Tulsa County clerk election goes to candidate favoring fee to access records online

The Tulsa County clerk's chief deputy was elected to the office Tuesday, meaning that the $30 monthly fee to access land records online seems likely to continue.
 
Pat Key won with 50.5 percent of the vote, besting her opponent, Dean Martin, by just 179 votes, according to unofficial results from the Tulsa County Election Board.
 
Martin told the Tulsa World that he plans to ask for a recount.
 
The Republican runoff chose the new Tulsa County clerk because no Democrat filed for the office. Republican Earlene Wilson is retiring after 12 years in the job.
 
Key has defended the clerk's practice of charging a $30 monthly fee for the public to access land records online. Martin said he considers it a violation of the Open Records Act.
 
A flat subscription fee for online access seems problematic under the statute because it isn't the direct cost specifically incurred in responding to each request. The fee clearly could not be implemented as a moneymaker for the clerk's office.
 
Earlier this week, The Journal Record editorialized against the fee, noting that "public records are owned by the public, not the bureaucrats."
 
"The Tulsa County clerk's office has forgotten that premise," the publication said. "It is in the county's best interest to provide free access; not only does it make government more transparent, it avoids any possible violation of the law and makes the process more convenient for both the public and the clerk’s office.
 
"More importantly, making public access free is the right thing to do," it said.
 
The publication's editors believe the subscription violates the Open Records Act but said they haven't sued because the small amount makes "litigation a pointlessly expensive alternative."
 
Would a class-action lawsuit be feasible?
 

 
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.

Q: Did state legislator have a right under the Open Meeting Act to sit in on state board's executive session?

Rep. Mike Reynolds sat in on the state Board of Juvenile Affairs' closed-door interviews of executive director candidates Friday, The Oklahoman reported.
 
The executive session was delayed about 45 minutes after Reynolds asked to attend the interviews. Board members voted to allow him in after discussing it with attorneys.
 
Reynolds had cited a provision in the Open Meeting Act that allows any legislator to attend the executive sessions of any state agency, board or commission when the jurisdiction of the lawmaker’s assigned legislative committee "includes the actions of the public body involved." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 310)
 
But did that provision entitle the Republican from Oklahoma City to be in the executive session?
 
A 1978 attorney general opinion said a legislative education committee member was not entitled under the provision to attend executive sessions in which local school boards discussed the employment of individuals. (1978 OK AG 144)
 
The key was not that school boards are not "state" boards. Instead, the attorney general focused on whether the legislative committee "possesses such jurisdiction as would include the actions of the public body incident to the subject executive session." (Id. ¶ 6)
 
The attorney general noted that individual employment matters are "exclusively within the jurisdiction, judgment and discretion" of local school boards. (Id. ¶ 9)
 
"We are unaware of any existing legislative committee which possesses comparable jurisdiction," the attorney general stated. (Id.)
 
The Oklahoman noted that Reynolds is a member of the House of Representatives Administrative Rules and Government Oversight Committee, which reviews rules of all state agencies.
 
But by state statute, the Board of Juvenile Affairs -- not the Legislature -- hires and sets the salary for the executive director of the Office of Juvenile Affairs. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 10a, § 2-7-101(H)(2))
 
So it seems as though Reynolds was not entitled by the Open Meeting Act to sit in on an executive session in which the board interviewed candidates for executive director.
 
The board, however, was entitled to permit Reynolds into the closed-door session. The 1978 attorney general opinion said public bodies generally have the discretion to select whom they allow into executive sessions. (1978 OK AG 144, ¶ 4)
 
According to The Oklahoman, Reynolds encourages other lawmakers to attend executive sessions of agencies that their committees oversee. Not necessarily a bad idea.
 
But that right to attend seems limited to whether the subject of the executive session is within the jurisdiction of the legislator's committee. The Open Meeting Act doesn't seem to give legislators carte blanche to attend the closed sessions of state boards.
 

 
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.

Q: Does Open Records Act allow county clerk to charge monthly subscription fee to access land records online?

The two Republican candidates for Tulsa County clerk disagree over whether the office may charge $30 a month for online access to land records, the Tulsa World reported Sunday.
 
The Republican primary runoff election Tuesday will decide who is the next county clerk because no Democrat filed for the office. Republican Earlene Wilson is retiring after 12 years in office.
 
