the arrest" of the two police officers.

On Friday, Worthington, Neafus and Duniphin were among eight current and former Bartlesville Police Department officers who sued the city claiming "illegal and improper employment practices."

The alleged release of confidential personnel information is among the claims in the lawsuit, including that the city, "under the guise of 'training films," has shown the hospital surveillance video to other employees, the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reported.

They also claimed that police officials had also taken the "video outside of the police department showing the video for other than 'training' purposes," the newspaper 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.

Who's to blame for the House not voting on legislative transparency?

House Speaker Kris Steele decided not to put HB 1085 up for a full vote of the House on Thursday ahead of a deadline for sending the legislative transparency bill to the Senate for consideration.

For practical purposes, that means another year of state lawmakers failing to live by the same open government mandate that we expect other state and local officials to live by.

So who's to blame for the bill failing to advance?

I don't believe it's all Steele's fault. He's responsible for the bill having been heard by the committee chaired by its author, Rep. Jason Murphey. Then Steele went out of his way to vote for the bill in committee, as well as spend his Saturday morning speaking up for it at the Sunshine Conference.

Here's what Steele said Thursday:

Since then, we have learned it is unlikely the Senate will hear the bill, 20 amendments have been filed on the bill and legislators have been asking many, many questions about the bill and the effect it would have. In order to give time to address all the questions, the bill is not going forward at this time, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to address their questions and concerns.

I believe subjecting this body to open records and open meetings laws is the right thing to do and the next logical step in our recent efforts to make the Legislature more transparent and open to the public. Change of this magnitude takes time, but I am confident it will occur sooner rather than later.

I'm told that while many House members were telling constituents that they supported the bill, they were privately demanding that Steele not bring it up for a vote.

Representatives couldn't vote down an open government bill that 85 percent of their constituents support. But most of the lawmakers sure as hell didn't want it.

"Some of our members were absolutely vicious," said Murphey. "And they brought pressure like I haven't seen before. He [Steele] tried to convince them. I did, too. It didn't work."

Steele could have forced the vote, but he would have alienated a majority of even his own Republican Party to the point of jeopardizing the rest of his legislative agenda in what will be his last session. That was too much to expect.

Murphey and Steele said the 19 floor amendments added Monday and Tuesday (plus four amendments to amendments) created an obstacle. "I don't recall a bill that ever had that many amendments," said Murphey.

So should the authors of those floor amendments, Murphey's fellow Republicans Randy Terrill and Mike Reynolds, be blamed for the bill's demise?

For example, Murphey had exempted party caucuses because opening them was a deal-breaker for so many representatives. But amendments would have opened party caucuses being held on public property.

To be fair, an amendment by Terrill also would have simply added to the list of people who wouldn't have to pay a search fee for legislative staff to find records. As I had suggested on the blog prior to the committee vote, the bill would have been amended to use the same language from the Open Records Act regarding search fees.

Murphey said that at first, he feared Terrill "might be trying to kill the deal with his amendments."

But, Murphey said, Terrill "proved to be reasonable and was going to withdraw the problematic ones."

"In the end, I think Terrill wanted to help," said Murphey.

Reynolds, on the other hand, "wouldn't pull any of his" amendments, Murphey said.

"The Reynolds amendments were the straw that broke the camel's back," he said. "Reynolds just causes chaos, and I think he thrives off of it."

Reynolds told The Oklahoman that HB 1085 did not go far enough.

"The bill was totally inadequate so we crafted a number of good amendments," he said.

I disagree with Reynolds’ assertion that the original version of HB 1085 was a do-nothing bill. Yes, I would have liked stronger elements in the bill. But I believe HB 1085 still would have been a significant step forward in transparency for the Legislature.

Whether Reynolds sincerely intended to improve the bill or to love it to death, the result was the same: No vote was taken, and an opportunity was missed.

But Reynolds really isn’t to blame for the bill's failure.

