AG recommends state employee identification numbers be kept confidential because of security concerns, leads to change in network security procedures

State employee identification numbers should be kept confidential because disclosure could expose the state's payroll system to hacking, the Attorney General's Office said this week.

But the assistant attorney general's letter detailing how hackers could use the information to enter the system led to the Office of State Finance changing the password system, The Oklahoman reported today.

Network security systems should rely on passwords and the number of times someone can try to log on before being locked out, said a data privacy expert who was the keynote speaker for FOI Oklahoma's third-annual Sunshine Week conference on Saturday.

The more unique identifiers, the better the system, said Richard J.H. Varn, chief information officer for the city of San Antonio and executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access.

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which opposes release of employee birth dates, posted the assistant attorney general's letter to its Web site on Tuesday.

The OPEA quickly equated the employee identification numbers with birth dates, calling them private information.

The Oklahoman, however, pointed out that it had requested dates of birth and employee identification numbers of state employees as part of an ongoing look into the backgrounds of public workers. Public access to the employee identification numbers is the only way to track employees who have changed their names after marriage.

Another speaker for the Sunshine Week conference said Texas has provided him with the employee identification numbers for that state.

"I know of no government body anywhere that has denied access to unique identifiers because of this pathetic excuse. This is a very basic piece of information," said Ryan McNeill, computer-assisted reporting editor for the Dallas Morning News.

Strengthening Oklahoma's payroll system's security procedures would seem to negate the reason for denying access to the employee identification numbers. The attorney general's office should reconsider its recommendation accordingly.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

All 6 gubernatorial candidates: State Legislature should not exempt itself from Open Records Act

The Oklahoma Legislature should be subject to the state's Open Records Act just like the rest of government, the six announced gubernatorial candidates said on Saturday.

Live online audio and video feeds of the House and Senate in session are nothing more than "great window dressing," said Lt. Gov. Jari Askins, a Democratic candidate and former state legislator.

"We will all be better served (with) transparency when the House and the Senate open up the rest of their records and remove their exemption,” Askins told the audience at FOI Oklahoma's third-annual Sunshine Week conference.

The other gubernatorial candidates in agreement were fellow Democrat Drew Edmondson and Republicans state Sen. Randy Brogdon, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, Robert Hubbard and Roger L. Jackson.

Only nine other state legislatures completely exempt themselves from their state open records laws, The Oklahoman reported today.

Oklahoma legislators exempted themselves when the statute was first enacted in 1985.

That means Oklahoman can't see their lawmakers’ e-mails, letters, drafts of bills, memorandums, calendars, phone call logs and other records that might show how those entrusted with the public’s business are doing their jobs, reporter John Estus pointed out.

Current legislative leaders' reasoning for continuing the exemption were galling.

"Protection of the Legislature’s records is vital to the independent functioning of the legislative branch,” a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, said in a statement. "Subjecting the Legislature to open records requirements would chill the flow of communications within and from outside the Capitol."

House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, echoed Coffee’s position in a separate statement, Estus reported.

According to Benge and Coffee, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Other legislative bodies -- such as city councils and county commissions -- should operate with public scrutiny but not so for our state Legislature.

Perhaps our legislative leaders don't know that "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 are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government," states the Open Records Act's preamble.

"The purpose of this 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." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

These principles are true whether the public body is a city council or the state Legislature.

Other coverage on the issue:

• Hopefuls call for exemption's end, The Oklahoman, 3.14.10.


• OETA reporter Lori Rasmussen talked to government leaders about the exemption of the state legislature from requirements of the state Open Meeting and Open Records Acts. Also discussion with Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association about openness in government. (Click on ONR 03-16-10)

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

5 gubernatorial candidates would veto bill exempting birth dates of public employees; Edmondson says he would sign legislation

Five of the six announced gubernatorial candidates said on Saturday that if they were governor, they would veto legislation exempting public employees birth dates from the state Open Records Act.

Only Attorney General Drew Edmondson, a Democratic candidate, said he would sign the bill.

The Legislature is entitled under the Open Records Act to decide which information in the personnel files of public employees would be considered "an unwarranted invasion of privacy," Edmondson told the audience at FOI Oklahoma's third-annual Sunshine Week conference.