Candidate Pat Key, who is Wilson's chief deputy, defended the monthly fee, saying it's less than what was once charged.
 
"The County Clerk's Office would never knowingly violate the Open Records Act, nor have we ever been found to have violated the Open Records Act," Key told the newspaper.
 
But her opponent, Dean Martin, a salesman for an industrial distribution company, says the fee violates the Open Records Act.
 
Unfortunately, the candidates didn't explain in the story why their positions are supported by the Open Records Act.
 
So who's correct?
 
I am reluctant to say that a monthly subscription fee is absolutely prohibited by the Open Records Act because I don't know the details of the clerk's costs of providing the service, the amount of revenue generated by the subscriptions, what other fee is charged to access and copy the records online, and which fund initially paid for the system.
 
But a flat subscription fee for online access seems problematic under the Open Records Act because it isn't the direct cost specifically incurred in responding to each request.
 
Such a fee clearly could not be implemented as a moneymaker for the clerk's office.
 
The Open Records Act says copy fees cannot be used to "discourag[e] requests for information or as obstacles to disclosure of requested information." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3)(b))
 
But the statute doesn't address directly whether a government agency may charge a subscription fee to access public records online.
 
In June, an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision denying a company access to a county's land description tract index for resale online didn't address whether the county could charge the public a subscription fee for online access. (County Records, Inc. v. Armstrong, 2012 OK 60)
 
I don't know of a court or attorney general opinion answering that specific question, but their discussions of fees that may be charged for electronic copies of records do provide some guidance.
 
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1992 said that for microfiche or computer tapes, the “reasonable, direct costs” for copying should be “based upon the cost of materials [and] labor needed for providing the computer program and service to produce the requested data." (Merrill v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 1992 OK 53, ¶ 13)
 
Taking into account that decision and the statute's admonition that fees are not to be used to discourage requests, two attorney general opinions have said, "Public bodies . . . may only recover the cost of materials and labor specifically incurred in reproducing existing computer records in a computer-readable format." (1996 OK AG 26, ¶ 10. See also 2005 OK AG 21, ¶ 11)
 
That includes charging for "any access or processing charges imposed upon the public body because of the request" and "any hardware or software specifically required to fulfill the request and reproduce the record in computer-readable format which would not otherwise generally be required or used by the public body." (Id.)
 
The court and AG opinions were in the context of providing records to a single requester.
 
Based on their reasoning, it would seem that a county clerk could charge a fee recovering only the direct cost of providing the online access to each particular requester for each request.
 
But under a subscription fee, requesters are paying the same amount regardless of how many times they access the system. Someone who accesses the system just once per month is paying the same fee as someone accessing it 10 times a day.
 
Feel free to share your reasoning on whether such a fee complies with the Open Records Act.
 

 
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.

Sperry school board member's resignation letter criticizes superintendent, district's legal counsel for lack of openness with public

Derrell Morrow's abrupt resignation from the Sperry school board came with some harsh words for Superintendent Brian Beagles and the district's legal counsel, Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold of Tulsa.
 
"I believed, mistakenly, that our current superintendent was up to the challenge of leading our district in the effort to help educate our children in this challenging world. Our district deserves better leadership," Morrow wrote in a resignation letter dated Aug. 13.
 
"In my opinion, the board is legally liable for the actions by the administration and is placed in a precarious position because of such," Morrow wrote.
 
He said several public records requests had "not been dealt with in a diligent and legal manner" by the superintendent because of advice from the law firm.
 
"I do not understand why there should be such intransigence on the part of the board and administration," Morrow wrote. "As a public entity our school has to be accountable to the taxpayers of our district. The public has a right to know how its money is being spent."
 
This past spring, Beagles refused to release the board's agenda packets to the public until the day after meetings. Beagles told Neighbor News he understood from consultations with Doug Mann of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold that the district was not required to release the agenda packets prior to meetings.
 
Then he said the law firm advised him that the district didn't have to respond to standing requests for agenda packets or other documents, such as the monthly billings from Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
 
Neighbor News filed a complaint with the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office, which persuaded Beagles to make the agenda packets available online by 1 p.m. on meeting days.
 