His amendments wouldn’t have been a deterrent if a majority of legislators truly believed in open government. They could have sincerely debated the amendments and reached reasonable compromises where necessary. That is their job, after all.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of House (and Senate) members don’t want to conduct the public’s business in public.

So who's to blame?

You. Me. Us.

We haven't elected enough state lawmakers who truly believe that the legislative process should be an open one and who will vote for such a bill.

HB 1085 begins with this preamble:

As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people of Oklahoma.

It is the public policy of the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the legislative process. The purpose of the Oklahoma Legislative Open Records and Meetings Act is to provide the public with the means to hold their legislators to account so that the public may exercise their inherent political power.

But too many of our legislators, along with some powerful lobbyists, don't want us to understand the legislative process. They don't want us to see behind the curtain. They aren't going to provide us with an easy means to hold them accountable. At least not without a fight.

Murphey says HB 1085 will be back next year.

We must help him by demanding that legislative leaders follow up on this year's progress. We must demand that our representatives and senators pass this legislation. We must replace those who won't.

We can't rely upon the news media to do this for us. WE must make it a campaign issue in every legislative race.

After all, we get the Legislature that we deserve.


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.

Bartlesville newspaper wins access to videotape in which two police officers allegedly assaulted a handcuffed hospital patient

A Washington County judge has ordered Bartlesville police to provide the local newspaper with a copy of hospital surveillance video that led to the arrest of two officers in December.

But the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise has not received the copy since the judge's ruling Monday afternoon.

Police Chief Tom Holland apparently is delaying release of the video so District Attorney Kevin D. Buchanan can seek an order from another judge to keep it confidential as part of his criminal investigation against the two officers.

When District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp ruled against the Bartlesville police on Monday, he did not decide whether Buchanan had to release the video.

The newspaper filed the Open Records Act lawsuit against Buchanan, the city and police department on Feb. 3 after city officials said it would take a court order to get a copy.

The video reportedly shows at least a portion of the incident in which two police officers are accused of striking and choking a handcuffed patient when they responded with other officers to the Jane Phillips Medical Center to help with a combative patient in September. Bartlesville police officials obtained the video through a search warrant.

The two officers were charged with assault and battery on Dec. 1 and fired in January.

The city attorney and Buchanan argued that the video was not public because mental health proceedings are confidential. The patient was the subject of an emergency detention order under mental health proceedings.

But DeLapp said the video apparently "does not depict the administration of mental health treatment, mental health treatment information or the receiving of mental health treatment."

DeLapp noted that even if the video does contain such information, the patient has provided the newspaper with a waiver of his rights to confidentiality.

The city and Buchanan also contended that the video was not public under the state Open Records Act because it is not listed among the law enforcement information that must be released.

DeLapp rejected that argument, holding that the video contains "facts concerning the arrest and cause for the arrest" of the two police officers.

In DeLapp's ruling, he relied upon a 2004 state Supreme Court decision 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 held that 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. [The plaintiff] 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."

DeLapp ruled that the hospital surveillance video was a record that came into the custody of Bartlesville police "in connection with the transaction of public business, i.e. the investigation of crimes committed within its jurisdiction."

"In particular, the Court finds that the videotape(s) would include the cause of the arrest," he ruled.

In contrast to DeLapp, a Rogers County judge in August ruled that Claremore police dash-cam video was not a public record. She said Fabian dealt "with what amounts to a transcript of a public hearing" while the dash-cam recording was a "direct piece of evidence."

DeLapp's interpretation seems the more plausible of the two.

And provides a much-needed victory for the public's right to know during Sunshine Week.


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.

Lawmakers call on public to voice support for legislative transparency bill

Some 85 percent of Oklahomans believe the state Legislature should comply with the same open government mandate that applies to other public officials, according to a SoonerPoll survey released Friday.

But those Oklahomans will have to speak up if that transparency is to become reality, three lawmakers said during FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Week conference on Saturday.

