OU Graduate Student Senate passes two unlisted bills in apparent violation of Open Meeting Act

OU's Graduate Student Senate apparently violated the state Open Meeting Act on Sunday when it approved two bills not listed on the agenda for that night's regular meeting, The Oklahoma Daily reported today.

The GSS unanimously approved five members to the spring election board and established polling sites for the election, the student newspaper reported.

The author of the two bills said she had submitted them to the appropriate officials the previous Monday. But, somehow, the bills weren't listed on the agenda.

Graduate Student Senate Chair Derrell Cox told the newspaper that GSS leaders decided to propose the bills despite the lack of public notice.

“It was our consensus in the executive meeting that [the legislation] would go forward,” Cox said. “I don’t know exactly who dropped the ball, but someone within the Senate dropped the ball in getting that posted.”

GSS leaders apparently felt pressured to approve the bills because of a requirement that the number and location of polling places be established at least three academic weeks prior to the elections on March 29 and 30.

The election is more than four weeks away, but the GSS won't have another regular meeting until March 6. Spring break is March 14-18.

However, calling a special meeting for this week would have given the public the required notice and avoided a violation of the Open Meeting Act.

Anyone convicted of violating the Open Meeting Act can by punished by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine. Also, any action taken in "willful violation" of the statute is "invalid." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 313)

In 2010, Boynton's three town trustees were charged with violating the Open Meeting Act after voting to appoint a town manager even though no such item was on the agenda for the special meeting.

The Open Meeting Act clearly requires that each agenda "identify all items of business to be transacted" by the public body at the meeting. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(1))

Agendas should be worded in "plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting, in order to give the public actual notice," the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said. (Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

The court said any act or omission that "has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting" would be a "willful" violation of the Open Meeting Act. That includes any agency action exceeding the scope of action defined by the notice.

Any construction of the statute that would allow a public body to consider an item not listed on its posted agenda – apart from "new business" – "totally vitiates the underlying mandate of the OMA to notify the public of the time and place of meetings of a public body, and the matters the public body intends to consider," the Court of Civil Appeals said in 2009. (Okmulgee Co. Rural Water Dist. No. 2 v. Beggs Pub. Works Auth., 2009 OK CIV APP 51)

The statute defines "new business" as "any matter not known about or which could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of posting." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(9))

At OU, the bills selecting members of the election board and establishing polling places were submitted to legislative leaders six days before the meeting. And those leaders should have known they were facing a deadline for the election.

The Open Meeting Act also permits emergency meetings. An emergency "is defined as a situation involving injury to persons or injury and damage to public or personal property or immediate financial loss when the time requirements for public notice of a special meeting would make such procedure impractical and increase the likelihood of injury or damage or immediate financial loss." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 304(5))

Establishing election board members and polling sites four weeks in advance of an election does not meet the statutory definition of an emergency meeting.

The Open Meeting Act is not a nuisance law to be ignored when it's inconvenient for elected officials, including college students who have taken responsibility for governing their classmates.

As our Court of Appeals said, the purpose of the Open Meeting Act "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems ... is defeated if the required notice is deceptively worded or materially obscures the stated purpose of the meeting." (1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

That holds true even on the University of Oklahoma campus.


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

OU Regents claim loopholes in Open Meeting Act to bar student reporter from committee meetings

A reporter for The Oklahoma Daily was prohibited by the legal counsel for The University of Oklahoma Board of Regents on Wednesday from attending four committee meetings where, as the student newspaper points out, "public business regarding university building plans and fees were discussed."

The reporter was barred from meetings of the board's audit and finance, Norman campus, Health Sciences Center campus and athletics committees, the newspaper reports today .

In an e-mail to the newspaper, OU regents legal counsel Anil Gollahalli called the meetings "informational subcommittee meetings to allow members of the Board to more fully find facts relevant to items that may considered by the full Board in public session."

The Open Meeting Act clearly states that the definition of public body "shall include all committees or subcommittees of any public body." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 304(1))

But Gollahalli told the newspaper, "To ensure that the entire Board always gathers in meetings open to the public, subcommittees are composed of no more than three members of the Board such that subcommittees lack a quorum."

In other words, the regents purposefully meet in groups smaller than a quorum of the full board as a way to avoid discussing the public's business in front of the public.

A loophole in the Open Meeting Act's definition of "meeting" allows a group smaller than the majority of a public body to meet secretly to discuss the public’s business.

But does that apply if the three members of a public body constitute the entire membership for a committee of that public body? A quorum of the committee is meeting to discuss public business.

So how does Gollahalli attempt to bypass that problem? By saying the committees have no independent decision-making authority.

"The informational nature of the subcommittees are such that no subcommittee has independent decision-making authority, ensuring that no decision of the Board ever occurs without participation of the full Board and the public's knowledge," he told the newspaper.

That relies on an exception the state Supreme Court carved out for sub-entities -- typically ad hoc committees or citizens advisory committees -- empanelled only for the purpose of furnishing information and recommendations to a governing or decision-making entity.

A subordinate entity -- a Citizen's Advisory Committee in that case -- with no actual or de facto decision-making authority would be exempt from the Open Meeting Act, the court said in Sanders v. Benton, 1978 OK 53.

HOWEVER, Sanders was based on language found in the 1971 Open Meeting Act, which was in effect when the Citizen’s Advisory Committee met.

The current statutory language including "all committees or subcommittees of any public body" in the definition of public body was added in 1977.