At the time, Beagles wouldn't clarify whether the district would continue requiring requesters to make appointments to view other public records. But the head of the DA's Civil Division told the newspaper chain, "I don’t think an appointment is required to inspect documents."
 
Morrow was critical of the district's use of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
 
"In my opinion, said firm does not represent the best interest of our district but rather that of the firm," Morrow wrote. "Not only has our board voted to employ this firm but has approved substantial blanket purchase orders to the same."
 
He noted that "the board majority and superintendent are taking direction from a law firm that the Tulsa County District Attorney and the Grand Jury strongly recommended to Skiatook Schools that they no longer employ."
 
In 2010, a Tulsa County grand jury report said it would "serve the best interests of the district and community to hire a new attorney who can assist the board in being more open and communicative to the public."
 
Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold has given school districts other advice that seems contrary to the state Open Records Act.
 
In December, the law firm said a Stillwater parent would have to pay a search fee to read the emails, text messages and other correspondence of a school district committee that proposed a controversial school year calendar.
 
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 an attorney with the firm charged the district for the three hours to redact exempted information from 17 legal bills submitted during a seven-month period.
 
Morrow wasn't a newcomer to government. He had served as a Sperry town trustee for seven years before being elected to the school board in 2008.
 
As a school board candidate, he said a commitment to "openness, independent thought, accountability" were among the chief responsibilities of a school board member.
 
Unfortunately, he wasn't able to persuade Beagles and other board members to adopt that commitment.
 

 
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.

Healdton City Council again seems to violate Open Meeting Act; DA waffles over previous violations

The Healdton City Council recently met in executive session to "discuss consulting and possible hiring of Human Resources attorney regarding pending litigation," The Ardmoreite reported Monday.
 
But the Open Meeting Act doesn't permit a closed-door discussion of hiring an independent contractor.
 
And in another apparent violation of the statue, the meeting agenda failed to reveal anything about the "pending litigation" that justified the executive session.
 
The meeting Aug. 6 was the second this summer in which the council seemed to have violated the Open Meeting Act.
 
On July 2, the council met behind closed doors under the statutory exemption to discuss terrorism-related issues even though it actually discussed hiring the state auditor to investigate the finances of the small town in south-central Oklahoma.
 
The meeting agenda not only listed the wrong statutory exemption but also failed to include any information about the "pending investigation" that would be discussed.
 
Carter County District Attorney Craig Ladd waffled last week on whether the council violated the Open Meeting Act in July.
 
In an email to The Ardmoreite on Aug. 7, Ladd wrote, "After looking into the matter further, I am not convinced a willful violation occurred (other than perhaps the clerical error of citing B9 rather than B4 and then proceeding, rather than postponing it for another week.)"
 
So wouldn't that be a violation?
 
Criminal intent isn't necessary for a violation to have occurred. The question is only whether the council willfully failed to comply with the Open Meeting Act. (See Hillary v. State, 1981 OK CR 78, ¶ 5)
 
"Willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act," the state Supreme Court has said. (Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, ¶ 14)
 
Before the council had entered the executive session, Ardmoreite reporter Michael Pineda objected, in part because the wrong statutory authorization was cited.
 
As Ladd conceded to the newspaper, the council proceeded with the executive session rather than postpone it a week. That's deliberate disregard of the law.
 
The Open Meeting Act prohibits executive sessions unless certain procedures, such as listing the statutory authorization, are "strictly complied with." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(E))
 
The Court of Civil Appeals has said "strict adherence to the letter of the law is required" and that "substantial compliance" is insufficient. (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶¶ 20-21)
 
The statute requires that the agenda item for an executive session "identify the items of business and purposes of the executive session." (§ 311(B)(2)(b))
 
The Attorney General's Office has said government bodies must comply with this provision by citing more than attorney-client privilege.
 
"The public has a right to know what you are going to discuss in an executive session," the first assistant attorney general told public officials in November.
 
If the lawsuit has not been filed, then the agenda item should include "at least the nature of it," Rob Hudson said. "More is better."
 
But for the Aug. 6 meeting, the Healdton City Council refused to put on the agenda any information about the "pending litigation."
 
The council also apparently used the executive session to discuss hiring an independent contractor, i.e., an attorney specializing in human resources cases.
 