"It's an uphill battle," said House Speaker Kris Steele. "But it's more likely if constituents speak up."

The House could vote as early as Wednesday on HB 1085, which would create a separate transparency statute requiring legislators to give public notice of their meetings and open most of their records to public inspection.

Two Republican representatives, Randy Terrill of Moore and Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, have filed 19 amendments to the bill. A subsequent posting to this blog will elaborate on their amendments.

In the meantime, encourage your state representative by email or telephone to vote for HB 1085. (Find your legislator.)

The Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the state's Open Records and Open Meeting laws is "hypocritical," said the bill's author, Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie.

Most Oklahomans would seem to agree, according to SoonerPoll.

Its survey found that 72 percent strongly supported and 13 percent somewhat supported requiring legislators to comply with the Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

That support cut across political lines, with 85 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats favoring such legislation. Independents showed the most support with 93.1 percent in favor of removing the Legislature's exemption, said SoonerPoll.

"Similarly, 84.5 percent of conservatives, 90.7 percent of liberals and 85.9 percent of moderates said they would support legislation to remove the exemption," said SoonerPoll.

Oklahoma's Legislature is one of only three in the nation to still be explicitly exempted from its state open records law and one of only seven to be explicitly exempted from its open meeting law.

Requiring the Legislature to comply with an open government statute "isn't the end of the world," Murphey said.

The Senate co-author of HB 1085, David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, noted Saturday that open government laws are "perfectly manageable" at the local level.

Holt served as chief of staff for Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett for five years but said he was "stunned" at how state lawmakers conduct the public's business.

“At the Legislature, we may spend minutes or seconds considering some of the same issues of the same level of importance, and unfortunately, our decisions affect the entire state, not just the city,” he said.

HB 1085 might slow the process, "but I'm OK with that," Holt said.

"The sum total of the wisdom of our constituents exceeds the wisdom of the legislators or the city council members, and that's not going to be imparted to us unless they know what's going on. That's the virtue of open meetings and open records acts,” Holt said.

Steele said many legislators don't have experience in local government, so they haven't had to work under the state's open meeting and records laws.

"It sounds kind of scary to them," said Steele.

But HB 1085 "is the next logical step in really opening up transparency and accountability" at the Legislature, Steele said.

"It's just a matter of time before the public demands that the Legislature be subject to the same transparency laws that apply to other levels of government," he said.

But that step won't be taken unless Oklahomans tell their legislators to do it.


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.

FOI Oklahoma announces recipients of Opala First Amendment Award, FOI awards, college essay prizes

Anthony Shadid, the Oklahoma City native who died last month while on assignment in Syria for The New York Times, was named winner Saturday of FOI Oklahoma’s Marian Opala First Amendment Award.

Shadid promoted the spirit of the Opala Award in his journalistic work, particularly in the Middle East. The award is named in honor of the late Marian P. Opala, the former Polish freedom fighter who served 32 years on the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Other awards presented at the organization’s annual Sunshine Week convention were the Ben Blackstock Award to Nicholas Harrison, a University of Oklahoma law school graduate, and the Sunshine Award to Police Chief Brandon Clabes of Midwest City.

The Black Hole Award, which recognizes an individual or organization that has thwarted the free-flow of information, went to Edmond City Manager Larry Stevens and the Edmond Police Department.

Winners of FOI Oklahoman's second annual open government essay contest for college students were also recognized Saturday at the organization's fifth annual Sunshine Week conference.

The first- and second-place winners were Oklahoma State University students Jennifer Gray and Carly Kindrick. Third place went to Mary Larsh of Oklahoma City University. The students won cash prizes of $300, $200 and $100.

The awards presentation was part of day-long activities in conjunction with Oklahoma Sunshine 2012: Forging a Commitment to Open Government.

Shadid twice won the Pulitzer Prize, journalism’s highest award. In his career, he worked for The Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The Associated Press. 