A 1981 attorney general relied upon that "expanded definition" to decide that Job Content Evaluation Committees were "the subcommittees of a public body, the State Personnel Board." (1981 OK AG 214)

Then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright explained the effect of the change in statutory language since the Sanders decision, saying:

In construing this former act, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that whether a subordinate entity came within the purview of the Act depended on the authority the subordinate entity exercises, and not upon the source of its financial support.

Thus, under the old open meeting law, a determination of whether a subordinate entity came within the Act was dependent upon the decision-making power of the entity. Such, however, is no longer the law.

Under the new Open Meeting Act, the term 'public body' was enlarged to include, '... all committees or subcommittees of any public body.' The Job Content Evaluation Committees come within this expanded definition, for they are the subcommittees of a public body, the State Personnel Board. (¶¶ 7-8)

Despite that explanation and reasoning, the state Supreme Court said the Sanders rule regarding subordinate entities and their decision-making authority still applied to the current Open Meeting Act because the "1977 changes merely added several new categories to the definition of 'public body.'" (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 9)

But the key question in International Association of Firefighters was whether the Sanders rule on subordinate entities applied to "an individual."

The court concluded that the Legislature had not intended for the 1977 revisions to expand the Sanders doctrine to include an individual.

The court failed to address what the Legislature had meant when it changed the statute to explicitly state that the definition of public body "shall include all committee or subcommittees of any public body."

Had legislators overridden the rule set forth in Sanders? Attorney General Cartwright believed so in 1981.

So we're back to asking what the OU regents' committees do? If they make recommendations, do they cull options from the list? That would be making a decision and require them to comply with the Open Meeting Act.

And does the Sanders rule apply to standing committees of a public body?

But the real question here is why shouldn't the public be allowed to attend "informational subcommittee meetings" in which members of a public body "more fully find facts relevant to items that may considered by the full Board in public session."

It is, after all, the public's business.

Our state Court of Civil Appeals has said the "Sunshine legislation reaches, not just 'formal' meetings, but the 'entire decision-making process.'" (Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 12)

Our state Supreme Court has said, "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed." (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, ¶ 10)

Because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public’s benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court has said, 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)

Gollahalli said, "The University and its governing Board are committed to openness and transparency and endeavor to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws."

But the OU regents and their legal counsel are using a strict compliance with the letter of the law to defeat its purpose, which is "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems."

When a public body does the legal equivalent of the limbo to avoid the Open Meeting Act, it doesn’t build the public's trust or confidence in government. Instead, it raises suspicion that corruption is occurring behind those closed doors. It creates the appearance that back-room deals are being cut. And it certainly doesn't demonstrate a commitment to openness and transparency.

Unfortunately, OU regents aren't alone among university and college administrators in this regard. But perhaps OU's regents will reconsider. One can only hope.


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

OU student government not posting agendas online or filing meeting notices as required by state law

The UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress hasn't been posting meeting notices and agendas on its website or filing meeting notices as required by state law, The Oklahoma Daily reported Thursday.

Until being questioned by a reporter, the Student Congress had not posted meeting agendas since November, the student-run newspaper reported.

The newspaper noted that agendas were being added at press time Wednesday night.

The newspaper also reported that the list of Student Congress representatives was from last school year.

State law requires that public bodies with websites post at least the names of their members. The same statute also requires these public bodies to post their meeting notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings. The same information for special and emergency meetings should be posted "[w]hen reasonably possible." (Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 3106.2(A))

Student Congress Chairman Brett Stidham told the newspaper that the public body's website is under construction so members can easily update it.

The newspaper also reported that the Student Congress had not filed its meeting notices with the Cleveland County Clerk by the deadline required by the state Open Meeting Act.

Under the statute, public bodies that "exist under the auspices of a state institution of higher education, but a majority of whose members are not members of the institution's governing board, shall give such notice to the county clerk of the county wherein the institution is principally located." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(6))

Notice of regular meetings must be filed with the county clerk by Dec. 15 of the preceding year. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(1))

But the Student Congress did not file the notice of its fall meetings until Aug. 10, the newspaper found.

Providing the public with proper notices and agendas for public meetings is at the “very heart” of the Open Meeting Act, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals said in 1981.  (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57)

Student government associations at public universities are subject to the Open Meeting Act if they are sub-entities of a board of higher education and have actual or de facto decision-making authority, according to a 1979 state Attorney General Opinion. (1979 OK AG 134, ¶ 3)

Speaking specifically about Oklahoma State University’s Student Government and Residence Halls associations, the opinion stated:

These two bodies have the authority to make decisions concerning the student population of the University from which no student may be exempted and also make decisions concerning the dispersement [sic] of funds collected.

With that power, it should be added, comes a responsibility to abide by both the letter and spirit of the law whose purpose is “to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)

The citizenry even includes college students wanting to know what their student government is doing.



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

OU student government rescinds, repasses bill because of possible Open Meeting Act violation

The UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress rescinded and then approved again on Tuesday a bill originally approved last week in a possible violation of the state Open Meeting Act, the University of Oklahoma student newspaper reported today.

The Oklahoma Daily had criticized the student legislators for violating the Open Meeting Act. The newspaper had reported that the UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress approved a bill not listed as an item on the group’s agenda in its office.

An attorney told the newspaper that the bill was not "new business" because it could have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time the agenda was posted.

“The fact that ‘Joe College’ thought of it just before the meeting does not mean it’s new business,” said Jim Milton of Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson LLP in Tulsa.


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