The Open Meeting Act's personnel exception does not permit closed-door discussions regarding the hiring of an independent contractor, such as an attorney, for professional services, the state attorney general said in 2005. (2005 OK AG 29, ¶ 13)
 
If such a discussion is not allowed under the personnel exception, it shouldn't be allowed under attorney-client privilege.
 
Even ignoring the AG's prohibition on executive session discussions of professional service contracts, how could the Healdton council's discussion fall under the attorney-client exception?
 
The same 2005 attorney general opinion also said:

"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." (¶ 11)

In other words, a public discussion of consulting or possibly hiring a human resources attorney would had to have "seriously impaired" the ability of the council to process the pending litigation in the public interest. That doesn't seem likely -- at least not if the words "seriously impair" are to have any meaning.
 
Ladd told The Ardmoreite that he will comment on the latest apparent violations as soon as practical.
 

 
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.

Pardon and Parole Board members say they didn't intend to violate state Open Meeting Act; But proving criminal intent not necessary for successful prosecution

Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board members conceded Tuesday that their agendas could have been worded better, but they insisted that they never intended to violate the Open Meeting Act, The Oklahoman reported today.
 
"I understand the perception and the appearance, but there was no mal-intent to not be transparent," said Parole Board member David Moore of Edmond.
 
But proving criminal intent won't be necessary if Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater choses to prosecute board members for agendas that failed to notify the public that state inmates would be considered for early release.
 
Criminal intent doesn't have to be proved because the vague agendas would be a crime by virtue of the Open Meeting Act. In other words, the board members either complied with the statute or didn't. ( See Hillary v. State, 1981 OK CR 78, ¶ 5)
 
Instead, prosecutors need only prove a willful failure to comply. (Id.)
 
"Willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act," the state Supreme Court has said. (Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, ¶ 14)
 
Even a vote taken in "good faith" could be found to be a willful violation, the state Court of Civil Appeals said in 1981. (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶¶ 24-25)
 
"If willful is narrowly interpreted, if actions taken in violation of the Act could not be set aside unless done in bad faith, maliciously, obstinately, with a premeditated evil design and intent to do wrong, then the public would be left helpless to enforce the Act most of the time and public bodies could go merrily along, in good faith, ignoring the Act," the court explained. (Id. at ¶ 26) (emphasis added)
 
"While we discern no bad faith, malice, or wantonness, and while the officials may not have consciously broken the law, we are well-convinced that they knew or should have known the Act's requirements and blatantly or deliberately disregarded the law," the court concluded in that case. (Id. at ¶ 30)
 
All Pardon and Parole Board members are briefed on the Open Meeting Act, board member Currie Ballard told the Tulsa World last week.
 
Open Meeting Act violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in the county jail and a fine of up to $500.
 
Prater told The Oklahoman that his criminal investigation into whether the board willfully violated the Open Meeting Act is ongoing.
 
Last week, Prater issued a letter describing violations by the board as "willful, conscious and purposeful."
 
"The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board's violations in this matter are egregious, aggravated and a clear attempt to operate in secrecy, outside of public scrutiny,” Prater wrote.
 
Names of inmates proposed for early release were not placed on the board's agendas. Instead, board members brought up the names under the agenda item "docket modification."
 
The board's vague agendas essentially prevented the public from knowing that offenders would be considered for early release, Prater concluded.
 
"A member of the public who was interested in monitoring a specific inmate would not begin checking the parole dockets until the time drew near for the legal consideration of the inmate," Prater wrote.
 
"Outside of Board members, no person had the ability to determine what inmate would or could be the next fortunate soul to emerge from the darkness of the 'Docket Modification' portion of the Board's business with an undeserved opportunity to attain an early and illegal release.
 
"This result illustrates why compliance with the Open Meeting Act is vital to public awareness and governmental transparency. At the least, the public deserves the opportunity to observe a public board violate the the law in the light of day," he wrote.
 
The state Supreme Court has said agendas must "be worded in plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting . . . [and] the language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence." (Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland County, 1987 OK 40, ¶ 7)
 
"To require otherwise would defeat the purpose of the Act," the unanimous court said. (Id.)
 
The five Pardon and Parole Board members told reporters Tuesday that they are willing to make whatever changes are needed so their actions are clear to the public.
 