Edmondson said that did not mean he would concede his veto power each time legislators write an exemption to the state Open Records Act.

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, said he would veto SB 1753, which would exempt public employee birth dates from personnel files.

When asked how he had voted when the bill came before the full Senate on Feb. 18, Brogdon said he didn't know.

Brogdon voted for the bill when it passed the Senate by 44-0 vote with no debate on the floor.

After being told how he voted, Brogdon said, "I am not in favor of hiding information so the final product as it comes out I will certainly vote accordingly."

Also saying they would veto the legislation were Lt. Gov. Jari Askins, a Democrat, and Republican candidates Congresswoman Mary Fallin, Robert Hubbard and Roger L. Jackson.
.
The conference was the first time all six announced gubernatorial candidates had attended the same event to speak on a topic.

In the morning sessions, experts on privacy emphasized that birth dates in public records do not pose a threat of identity theft.

In December, Edmondson issued a formal written opinion stating that government employee birth dates are presumed open unless the public body can demonstrate that the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

In August, Edmondson said publicly that officials should err on the side of transparency regarding the release of dates of birth of employees. Edmondson said it’s difficult to contend that birth dates are private when they are found in a number of public records. He has since disclosed the birth dates of his own employees.

Edmondson has signed FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s Open Government Pledge promising "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.”

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

All 5 gubernatorial candidates to participate in Sunshine Conference

Congresswoman Mary Fallin will join the four other gubernatorial candidates in an open government forum Saturday during the third-annual Sunshine Week conference.

Oklahoma Sunshine ’10: Privacy, Politicians & the Public’s Need to Know will be held at The Oklahoman, 9000 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City.

The conference's afternoon session will feature a question-and-answer session with candidates for governor and attorney general. All the announced candidates were invited to participate.

Fallin will join fellow Republican gubernatorial candidates state Sen. Randy Brogdon and Robert Hubbard, and Democratic candidates Lt. Gov. Jari Askins and Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

Jim Priest, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, also will participate.

Each candidate will be afforded three minutes to initially state his or her position on open government and any proposals regarding government transparency and the state’s open meeting and records laws.

The conference's morning sessions will focus on the issue of birth dates, public records and identity theft. Data privacy expert and former Iowa legislator Richard J.H. Varn will explain how improved identity management technology and practices, along with public education on self-protection measures, would be more effective defenses against identity theft than redacting information from public records.

Dallas Morning News attorney Paul C. Watler and computer‐assisted reporting editor Ryan McNeill will explain the newspaper’s lawsuit over government employee birth dates in Texas and the legislative debate in that state over public access to the information.

Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association will analyze current bills in the Legislature to limit or expand the public’s right to know in Oklahoma.

A luncheon panel will look back at 20 years of FOI Oklahoma Inc. Recipients of FOI Oklahoma's three annual FOI awards also will be announced.

Wednesday is the deadline for early registrations.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Askins to participate in open government forum at Sunshine Conference

Lt. Gov. Jari Askins will join other gubernatorial candidates in an open government forum during the third-annual Sunshine Week conference.

Oklahoma Sunshine ’10: Privacy, Politicians & the Public’s Need to Know will be held March 13 at The Oklahoman, 9000 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City.

The conference's afternoon session will feature a question-and-answer session with candidates for governor and attorney general. All the announced candidates have been invited to participate.

Askins will join fellow Democratic candidate Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Republican gubernatorial candidates state Sen. Randy Brogdon and Robert Hubbard.

Jim Priest, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, also will participate.

Each candidate will be afforded three minutes to initially state his or her position on open government and any proposals regarding government transparency and the state’s open meeting and records laws.

The conference's morning sessions will focus on the issue of birth dates, public records and identity theft. Data privacy expert and former Iowa legislator Richard J.H. Varn will explain how improved identity management technology and practices, along with public education on self-protection measures, would be more effective defenses against identity theft than redacting information from public records.

Dallas Morning News attorney Paul C. Watler and computer‐assisted reporting editor Ryan McNeill will explain the newspaper’s lawsuit over government employee birth dates in Texas and the legislative debate in that state over public access to the information.

Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association will analyze current bills in the Legislature to limit or expand the public’s right to know in Oklahoma.

