Legislative leaders defend secrecy at Capitol

Oklahoma's legislators must be exempt from the state's open government laws in order to avoid releasing personal or confidential information revealed in constituent e-mails or letters, the author of the state Open Records Act told KWTV.

"If you don't allow citizens the right to communicate on sensitive matters such as family members having AIDS, possibilities of child abuse or other things (then) it would be a mistake," said Stratton Taylor, who served as Senate president pro tempore from 1995 to 2003.

However, legislators could abide by the Open Records Act while exempting such confidential information from disclosure. In fact, medical records and many others are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies. (See, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 36 O.S. § 6927; 43A O.S. § 2-224; 63 O.S. §, 1-729; 63 O.S. § 1-738c; 63 O.S. § 5051.5; 10 O.S. §. 620.1)

Even so, the same load of horse excrement was shoveled by the current Senate president pro tem.

"The staff and members of the Oklahoma legislature deal with numerous inquiries and communications from constituents, fellow members and others who have concerns about state government, and who would need their privacy protected for any number of legitimate reasons," said Glen Coffee.

The Oklahoma City Republican cannot seek re-election this fall because of term limits. The same is true for House Speaker Chris Benge, who also defended the need for secrecy at the state Capitol.

"The long-standing principle of legislative immunity is aimed at protecting a legislator's (and his or her agent while performing legislative functions) ability to deliberate and communicate in confidence to discharge his or her duty as a representative of the public," the Tulsa Republican told KWTV. "Such protection is essential to the functioning of the House."

Yes, unfortunately, secrecy seems to be at the core of how the House and Senate conduct the public's business. And that secrecy has bred incompetency and corruption at the state Capitol.

KWTV said its report was prompted by accusations of political corruption at the Capitol. Its reporters wanted to know who in the last days of the session had added to a bill some language creating a high-paying job at the state Medical Examiner's Office.

(Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater is investigating whether Rep. Randy Terrill conspired with Sen. Debbe Leftwich to give up her Oklahoma City seat so Rep. Mike Christian could run for it and Leftwich would get the job at the Medical Examiner's Office in exchange.)

KWTV's request for notes, e-mails and other information related to the legislation was denied by the bill's author -- none other than Glen Coffee.

At a press conference in June, Coffee denied knowing who had added the language but admitted to signing the conference committee report that included the new job in the bill.

KWTV also looked at how the conference committees -- particularly in the rushed finals days of a session -- create a situation fertile for abuse.

Despite the name "committee," the station reported, most don't actually meet to reconcile the differences between House and Senate versions of bills.

"No, it's a piece of paper that has signature lines on it," said Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole.

KWTV noted that the author of a bill sent to a conference committee needs only to get signatures from a majority of the committee members to bring it back for a floor vote.

Kiesel said the system allows unscrupulous legislators to insert self-serving language and then use personal or political persuasion to get enough committee members to agree.

Any notion of real legislative transparency is "out the window," he told the station.

At the press conference, Coffee had dodged the question of whether the conference committee system should be fixed.

"I am a term-limited legislator, and the next Legislature will have the opportunity to address those sort of issues if they choose," he told reporters.

Coffee, Benge and Stratton seem to think the rest of us are stupid. We're expected to believe that legitimate needs for privacy and confidentiality preclude other records or meetings from being open to the public.

But not even other legislators like the smell of that fertilizer.

"The confidentiality issue is just a bad excuse for saying that this law shouldn't apply to the Legislature. That's easily accounted for by a clear set of laws (exemptions) that everyone would follow," Rep. Jason Murphey told KWTV.

Since March when Benge refused media requests for video showing legislators switching portraits of Gov. Brad Henry and President Barack Obama, Murphey has said he will introduce a bill next session to remove the Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

"I think we need to look at how other states do it and basically find some of the best practices and apply them here," the Guthrie Republican told KWTV.

(All six announced gubernatorial candidates have said they also support removing the exemption.)

If Murphey follows through on his promise, we'll get to see which legislators truly believe in the Open Records Act's founding principle:

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. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

In the meantime, we -- the voters -- can provide Murphey with some support for next session.

Ask legislative candidates to sign FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge just as Murphey and 11 other House members have done.

Then expect those who are elected to operate with the same public scrutiny required of our other state and local officials.

After all, it's our government. Not their private club.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Judge grants OPEA temporary restraining order, allows FOI OK, The Oklahoman, others to join in court battle over state workers' birth dates

Oklahoma County Judge Bryan Dixon this morning granted a temporary restraining order stopping the release of state workers' birth dates to The Oklahoman.

