Norman council candidate signs Open Government Pledge

A Norman City Council candidate has promised that if elected Tuesday, she and the city government "will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
By signing FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge, Lynne Miller 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."
 
Miller, a retired Norman Public Schools principal, is seeking the Ward 5 seat in the election.
 
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.
 
Signers are listed on the FOI Oklahoma website.
 

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

Norman mayor says she routinely seeks 'input' from entire council outside of public meetings

Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal said she routinely sends memos to the rest of the City Council seeking "input" on whom she intends to appoint to boards and commissions, The Oklahoman reported today.
 
"The item is then on the agenda and a public vote is taken," Rosenthal told the newspaper.
 
Rosenthal said City Attorney Jeff Bryant approved sending a memo in February to all her fellow council members in which she asked for "input" on new details of a recommended compensation increase for the city manager and asked them to "let me know what direction you would like to move."
 
Rosenthal wrote in the memo that she would ask the city clerk to schedule a vote to set the compensation by ordinance as required by the city charter "once I make sure Council has reached consensus on the City Manager compensation adjustment...."
 
She told The Oklahoman that accusations she is violating the Open Meeting Act are just "politics ... there's nothing to it."
 
But the Open Meeting Act, as well as judicial and attorney general pronouncements on the statute for decades, clearly forbids the majority of a public body from discussing, much less reaching a consensus, on a matter of public business outside of a public meeting.
 
The Open Meeting Act requires that "the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 305)
 
The Open Meeting Act states, "No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications ... among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 306)
 
In 2007, legislators added language to the statutory definition of "meeting" to clarify that a majority of a public body may gather informally as long as “no business of the public body is discussed."
 
In 1981, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals had emphasized, "Sunshine legislation reaches, not just 'formal' meetings, but the 'entire decision-making process.'" (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 7)
 
A 1981 attorney general opinion said: "The legislative intent is unmistakable. 25 O.S. 306 is an absolute prohibition upon any attempt to circumvent the Open Meeting Act and obtain a consensus upon an item of business by informal meetings outside a public meeting. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)
 
"Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed." (Id. ¶ 18)
 
A 1982 attorney general opinion said:

The requirements that members be physically present for meetings to take place and that voting be done only at meetings, provide protection against secret decision-making and further the Legislative intent of facilitating the understanding of government by informed citizens. (1982 OK AG 7, ¶ 7)

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said that because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
 
The principle is “very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals has said. "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶18)
 
In 2009, the Court of Civil Appeals said acting on the advice of an attorney did not excuse a public body's violation of the Open Meeting Act. (Okmulgee Co. Rural Water Dist. No. 2 v. Beggs Pub. Works Auth., 2009 OK CIV APP 51)
 
The court said the violation by the Beggs Public Works Authority, "although based on advice of counsel, constitutes a 'willful,' 'conscious' violation of the OMA 'by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act.'" (Id. ¶ 18)
 
The court quoted from a 1984 ruling in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court said, "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." (Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95,¶ 14)
 
That reasoning was adopted from a 1981 Court of Civil Appeals decision in which the lower court said that even a vote taken in "good faith" could be found to be a willful violation. (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶18)
 
"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 of Civil Appeals explained. (Id. at ¶ 26)
 
"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)
 
Rosenthal and the rest of the Norman City Council are responsible for knowing the requirements and prohibitions of the Open Meeting Act.
 
She and fellow council members Robert Castleberry, Roger Gallagher, Tom Kovach and Linda Lockett have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge. They promised to "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
Kovach had told The Norman Transcript about the memo, which revealed that the council -- including Kovach -- had apparently violated the Open Meeting Act by reaching a consensus during an executive session to move forward on the pay increase for the city manager.
 
With Rosenthal up for re-election in two weeks, she says Kovach accusing her of violating the Open Meeting Act by sending the memo is just "politics." The Oklahoman article noted that Kovach is a consultant for Tom Sherman, one of Rosenthal's opponents.
 
But the political motivations behind revealing open government violations don't negate the violations themselves. Norman City Council members should not be reaching consensus to take actions in executive session or seeking "input" and "direction" from a majority of the council outside of meetings.
 