A luncheon panel will look back at 20 years of FOI Oklahoma Inc. Recipients of FOI Oklahoma's three annual FOI awards also will be announced.

March 10 is the deadline for early registrations.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Oklahoma Sunshine ’10: Privacy, Politicians & the Public's Need to Know

Kick off Sunshine Week with FOI Oklahoma’s 2010 Sunshine Conference

• Birth dates. Public records. Identity theft. As state legislators consider exempting birth dates of government employees from the Open Records Act, an expert on data privacy will explain what should really worry us and how to better protect ourselves.


• Ask candidates for governor and attorney general where they stand on open government issues. Scheduled to attend: Gubernatorial candidates Randy Brogdon, Drew Edmondson and Robert Hubbard; and Jim Priest, candidate for attorney general.


• Learn from a Capitol-insider about state legislation aimed at the public’s right to know.


• Celebrate 20 years of FOI Oklahoma Inc.


• Recipients of FOI Oklahoma's three annual FOI awards will be announced during the conference luncheon.


• March 13, 2010 (9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.)
• The Oklahoman, 9000 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City
  
  Registration Form


• Early registration must be received by March 10.
  
  
  
  • Non-members: $30
    (Includes lunch & one-year membership in FOI Oklahoma)
  
  
  • College/High School Students: $15
    (Includes lunch & one-year membership in FOI Oklahoma)
  
  
  • FOI Oklahoma Inc. Members: $10
  
  
  • Additional $5 for registrations received after March 10
    
    Make check or money order payable to FOI Oklahoma.
    
    Mail payment to:
    Oklahoma Sunshine '10
    Oklahoma Library Association
    300 Hardy Drive, Edmond, OK 73013
    405–525–5100 • Fax: 405–525–5103
    Kay Boies: kboies@sbcglobal.net
    
    Purchase Orders, and Visa and MasterCard payments can also be accepted. Please contact Kay Boies at the Oklahoma Library Association.

Democratic candidates for governor, attorney general to participate in Sunshine Conference

Gubernatorial candidate Drew Edmondson and Jim Priest, a candidate for attorney general, will share their views on open government at FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s third annual Sunshine Week conference.

Oklahoma Sunshine ’10: Privacy, Politicians & the Public’s Need to Know will be held March 13 at The Oklahoman, 9000 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City.

The conference's afternoon session will feature a question-and-answer session with candidates for governor and attorney general. All the announced candidates have been invited to participate.

Each candidate will be afforded three minutes to initially state his or her position on open government and any proposals regarding government transparency and the state’s open meeting and records laws.

The latest candidates to accept the invitation are Democrats: Edmondson, the state attorney general, and Priest, an Oklahoma City attorney and lay minister.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Sen. Randy Brogdon and Robert Hubbard also have agreed to participate.

The conference will celebrate FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s 20th anniversary and preview what's ahead for open government in the state.

The morning sessions will focus on the issue of individual privacy versus the public’s need to know. State legislators are considering exempting government employees' dates of birth from the state Open Records Act.

SB 1753, filed by Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, comes on the heels of a written opinion by Edmondson that those birth dates are presumed open and may be withheld only if officials can demonstrate on a case-by-case basis that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy that outweighs the public interest. (2009 OK AG 33)

During the conference luncheon, the recipients of FOI Oklahoma's three annual FOI awards will be announced.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Edmondson signs Open Government Pledge as candidate for governorship

State Attorney General Drew Edmondson has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge as a gubernatorial candidate.

Edmondson first signed the pledge in 2008. He was the first incumbent statewide official to do so. Edmondson is a longtime member of FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s board of directors.

In signing the document again, Edmondson pledged that the governor's office would "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.”

The Democrat 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 other candidates for statewide offices and those running for legislative seats, municipal offices and school board seats to sign the pledge.

Instructions and a list of signers for the 2010 elections can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s Web site.

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.

For the 2008 and 2009 elections, 58 candidates for local or statewide offices signed the pledge. Of those, 28 were elected.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Enid officials won't identify two police officers placed on administrative leave because of homicide investigation

Enid officials won't tell the public which two police officers are under investigation because of how a homicide investigation was handled, the Enid News & Eagle and The Oklahoman reported this week.