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said Shadid took values learned in Oklahoma, "a sympathetic eye, a sense of right and wrong, and the bravery to make a difference … and applied them to his craft."

The Times’ Roger Cohen said Shadid wrote "with an awareness of the sweep of history, a healthy mistrust of 'objectivity,' and a deep sense of place and identity."

The Blackstock Award, named for the retired head of the Oklahoma Press Association, is presented to a non-governmental person or organization that has shown a commitment to freedom of information.

Harrison won the Blackstock Award because of work he did with The Oklahoma Daily, the campus newspaper at OU.

Harrison used his legal savvy, a strong sense of justice and a reporter’s curiosity to probe some of OU’s biggest secrets. One story detailed OU regents committee meetings where university policy was decided in secret.

Harrison could not attend the awards luncheon because his Oklahoma National Guard unit is en route home from Afghanistan.

The Sunshine Award goes to a public official or governmental body that has shown a commitment to open meetings and open records.

Clabes was given the Sunshine Award for his help to the public and the media about the activities of law enforcement in Midwest City. He promotes openness in his department and works to provide information as soon as it becomes available.

A 32-year veteran of the Midwest City police force and chief since 1999, Clabes served as the department’s spokesman for more than two decades before recently announcing he was passing on the duty.

Coming from a family with a journalism background, he has consistently shown an understanding that the public's right to know what police are doing is an important aspect of local government. He is responsive and professional when dealing with local media and has been proactive about releasing public documents, including 911 calls.

An honorable mention went to Ed Shadid, an Oklahoma City councilman and a cousin of Anthony Shadid.

The Black Hole Award went to Stevens and his police department for violating the state Open Records Act by withholding the incident report regarding an investigation into the actions of Tim Wheeler, fire prevention chief and spokesman for the Edmond Fire Department.

At the request of FOI Oklahoma, the state attorney general in January told police statewide that initial incident reports may not be withheld from the public as part of investigatory files.

"The state Legislature has made it clear in this regard that a police department's initial offense report or 'cover sheet' should be open for public inspection, regardless of its inclusion in an investigation file," wrote Attorney General Scott Pruitt in a letter distributed to police departments.

Wheeler was placed on administrative leave with pay in October. He remains on paid leave at an annual salary of $100,027.

According to a Nov. 29, 2011, news release from Edmond police, Wheeler is accused of pointing a small-caliber pistol at another fire department employee on Oct. 6 while at Edmond Fire Station No. 5 at Covell and Interstate 35. A third employee reported the incident.
 
This is the fifth year for FOI Oklahoma's FOI-related awards. FOI Oklahoma is a statewide organization that for 22 years has promoted education of the First Amendment and openness in government. The organization counts among its members journalists, librarians, educators and public officials.

Reminder: Sunshine Conference this Saturday

Experts this Saturday will answer questions about Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws, as well as how to use them as tools against public corruption, and how federal statutes such as FERPA and the Clery Act apply to the records of school districts and colleges.

Oklahoma Sunshine 2012: Forging a Commitment to Open Government will be at The Oklahoman, 9000 N. Broadway Extension, Oklahoma City.

Registration for walk-ins will begin at 8:30 a.m. The program begins at 9 a.m.

Scheduled speakers are:

• Adam Goldstein, attorney for the Student Press Law Center
• Julie L. Miller, general counsel for the Oklahoma State School Boards Association
• State Auditor Gary Jones
• House Speaker Kris Steele
• Rep. Jason Murphey
• Sen. David Holt
• Diane Clay of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office
• Ryan McNeill, database editor for the Dallas Morning News
• Chris Lusk, editor of The Oklahoma Daily
• Bryan Dean, reporter for The Oklahoman and past president of FOI Oklahoma.

Recipients of the Marian Opala First Amendment Award and FOI awards will be announced during the luncheon.

Click for program and registration form.