 
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.
 

Apparent Open Meeting Act violations by Norman City Council

The Norman City Council came to a "consensus ... to move move forward with a compensation increase" for the city manager during an executive session last month but didn't vote on the action in open session, The Norman Transcript reported Saturday.
 
Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal committed another apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act when she asked in a Feb. 19 memo for each council member's "input" on new details of the recommended increase and to "let me know what direction you would like to move."
 
The Norman Transcript obtained a complete copy of the memo last week after City Attorney Jeff Bryant refused to release a redacted version, claiming it was an extension of the executive session, the newspaper also reported Saturday.
 
But the City Council's executive session discussion could not have continued after the meeting. The council had voted to adjourn its executive session and re-enter the regular session, according to minutes of the Feb. 12 meeting.
 
When the council re-entered the regular session, Rosenthal announced that no action and no votes had been taken in the executive session.
 
Under the Open Meeting Act, "any vote or action on any item of business considered in an executive session shall be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3))
 
But according to Rosenthal's memo, the council had reached a "consensus ... that the City Manager's compensation and benefits package be adjusted to track with AFSCME and NonUnion wage adjustments in FYE12 and FYE13."
 
"I asked the City Attorney to review these recommendations and advise if he thought there were additional issues that should be considered," Rosenthal wrote in the memo.
 
There was: The council cannot adjust base pay for previous fiscal years, so "the proposed pay adjustment" would leave the city manager about $5,400 short of comparable treatment of AFSCME and NonUnion pay raises, Rosenthal wrote.
 
"As a matter of equity, we may wish to add to the one time stipend to close that gap," Rosenthal wrote. "Attached to this memorandum are comparison calculations. I welcome your input.
 
"Please review this information and let me now which direction you would like to move," she wrote.
 
Rosenthal wrote that she would ask the city clerk to schedule a vote to set the compensation by ordinance as required by the city charter "once I make sure Council has reached consensus on the City Manager compensation adjustment...."
 
But for decades, the law has clearly prohibited the majority of a public body from discussing, much less reaching a consensus, on a matter of public business outside of a public meeting.
 
The Open Meeting Act states, "No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications ... among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 305)
 
A 1981 attorney general opinion said: "The legislative intent is unmistakable. 25 O.S. 306 is an absolute prohibition upon any attempt to circumvent the Open Meeting Act and obtain a consensus upon an item of business by informal meetings outside a public meeting." (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)
 
The statute prohibits a member from obtaining a consensus upon an item of business through a series of private one-on-one meetings, according to that attorney general opinion.
 
"Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed." (Id. ¶ 18)
 
Rosenthal's memo is the same as meeting one-on-one to obtain a consensus.
 
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said that because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
 
The principle is “very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals said. "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶18)
 
Also troubling is that Rosenthal and fellow council members Robert Castleberry, Roger Gallagher, Tom Kovach and Linda Lockett have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.
 
They promised to "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
They broke that promise by coming to a consensus in an executive session and not voting publicly. They did so again if they were among a majority of the council that later discussed and came to a consensus on the pay proposal outside a public meeting. Kovach said he alerted the newspaper to Rosenthal's memo and advised his colleagues against responding to it because doing so seemed to be a violation of the Open Meeting Act.
 
These apparent violations of the Open Meeting Act should be investigated and prosecuted by Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn.
 
Because the remedy for Oklahomans "who have no concern but that their government is working in the dark ... is a criminal prosecution for any willful violations."
 

 
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.

Norman City Council incumbent, candidates promise support of open government

An incumbent and two other candidates seeking seats on the Norman City Council have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.
 
In signing the pledge, all three promised that they and Norman city government "will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
They also pledged "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."
 
Ward 3 incumbent Robert Castleberry, 48, faces one challenger in the April 2 election. Castleberry, a CPA, was appointed to the seat in August.
 
Small business owner Greg Heiple, 48, is running for the Ward 1 position. The incumbent, Roger Gallagher, signed the Open Government Pledge in 2011.
 