The judge also allowed The Oklahoman to intervene as a defendant and FOI Oklahoma, Tulsa World, KWTV, KOTV, the Oklahoma Press Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to file briefs in support of the public's right to the information.

Dixon also granted requests by the Oklahoma State Troopers Association and the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety to join with the Oklahoma Public Employees Association in seeking the order against the state Office of Personnel Management.

(CJ-2010-2623, Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management)

The Oklahoman is expected to file an answer and a request for a summary judgment next week.

Coverage of hearing: Release of Oklahoma public employee birth dates temporarily halted by judge, By John Estus, The Oklahoman, 4.9.10.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

TV stations ask judge to allow cameras in courtroom for pharmacist's murder trial

Television stations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa asked a trial judge Tuesday to permit cameras in the courtroom during the trial of a pharmacist charged with killing a would-be robber.

The motion was filed on behalf of KWTV and KFOR in Oklahoma City and KOTV in Tulsa.

"This is a story that carries with it an enormous amount of public interest," KWTV NEWS 9 P.M. Content Director Jenny Monroe said. "It is our job as journalists to serve the public and do whatever possible to provide the information to the people of Oklahoma. We believe allowing Oklahomans to see firsthand what is being said and decided in this case is in the best interest of everyone."

Under Oklahoma law, the initial decision to allow the cameras into the courtroom rests with Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure, who is presiding over the trial of Jerome Ersland in Oklahoma City.

In 1958, some 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the same philosophy, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the mere presence of cameras in a courtroom does not inherently interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Lyles v. State, 1958 OK CR 79, ¶¶ 21-23, 330 P.2d 734, 742)

Noting that it had allowed television cameras in its courtroom, the state court said, “Our experience is that when properly supervised by the court, there is neither disturbance, distraction, nor lack of dignity or decorum.”

The court contended that television cameras educate the public about the judicial system, explaining:

“There is no field of government about which the people know so little as they do about the courts. There is no field of government about which they should know as much, as about their courts. Those institutions of justice engaged in construing constitutional rights and interpreting legislative acts which will determine our enjoyment of life and liberty and our pursuit of happiness. What is more vital to the people? Many members of the legal profession who advocate the dissemination of knowledge for every purpose in all other fields rebel at the thought of the people being informed concerning the operations of the lawyers’ legal preserve. The courts do not belong to the lawyers but are institutions by, of, and for the people. In this modern age, it is well that the veil of mysticism surrounding our courts be removed and the people be confronted with reality. We are not afraid or ashamed and we must be consistent.”

However, the current standard for permitting cameras in Oklahoma courtrooms came about in 1997 when the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted Judicial Canon 3(B)(9), which states:

“Except as permitted by the individual judge, the use of cameras, television or other recording or broadcasting equipment is prohibited in a courtroom or in the immediate vicinity of a courtroom.”

Even if the judge allows cameras, Canon 3(B)(9) permits the defendant to nix their use in the courtroom. As recently as 2000, Oklahoma and Alabama were the only states that required the consent of criminal defendants to televise their trials.

Oklahoma law also prohibits the photographing or broadcasting of any witness or juror who objects to the judge in advance.

Here is the rest of Canon 3(B)(9)’s wording:

• Before cameras, television or other recordings or broadcasting equipment are used, express permission of the judge must be obtained.
• The judge shall prescribe the conditions and specific rules under which such equipment may be used.
• Media personnel shall not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings.
• No witness, juror or party who expresses any objection to the judge shall be photographed nor shall the testimony of such a witness, juror or party be broadcast or telecast.
• There shall be no photographing or broadcasting of:
(1) any proceeding which under the laws of this State are required to be held in private; or
(2) any portion of any criminal proceedings until the issues have been submitted to the jury for determination unless all accused persons who are then on trial shall have affirmatively, on the record, given their consent to the photographing or broadcasting.
• No media representative shall offer, nor shall any party, witness or juror accept, consideration in exchange for consent to telecast, broadcast or photograph the judicial proceeding.
• Representatives of the news media shall conduct themselves at all times in a professional manner consistent with the spirit and intent of this rule. In order to insure such conduct, if such conduct of the news media which violates any of these rules is brought to the attention of any judge, the offending person shall be notified to immediately cease and desist such activity. If the offending party refuses to comply with the order, the judge may act to end such activity, including the seizure of the equipment of such person. Any offender may be dealt with for contempt of court.
(Canon 3(B) (9) of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, OKLA. STAT. tit. 5, Ch. 1, App. 4)

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