The two officers are on paid administrative leave, the newspapers reported.

The News & Eagle noted that the public statement it received from police officials said the officers were “suspended with pay.”

The public might never know the names of the officers.

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

The opinion came about after Oklahoma City officials refused to identify an employee placed on paid administrative leave during an investigation into the possible misuse of a federal grant.

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

The Oklahoma Open Records Act makes public "any final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion of position, or termination." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24.A(7))

It permits, but does not require, public bodies to keep confidential the personnel records related to "internal personnel investigations including examination and selection material for employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, discipline, or resignation."

Enid police Capt. Jack Morris told The Oklahoman, "There is no disciplinary action taking place, and this is normal protocol.”

The News & Eagle reported that Enid City Attorney Andrea Chism disavowed any connection to the press release and called the use of the word suspension unfortunate.

According to both newspapers, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation will conduct a criminal investigation into the officers' actions. An administrative investigation by the police department would follow.

“I’m not releasing the names until a decision is made on criminal actions or disciplinary action requiring the release of open records,” Enid Police Chief Rick West told the News & Eagle.

Update: "Attorney for Grassino, Nichols comes forward with identities," Enid News & Eagle, Dec. 22, 2009.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

OKC refuses to disclose DOB of employee placed on administrative leave during investigation

Disclosing the birth date of a city employee placed on paid adminstrative leave as officials investigate mismanagement of public funds would constitute an warranted invasion of privacy, an Oklahoma City official told The Oklahoman on Thursday.

But, Assistant City Attorney Richard Smith indicated to the newspaper, disclosing the birth date of an employee not under investigation wouldn't be an invasion of privacy.

Say what?

Smith's explanation flies in the face of a revised opinion issued this week by state Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

Dates of birth of government employees are presumed open and should be released unless the agency can demonstrate that the employee's privacy outweighs the public interest in the record, Edmondson said. (2009 OK AG 33)

The opinion notes that agencies and other public bodies may not enact blanket policies declaring all employee DOBs confidential.

Edmondson told the newspaper last week he thinks agencies are "going to have difficulty claiming the exemption as a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

“My view is that the conditions under which birth dates would be confidential would be rare,” he said.

In contrast, OKC officials don't seem hesitant to make the claim. OKC seems to think the public has little or no interest in an employee placed on administrative leave when city officials discovered federal grant funds had been mismanaged in a program overseen by the employee.

If not under these circumstances, when would the public have an interest that outweighs the employee's protection against a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy?

The Oklahoman requested the birth date in an effort to conduct background research after the employee was identified as part of the investigation.

As reporter Bryan Dean noted, "Without a birth date to match to common names, it is impossible to determine a public employee’s criminal record or other vital background information."

Edmondson seems to have faith that government officials will give serious consideration to the public's interest in the disclosure of employee birth dates.

Oklahoma City officials are proving him wrong.

But they are demonstrating why the decision to release records should not be put in the hands of individual officials.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

AG tells state agencies the burden is on them to prove disclosure of employee DOB is clearly an unwarranted invasion of privacy

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson told state agencies, boards and commissions this week that the birth dates of their employees are presumed to be public records and should be released upon request.

"The only exception ... would be if the agency makes a specific finding that the release of the record would constitute a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,'" Edmondson said in a letter telling the agencies of his revised formal opinion on the subject.

"If the exception is claimed the burden would be on the agency to demonstrate that the employee's personal privacy interest outweighs the public interest in producing the record," Edmondson said.

If a court overturns that determination, the agency would be liable for the plaintiff's attorney fees, he reminded agency officials.

(Unfortunately, that monetary penalty might not motivate many public officials to give serious weight to the public's interest because the money comes from taxpayers, not their own pockets.)

Edmondson also told agencies they could not enact blanket policies under which all employee birth dates would be considered private.

In a press release Tuesday, Edmondson said the new opinion "revised some admittedly confusing language."