Stephen Tyler Holman, 28, is seeking the Ward 7 seat. Holman serves on the city's 2060 Strategic Water Supply Committee and is the liaison for the city element in organizing the Norman Music Festival. The incumbent, Linda Lockett, also has signed the pledge.
 
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.
 
Signers are listed on the FOI Oklahoma website.
 

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

 

Norman City Council incumbent re-signs Open Government Pledge

Norman Councilwoman Linda Lockett has renewed her support for open government as she seeks another two-year term in the city's municipal election on April 2.
 
Lockett, 74, signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge when she ran for the Ward 7 seat in 2011.
 
By signing the pledge, Lockett promised to comply with the letter and spirit of Oklahoma's open government laws.
 
She also pledged 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."
 
Lockett serves on the Council's Oversight Committee and as chairwoman of its Business and Community Affairs Committee, according to her official bio.
 
She is a life-long resident of Ward 7, which encompasses an area from about Brooks Street to the southern boundary of Norman, bordered on the west by Chautauqua Avenue and on the east by 12th Avenue East/Classen Boulevard.
 
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.
 
Signers are listed on the FOI Oklahoma website.
 

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

Open government advocate wins another term on Norman City Council

Norman Councilman Tom Kovach was re-elected to the Ward 2 seat in the city's municipal election on Tuesday.

Kovach and Steve Lucas, a candidate for the Ward 8 seat, had signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

Lucas, a Cleveland County deputy sheriff, lost in his election.

Kovach was the first candidate in a 2012 election to sign the pledge this year. He also signed the pledge when he ran for re-election to the Ward 2 seat in 2010.

Kovach is a member of FOI Oklahoma Inc.

This past summer, Kovach's fellow council members approved his proposals to make Norman city government more transparent.

Under what became Norman's first records retention policy, all city emails and other records must be "retained for at least 1 year unless there is pending litigation, in which case it will be retained for at least 2 years after the ultimate disposition or the resolution of the litigation."

Also, all committees, sub committees and ad hoc committees must abide by the state Open Meeting Act and a state statute requiring that notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be posted on the public body's website.

Kovach said that provision covers advisory committees, even those appointed by the mayor, regardless of whether they have actual or de facto decision-making power.

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

They also 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.”

FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in spring 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.


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

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

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

The election is Tuesday.

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

Lucas also promised "to support at every opportunity the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites all candidates for local and statewide offices as well as legislative seats to sign the pledge. Instructions and lists of signers can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s website.

FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in spring 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.


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


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Norman councilman is first 2012 candidate to sign FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge

Norman Councilman Tom Kovach has renewed his support for open government as he seeks another two-year term in the city's municipal election on April 3.

Kovach, 49, is the first candidate in a 2012 election to sign FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

He also signed the pledge when he ran for re-election to the Ward 2 seat in 2010.

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites all candidates for municipal offices this spring to sign the pledge to uphold the letter and spirit of the state's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

Instructions and a list of signers for the 2011 elections can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s Web site, www.foioklahoma.org.

This past summer, Kovach's fellow council members approved his proposals to make Norman city government more transparent.

Under what became Norman's first records retention policy, all city emails and other records must be
"retained for at least 1 year unless there is pending litigation, in which case it will be retained for at least 2 years after the ultimate disposition or the resolution of the litigation."

Also, all committees, sub committees and ad hoc committees must abide by the state Open Meeting Act
and a state statute requiring that notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be posted on the public body's website.

Kovach said that provision covers advisory committees, even those appointed by the mayor, regardless of whether they have actual or de facto decision-making power.

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

They also 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.”

FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in spring 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.


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

Norman councilman proposes city advisory committees meet publicly, city officials end practice of deleting emails daily

Committees advising the city of Norman would have to abide by the state Open Meeting Act and city emails would be kept for at least one year, under a proposal by Councilman Tom Kovach.

Kovach also wants executive sessions of the city's public bodies to be recorded.

His proposal is on the agenda for the City Council's regular meeting Tuesday.

Under what would become Norman's first records retention policy, "all records, written and electronic, shall be retained for at least 1 year unless there is pending litigation, in which case it will be retained for at least 2 years after the ultimate disposition or the resolution of the litigation."