"If there is some way we can tweak our process to be more transparent, then we certainly want to do that," Moore said. "We will fix what we need to fix to make sure there is no appearance of secrecy."
 
That willingness to change is admirable.
 
But "We're sorry. We won't do it again" shouldn't absolve the Pardon and Parole Board members of using agendas that kept the public in the dark about the early release of murderers and child molesters.
 

 
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.
 

Agenda says 'lease,' but Buffalo trustees vote to sell building

Trustees for the town of Buffalo were scheduled to discuss and consider "the renovation and leasing of the Duckwall's building" in town.
 
Instead, the trustees voted to sell the building, the Onside Buffalo blog notes.
 
Town trustees seem to have violated the state Open Meeting Act by taking an action not listed on the agenda.
 
The purpose of the Open Meeting Act is "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)
 
And because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public," the state Supreme Court said in 1981. (Int’l Ass'n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
 
Or as a 1980 attorney general opinion said:

The Open Meeting Act must be given a construction, which will effectuate and not subvert the intention of the Legislature in facilitating an informed citizenry’s right to participate in government and understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken. (1980 OK AG 215, ¶ 12)

The state Supreme Court has said agendas must "be worded in plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting . . . [and] the language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence." (Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland County, 1987 OK 40, ¶ 7)
 
"To require otherwise would defeat the purpose of the Act," the unanimous court said. (Id.)
 
In 1981, the Court of Civil Appeals, using the statutory construction later approved by the Supreme Court in Andrews, 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."
 
(Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)
 
"Use of the terms 'interviewing' and 'discussing the hiring' of an administrator in juxtaposition with 'hiring' of principals is misleading," the court said. "It creates more than an inference that the two agenda items are distinct, the latter being limited to 'discussion' and 'interview.'" (Id. ¶ 11).
 
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)
 
The court said any act or omission that "has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting" would be a "willful" violation of the Open Meeting Act. That includes any agency action exceeding the scope of action defined by the notice. (Id. ¶ 8)
 
In Buffalo, the agenda said trustees would consider "leasing" the property, but they voted to sell it.
 
Leasing and selling are not the same.
 
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines lease as "a contract by which one conveys real estate, equipment, or facilities for a specified term and for a specified rent; also : the act of such conveyance or the term for which it is made."
 
It defines selling as giving up property "to another for something of value (as money)."
 
Buffalo trustees failed to give the public actual notice of what action they would consider.
 
The Onside Buffalo blog seems correct when it concludes, "If you are looking for a textbook case of violating the Open Meetings Act look no further."
 

 
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.

DA accuses state Pardon and Parole Board of willfully violating Open Meeting Act to secretly release ineligible inmates

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board willfully violated the Open Meeting Act with vague agendas that failed to notify the public that it would consider releasing inmates early, including some who were ineligible because they had not served mandatory sentences, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater announced Wednesday.
 
"I determined that the Board has no authority to pardon, commute or otherwise modify an inmate's sentence that was subject to a statutory restriction on early release. I also found that even the most diligent member of the public who had an interest in carefully monitoring a specific inmate, would not have known or anticipated the actions of your Board," Prater said in a letter to the board's executive director.
 
"The violations of the Open Meetings Act are willful, conscious and purposeful violations of the law," Prater wrote.
 
"Additionally, I find the Board's actions to be deliberate disregard of Oklahoma's Open Meeting Act," he wrote. "The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board's violations in this matter are egregious, aggravated and a clear attempt to operate in secrecy, outside of public scrutiny.”
 
Prater told The Oklahoman that he is considering filing charges against the board members.
 
Violating the statute is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in the county jail and up to a $500 fine.
 
In his letter, Prater also said the early release of inmates in violation of mandatory sentencing guidelines should be considered invalid as violations of the Open Meeting Act.
 
He called on the executive branch to take action to reverse the invalid decisions.
 
"Obviously, this will include taking inmates who have been released back into custody," he wrote.
 
Prater described a procedure during board meetings in which the members would vote to place inmates on a docket called a "Pre-Docket Investigation," or "PDI," for consideration of early release.
 
Prater said the Pre-Investigation Docket was "NEVER" mentioned on the 2.5 years of board meeting agendas that he reviewed.
 