For more on the revised opinion, 2009 OK AG 33, read the earlier posting on this blog.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

AG revises opinion: DOBs of government employees presumed open, public bodies must determine privacy interest on a case-by-case basis

Government employee birth dates are presumed open unless the public body can demonstrate that the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, according to a revised opinion issued by the state attorney general Tuesday.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said public bodies must decide each case individually and may not enact policies blocking access to all employee dates of birth. (2009 OK AG 33)

In the revised opinion, Edmondson also deleted a sentence questioning the public interest in knowing government employee birth dates.

However, just as in the opinion issued last week, Edmondson said public bodies have the discretion to determine if disclosing an employee’s DOB is an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

“In making such a determination, the public body must weigh the employee’s interest in nondisclosure against the public’s interest in disclosing the record,” Edmondson said. “If the public body determines that the employee’s interest in nondisclosure is greater, it may keep the birth date confidential….”

(Read earlier posting for background on opinion.)

Last week’s opinion seemed weighted in favor of nondisclosure and was criticized for leaving the decision in the hands of public officials. An editorial by The Oklahoman today expressed doubt that public officials would be likely to disclose the birth dates of employees.

“Instead, we foresee them regularly parsing the definitions of 'unwarranted' or the like when reporters or others try to dig for information in an effort to serve the public interest,” The Oklahoman said.

But the revised opinion is more in line with what Edmondson told The Oklahoman last week when he defended his previous writing.

“My opinion is that an agency is going to have difficulty claiming the exemption as a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” Edmondson had told the newspaper. “My view is that the conditions under which birth dates would be confidential would be rare.”

To the new opinion, Edmondson added:

“It should be noted that since the Legislature did not specifically make dates of birth confidential the presumption would be that they are open unless the exception is (1) claimed and (2) found to outweigh the public interest in the requested record. This determination, since it involves a determination of ‘personal’ privacy must be individual in application. A general policy prohibiting disclosure would constitute a legislative determination beyond the authority of a public body.”

He also deleted a statement that seemed to favor nondisclosure.

“Disclosing employee’s birth dates seems as unlikely to assist citizens in finding out what their government is up to as disclosing employee’s ‘payroll deductions’ or the employment applications of persons not hired by the public body, which the ORA expressly allows public bodies, in their discretion, to keep confidential,” the original opinion had stated.

Like the old one, today’s opinion says a public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute “a ‘final’ or ‘disciplinary’ action, nor a ‘final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination.’”

Edmondson also again rejected Oklahoma City’s argument that the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act blocked access to the birth dates of its employees.

Update: The attorney general's spokesman told The Oklahoman that Edmondson wanted to "clarify the intent of the opinion."

"It bothered him (Edmondson) that some of the language in the original opinion caused people to believe that an agency of government could simply say, ‘We’re not going to give you any birth dates,’” said Charlie Price.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

AG: Gov’t may keep confidential employee DOBs and names of employees placed on paid administrative leave

Public bodies may keep employee dates of birth confidential when officials believe the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, under a state attorney general opinion released this week.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson also said a public agency may keep secret the names of employees placed on paid administrative leave if, under the agency’s personnel policies, that action doesn’t constitute “a ‘final’ or ‘disciplinary’ action, nor a ‘final disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or termination.’”

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

The written opinion stemmed from The Oklahoman’s request for the birth date of an Oklahoma City employee placed on paid administrative leave during an investigation into the management of a federal grant. City officials also refused to identify another employee placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation.

At that time, Edmondson publicly said governments should err on the side of transparency regarding the release of employee birth dates. He said it would be difficult to contend that DOBs are private when they are found in a number of public records.

At the request of Oklahoma City officials, state Sen. Debbe Leftwich requested a formal opinion from Edmondson.

In that opinion, released on the AG Web site Wednesday, Edmondson said public bodies have the discretion to determine if disclosing an employee’s DOB is an “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

“In making such a determination, the public body must weigh the employee’s interest in nondisclosure against the public’s interest in disclosing the record,” Edmondson said. “If the public body determines that the employee’s interest in nondisclosure is greater, it may keep the birth date confidential….”

Edmondson seems to have faith that officials will sincerely balance these two competing interests and not reflexively discount the public’s interest in disclosure.

But the opinion seems to provide government agencies with a ready-made answer favoring nondisclosure, stating:

“Disclosing employee’s birth dates seems as unlikely to assist citizens in finding out what their government is up to as disclosing employee’s ‘payroll deductions’ or the employment applications of persons not hired by the public body, which the ORA expressly allows public bodies, in their discretion, to keep confidential.”