"I have received stiff opposition to even this limited time," said Kovach. "Staff insists this will put a burden on our existing storage capacity and is trying to limit this. It not perfect but it is better than what they do now, which is delete every day."

Under Kovach's proposal, "all meetings of committees, sub committees and ad hoc committees" would be subject to the Open Meeting Act and to a state statute requiring that notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be posted on the public body's website.

Kovach said this provision is intended to cover advisory committees, even those appointed by the mayor, regardless of whether they have actual or de facto decision-making power.

Kovach is one of five Norman council members to have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge as candidates. The others are Carol Dillingham, Hal Ezzell, Roger Gallagher and Mayor Cindy Rosenthal.

Each 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."

Kovach's proposal would do just that.


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.

Mannford school superintendent claims Open Meeting Act complied with by listing all district employees on agenda for executive session; Concerns also raised about closed sessions in Norman, Broken Arrow

Mannford School Superintendent Steve Waldvogel told the local newspaper on Monday that the Open Meeting Act may be complied with by listing all district employees on the agenda for an executive session to discuss personnel even if only a few would actually be discussed.

Meanwhile, the Broken Arrow School Board on Monday night discussed behind closed doors the "organization of district administration" without listing specific employees on the agenda.

Then in Norman on Tuesday, the City Council was scheduled to discuss "various workers' compensation cases" in an executive session during a special meeting. No information regarding the cases was listed on the agenda.

These executive sessions seem to violate the Open Meeting Act for the same reason: The agendas fail to provide the public with sufficient advance notice of what will be discussed in the closed-door sessions.

In Mannford, the agenda for the school board's April 11 meeting did not include the names of any district employees even though an executive session was listed to "consider and possibly act upon the following personnel issues: (1) Submitted resignations; (2) Upcoming renewal of certified and support personnel; (3) Employment of special education teacher; Authorized by 25 O.S. 307 (B)(1)."

Waldvogel told the Mannford Eagle on Monday that the school board had offered a list of all district employees and contended that any one of those could be discussed in the executive session.

That contention is nonsense.

A 1997 attorney general opinion says agenda items for an executive session under the personnel exemption must include either the employee's name or job title if it "is so unique as to allow adequate identification."(1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)

A 2006 attorney general opinion emphasized, "Limiting the exception to the discussion of particular individuals protects the confidentiality of current or prospective public officers or employees and preserves the public’s right to be informed about government processes." (2006 OK AG 17, ¶ 9)

The purpose of listing the name or unique title is to identify the specific employee to be discussed. That requirement wouldn't be necessary if a public body could simply list ALL employees, as Waldvogel contends, to camouflage who actually will be discussed behind closed doors.

Listing all employees provides the public with no more actual advance notice than not listing any would. That's why the 1997 attorney general opinion didn't provide it as an alternative to keeping secret the names of those who would be discussed.

In Broken Arrow on Monday, the school board's agenda did not list employees to be discussed even though one statutory authorization listed for the executive session was the personnel exception.

The other statutory authorization listed was the Open Meeting Act's exception for "Discussing any matter where disclosure of information would violate confidentiality requirements of state or federal law." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(7))

How that exception applied wasn't explained on the agenda and isn't obvious.

According to The Broken Arrow Ledger, the school board approved reorganizing the administration by:

• Appointing new high school and middle school principals;
• Promoting the executive director of curriculum to a cabinet-level position as the district’s chief academic officer;
• Moving a principal to director of instructional services; and
• Naming the Performing Arts Center director as the executive director of fine arts.

Those are all personnel actions. The names of those employees should have been listed on the agenda.

In Norman, the City Council's agenda did not list the specific workers' compensation cases. The exception cited was attorney-client privilege. However, the agenda listed five cases involving the city of Norman. Why weren't the compensation cases specified?

(Click here for a previous posting regarding the attorney-client exemption under OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(4).)

And don't forget that the Bernice Board of Trustees held executive sessions on March 14 and April 11 to discuss creating "a town maintenance" position even though the 2006 attorney general opinion prohibits closed-door sessions to discuss "a job opening for a public officer or employee when no particular individual is to be discussed."