"It was IMPOSSIBLE to determine at what point in the Pardon and Parole Board meetings the 'PDI' docket was being considered and voted on," Prater wrote.
 
He said a review of board meeting minutes revealed "an obscure, recurring Agenda item ... 'Docket Modifications - J.D. Daniels.'"
 
"Notably, no reference was made to a related docket or website containing a docket for consideration to be 'modified,'" Prater said. "The 'Docket Modification' Agenda items gives NO notice to the public of what business the Board will be conducting under this item."
 
The Pardon and Parole Board also didn't notify district attorneys of "unqualified inmates" being placed on the "PDI" docket for early parole consideration, Prater complained.
 
The board's vague agendas essentially prevented the public from knowing that inmates would be illegally considered for early release, Prater concluded.
 
"A member of the public who was interested in monitoring a specific inmate would not begin checking the parole dockets until the time drew near for the legal consideration of the inmate," Prater wrote. "Outside of Board members, no person had the ability to determine what inmate would or could be the next fortunate soul to emerge from the darkness of the 'Docket Modification' portion of the Board's business with an undeserved opportunity to attain an early and illegal release.
 
"This result illustrates why compliance with the Open Meeting Act is vital to public awareness and governmental transparency. At the least, the public deserves the opportunity to observe a public board violate the the law in the light of day," he wrote.
 
Prater also accused the board members of "gross partiality" for placing "certain inmates on the early parole docket without any apparent policy or procedure."
 
"Though the patent violations of the Open Meeting Act are condemnable, it is the apparent presence of patent partiality, operating in the darkness of Board meetings that is equally disturbing," he wrote. "This practice of partiality could not have survived had the Board complied with the Open Meeting Act."
 
Prater is clearly angry over the board's secrecy, perhaps in part because district attorneys were kept in the dark. Now, he knows how frustrated many Oklahomans become when public bodies heedlessly violate the Open Meeting Act.
 
But unlike the rest of us, Prater can do something to stop such violations. By prosecuting the Pardon and Parole Board, he can send a message to other public bodies that they must comply with the spirit and the letter of the Open Meeting Act.
 

 
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.

AG's open meeting, records seminars start Sept. 27

Officials from the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office will answer questions about the state's Open Records and Meeting laws during a series of workshops this fall and winter.
 
The workshops are free and open to the public. Registration is not required.
 
Each will be from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
 
The first is Sept. 27 in Lawton at the Great Plains Technology Center (Seminar Room 301, Building 300, Worley Seminar Center, 24500 W. Lee Blvd.).
 
The workshops are sponsored by Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Press Association and Oklahoma Newspaper Foundation.
 
For more information, contact Lisa Potts at OPA, (405) 499-0040, toll-free in Oklahoma at 1-888-815-2672 or lpotts@okpress.com.
 
The rest of the seminars are scheduled for:

• Oct. 18: Weatherford: Stafford Air & Space Museum, Apollo Room, 3000 Logan Road


• Oct. 25: Oklahoma City: Metro Tech Conference Center, Auditorium, 1900 Springlake Drive


• Nov. 29: McAlester: Kiamichi Technology Center, Auditorium, 301 Kiamichi Drive


• Dec. 6: Tulsa: Tulsa Technology Center - Riverside Campus, Auditorium, 801 E. 91st St.


• Dec. 13: Enid: Autry Technology Center, 22 Lectrium, 1201 W. Willow Road

The workshops will be conducted by First Assistant Attorney General Rob Hudson and Communications Director Diane Clay.
 
They will explain the statutory requirements regarding access to public records and the conduct of public meetings, as well as answer FOI-related questions.
 
Attorneys, technology center board members, and school board members and superintendents can earn three continuing education credits from the Oklahoma Bar Association, Department of Career and Technology Education, and Department of Education, respectively.
 

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

Grant County commissioner promises open government

Grant County Commissioner Cindy Bobbitt has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.
 
The Republican from Lamont is seeking re-election to the commission's District 2 seat.
 
The general election is Nov. 6.
 
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.
 
In signing the pledge, candidates promise "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."
 
Candidates for local and statewide offices also pledge that they and the public bodies they are "elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
Instructions for signing the pledge and lists of signers are on the FOI Oklahoma website.
 

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