The opinion does have one bright spot for open-government advocates. Edmondson rejected Oklahoma City’s argument that the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act blocked access to the birth dates of its employees.

Using the same reasoning as this blog did in August, Edmondson said the statute doesn’t list DOBs among the personal information on a driver’s license that should not be disclosed and the statute applies to the state Department of Public Safety, not the city.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

OKC officials to seek AG opinion on release of birth dates

Oklahoma City officials want it in writing.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson earlier this week said the city should release the birth date of an employee placed on administrative leave during an investigation.

Edmondson's comments came during an open government workshop in Tecumseh on Monday.

The Oklahoman reported Wednesday that two Oklahoma City Council members have asked City Manager Jim Couch to seek an official written opinion from Edmondson's office on the DOB issue.

City Councilman Gary Marrs told the newspaper he is worried the city could be sued if it releases the birth date.

But public bodies and public officials "providing access to records as allowed under the Oklahoma Open Records Act" cannot be held civilly liable for damages. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.17(D))

Couch's staff will draft the question and ask a state legislator to submit it to the Attorney General's Office. Couch said the question might also ask for an opinion on whether the city must release the names of employees placed on administrative leave.

OKC officials have refused to identify a second employee placed on administrative leave while the management of a federal grant is investigated. Officials had said the first employee was suspended and identified him. Then they backtracked, saying he was placed on administrative leave and that his name should not have been released to reporters, The Oklahoman reported.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

OK AG says OKC officials should release DOB of employee placed on administrative leave

Our state attorney general on Monday added his voice to the chorus of open government experts calling for Oklahoma City officials to release the birth date of an employee placed on administrative leave during an investigation of a federal grant.

Speaking at an open government workshop in Tecumseh, Drew Edmondson also said OKC officials should consider whether identifying a second employee placed on administrative leave would serve the public good, The Oklahoman reported today.

He said governments should err on the side of transparency regarding the release of dates of birth of employees. OKC officials have argued that releasing the birth date of the employee would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

However, Edmondson said it’s difficult to contend that birth dates are private when they are found in a number of public records – an argument made in this blog and in The Oklahoman in the past week.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Boards administering grants funded by tax dollars are subject to state’s FOI laws

Any board administering a grant funded by tax dollars must abide by Oklahoma’s Open Records and Open Meeting laws, public officials were reminded this week.

Assistant Attorney General Gay Tudor also reiterated that cell phone texting and e-mail correspondence would violate the Open Meeting Act if public business were discussed, The Claremore Daily Progress reported.

Tudor also noted such correspondence would be open to public inspection under the Open Records Act, the newspaper said.

In a written opinion this past May, Attorney General Drew Edmondson said records of government business belong to the public even if they are created, received or stored on an official’s private smart phone or laptop.

“To conclude otherwise would allow public officials and employees to circumvent the open records laws simply by using privately owned personal electronic communication devices to conduct public business,” the opinion (09-12) said.

At an open government workshop in Claremore on Tuesday, Edmondson and Tudor answered questions regarding the state’s Open Records and Open Meeting laws. About 75 people, including county and municipal officials and representatives from public boards, attended the seminar, the newspaper reported.

Tudor warned officials not to abuse statutory exemptions allowing for closed-door executive sessions. ““It’s very important for the public to know they can trust you,” she said.

The next seminar will be Aug. 31 in Tecumseh. The workshops, sponsored by FOI Oklahoma Inc. and the Oklahoma Press Association, are free and open to the public.

The written opinion in May warned public officials and employees not to alter or destroy public records on their private communication devices unless allowed to do under the state Records Management Act.

“E-mails, text messages and other electronic communications made or received in connection with the transaction of public business, the expenditure of public funds or the administration of public property are subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, [its exemptions] and the Records Management Act regardless of whether they are created, received, transmitted or maintained by government officials on publicly or privately owned equipment and communications devices,” the opinion concluded.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Reminder to public officials: Willful violation does not require showing intent, but rather showing the official knew or should have known the law

Public officials were reminded Thursday that proving a willful violation of the state's Open Meeting and Open Records laws requires showing only that the official knew or should have known the law, not that the official intended to violate the law.