These attorney general opinions aren't new. The elected officials -- school board and city council members alike -- are expected to know the state Open Meeting law.

In Mannford, Waldvogel told the newspaper that if the school board violated any laws they would deal with it.

More important, however, is what the district attorneys for each of these towns will do about it. Violating the Open Meeting Act is a crime. The public must rely on the district attorneys to uphold that law.


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.

2 Norman City Council candidates pledge support for open government

Two candidates for the Norman City Council have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

By doing so, Roger Gallagher and Brande Kauffman each promised, "I and the public bodies that I am elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

Gallagher is seeking the Ward 1 seat being vacated by Councilman Al Atkins.

Kauffman is running for the Ward 7 seat. Incumbent Doug Chubberly is not seeking re-election.

The election is March 1.

By signing the pledge, Kauffman and Gallagher 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."

Instructions and a list of signers for the 2011 elections can be found on FOI Oklahoma’s website.

FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in spring 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.


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

Norman City Council cleared of Open Meeting Act allegations

An executive session discussion on how to finance the purchase of right-of-way for a road project did not violate the Open Meeting Act, the Payne County district attorney has concluded.

According to media reports, Rob Hudson said the Norman City Council's discussion of financing options for property associated with the Rock Creek Road overpass project was allowed under the exemption for the "purchase or appraisal of real property."

Hudson concluded that talking about funding sources “is a natural and normal aspect of purchasing real property,” The Norman Transcript reported.

Hudson also indicated that the councilors were protected because City Attorney Jeff Bryant participated in the executive session and should have told them that the discussion was potentially illegal.

The OSBI investigation into the June 2009 meeting was requested by Norman City Councilman Tom Kovach, who is a Democratic candidate for House District 44.

Perhaps because of the OSBI investigation, open government seemed to be a campaign issue in Norman's municipal election this past spring. Among the four candidates who signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge were Mayor Cindy Rosenthal and Ward 4 Councilor Carol Dillingham, both of whom were re-elected.

For background on the legal issues surrounding the executive session: OSBI investigating complaint that Norman City Council violated Open Meeting Act

For more coverage of Hudson's decision not to prosecute: Norman council members cleared of allegation they violated Open Meeting Act, Jane Glenn Cannon, The Oklahoman, July 14, 2010.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Incumbents promising open government win re-election in Norman

Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal and Ward 4 Councilor Carol Dillingham were re-elected Tuesday night, the Norman Transcript reported.

Each has pledged, "I and the public bodies that I am elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

By signing FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s Open Government Pledge, Rosenthal and Dillingham 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.”

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is looking into a Norman city councilman's complaint that the council violated the Open Meeting Act during an executive session on June 9.

Councilman Tom Kovach, who also has signed the Open Government Pledge, had contacted FOI Oklahoma on June 18 about the meeting. He believes that the council's discussion about financing the Rock Creek Road overpass at Interstate 35 violated the law because the agenda item for the executive session listed only the acquisition of right-of-way for the construction.

Perhaps because of the OSBI investigation, open government seemed to be a campaign issue in Norman.

Rosenthal's opponent, Ward 3 Councilor Hal Ezzell, signed the pledge in December.

Rosenthal received 54 percent of the vote.

In the Ward 4 race, one of Dillingham's three opponents, Austin Dyches, had also signed the pledge.

Dillingham received 72 percent of the vote.

Let's hope open government remains a priority for the mayor and council and that they live up to their promises.


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

Candidates for Norman City Council, House District 44 sign Open Government Pledge

Two candidates for Norman City Council Ward 4 have signed FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s Open Government Pledge.

By doing so, Carol Dillingham and Austin Dyches each promised, "I and the public bodies that I am elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

Dillingham, the incumbent, faces Dyches and two other opponents in the March 2 election.

Norman's two mayoral candidates also have made the same commitment.

Isaiah McCaslin, a Democrat seeking the state House District 44 seat in Norman, also has vowed to support open government in Oklahoma. He is the first candidate for a legislative seat in the fall 2010 election to sign the pledge.

Legislative candidates specifically promise to "support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites other legislative candidates and those running for statewide and municipal offices 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

Norman councilman signs Open Government Pledge

Norman Councilman Tom Kovach has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge as he runs for re-election in the city's municipal election on March 2.

Kovach, who represents Ward 2, is the second candidate in the election to sign the pledge. Councilman Hal Ezzell signed as a mayoral candidate.

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. invites candidates for municipal offices and school board seats this spring to sign the pledge to uphold the letter and spirit of the state's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

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

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

They also 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.”

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

Norman mayoral candidate signs Open Government Pledge

Norman Councilman Hal Ezzell has signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge as a candidate for mayor in the city's municipal election on March 2.

Ezzell pledged that the city's government would "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.”

Municipal candidates also 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.”

Ezzell, who represents Ward 3, is the first candidate in a 2010 election to sign the pledge.

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.

Signers are listed on the FOI Oklahoma Web site, where the pledge form is available for download.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

Norman City Council and Planning Commission meetings to be streamed on Web

Norman City Council and Planning Commission meetings should be available for live viewing and viewing on demand via the Internet by January, The Oklahoman reported today.

The city is paying more than $49,500 to Granicas Inc. for the Webcasting/video streaming software and more than $1,600 a month to the company for hosting and management services.

The Oklahoman story provides more details on the arrangement with Granicas and also about a $48,000 automated agenda management program being purchased by the city.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor

OSBI investigating complaint that Norman City Council violated Open Meeting Act

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation is looking into a Norman city councilman's complaint that the Council violated the Open Meeting Act during an executive session on June 9, The Norman Transcript reported Saturday.

Councilman Tom Kovach had contacted FOI Oklahoma on June 18 about the meeting. He believes that the council's discussion about financing the Rock Creek Road overpass at Interstate 35 violated the law because the agenda item for the executive session listed only the acquisition of right-of-way for the construction.

Kovach noted that financing a construction project is not one of the nine topics permitted for executive sessions under the Open Meeting Act.

However, the purchase or appraisal of real property is a permitted topic. The meeting is “limited to members of the public body, the attorney for the public body, and the immediate staff of the public body. No landowner, real estate salesperson, broker, developer, or any other person who may profit directly or indirectly by a proposed transaction concerning real property which is under consideration may be present or participate in the executive session." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(D))

Councilman Doug Cubberley recused himself and left the room during the discussion of the acquistion. But when the discussion moved to paying for the project, Kovach said, Cubberley was brought back into the room "since the financing was a separate issue."

According to The Norman Transcript, Cubberley said he left the executive session because if the Council decided to condemn a certain property, the owner might hire Cubberley's law partner as legal representative. Cubberley said the city's legal staff said he did not need to recuse himself but that he felt uncomfortable staying for the discussion.

He returned to discuss options for purchasing rights of way.

The financing is part of a controversial Tax Increment Financing District.

At the Council's June 23 meeting, Kovach complained publicly that the Council had violated the Open Meeting Act during its executive session on June 9.

City Attorney Jeff Bryant does not believe the Council violated the law.

In a memo obtained by The Norman Transcript, Bryant told the Council, "The question here is whether the description of the business and purpose of the session (to discuss the acquisition of real property associated with the Rock Creek Road Overpass) was sufficient to include discussion of which property would be acquired, the mechanism by which it was proposed to be acquired (purchase) and how the property would be acquired, i.e. funding source."

He said he believes the council complied "with the spirit and intent of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act," saying the the agenda "contained sufficient information to inform the public that an executive session would be proposed, identified the business and purpose of the session and stated the statute provision that authorized the executive session."

An FOI Oklahoma Blog posting in response to Kovach explained that subsequent public discussion and action would not excuse a violation of the Open Meeting Act.

In the memo, Bryant also addressed whether the law was violated by Councilman-elect Alan Atkins' presence during the executive session.

Bryant said no violation occurred because Atkins, who had not been sworn in, was present as an elected official, not as a private citizen, and did not stand to profit from the property acquisition.

An OSBI official told The Transcript that the investigation is in the "initial stages." The investigation was requested by Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn, the official said.


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