Assistant Attorney General Gay Tudor also reminded a packed meeting room in Muskogee that it is illegal for a quorum of a public body to meet via e-mail to discuss or decide public business, The Muskogee Phoenix reported.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson warned the audience that grand juries tend to look more harshly on open government violations than do district attorneys, the newspaper said.

In the audience for the seminar on the state's FOI laws were officials of nonprofit agencies receiving grants from the City of Muskogee Foundation because they are required to comply with the Open Meeting and Records laws, the newspaper reported.

The next seminar will be Tuesday in Woodward. The workshops are free and open to the public.

Criminal violations of the state's open government laws can result in up to one year in jail and/or up to a $500 fine.

The state Supreme Court in 1984 said proving that a violation was willful "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 [Open Meeting] Act."
(Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, ¶ 14, 701 P.2d 754, 761)

The court was relying upon a 1981 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruling.

The lower appellate court had said if willful were to be narrowly interpreted to include only violations "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.”
(Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 26, 637 P.2d 1270)

As of Nov. 1, 2007, newly appointed city officials must undergo training that includes the state's FOI laws. Legislators had placed the requirement upon newly elected municipal officials the previous year. Under state law, these officials lose their jobs if they fail to take the training in roughly their first year in office.

(“Each person elected for the first time to a position of a municipality on or after January 1, 2005, or appointed for the first time on or after July 1, 2006, shall be required within one year after taking the oath of office to attend an institute for municipal officials.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 8-114(A))

“The curriculum for the Institute shall include, but not be limited to: municipal budget requirements, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, the Oklahoma Open Records Act, ethics, procedures for conducting meetings, conflict of interest, and purchasing procedures.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 11, § 8-114(C)))

Oklahomans should expect all their public officials to know their particular obligations under the state's Open Meeting and Records laws.

And the public shouldn't have to take the grand jury approach to enforcing our FOI laws. We should expect that our elected district attorneys consider violations to be serious breaches of the public trust and that they act accordingly by prosecuting.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

AG's open meeting and records seminars start Aug. 6

Have questions or concerns about Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Records laws?

You can ask state Attorney General Drew Edmondson directly during his biennial statewide series of seminars on the state's freedom of information laws.

Edmondson and Assistant Attorney General Gay Tudor will answer FOI-related questions and explain the requirements on access to public records and the conduct of public meetings.

The seminars 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 Aug. 6 at the Indian Capital Technology Center in Muskogee.

The workshops are sponsored by Edmondson, the Oklahoma Press Association, Oklahoma Newspaper Foundation and FOI Oklahoma Inc.

Click here for the list of dates and locations. For more information, contact Lisa at OPA, (405) 499-0040, toll-free in Oklahoma at 1-888-815-2672 or lpotts@okpress.com.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism & Broadcasting

Tulsa library board: No minutes of executive session; another OMA violation

The Tulsa City-County Library Commission doesn't keep minutes of its executive sessions, the Tulsa World reported this morning.

So rack up another violation of the state Open Meeting law by this board.

Minutes of executive session discussions must be kept, the state Supreme Court said in 1980.

(Berry v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists, 1980 OK 45, ¶12, 611 P.2d 628, 631. (“Although the municipal attorneys' case permits executive sessions on the advice of counsel in certain specified instances, it does not abrogate the statutory requirement that minutes be kept and recorded.”))

State Attorney General Drew Edmondson came to the same conclusion in a 1996 written opinion. (1996 OK AG 100, ¶ 5)

"The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the requirement for minutes to be kept and recorded also applies to executive sessions," Edmondson said.

He also said state legislators had "explicitly recognized that the requirement to keep a summary of the proceedings in the form of written minutes extends to executive sessions."

Edmondson noted that Legislators had kept confidential the minutes of lawful executive sessions under the Open Records Act (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(1)(b)) and had mandated that a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act caused the executive session minutes to be made public. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(F)).

The penalty for violating the Open Meeting Act is one year in the county jail and/or a $500 fine.

Which public bodies in your area routinely don't keep minutes of their executive sessions? Might be worth asking them.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism