Prosecuting state Pardon and Parole Board is right call

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater's prosecution of the state Pardon and Parole Board for Open Meeting Act violations is drawing unwarranted criticism from the governor and The Oklahoman's editorial writers.
 
All five board members -- Currie Ballard, Richard L. Dugger, Marc Dreyer, Lynnell Harkins and David Moore -- pleaded not guilty on Thursday to multiple counts of violating the statute.
 
Prater alleges the board broke the law by discussing and voting on early parole consideration for inmates without listing such actions as agenda items. Instead, he says, the votes took place under the vague agenda item of "Docket Modifications," which included no other information.
 
Board members have said those votes only determined whether an inmate would be placed on the docket of a future meeting, at which time the inmate's name would appear on the board's website.
 
After charges were filed Wednesday, Gov. Mary Fallin said it "will have a chilling effect on individuals interested in public service."
 
"It is difficult to imagine men and women who are leaders in their communities wishing to serve in these positions — the vast majority of which draw no salary — if they are constantly in fear of being charged with a crime while making a good-faith effort to follow the law and the recommendations of their paid legal advisers," said Fallin.
 
(The Oklahoman echoed that concern in an editorial Friday.)
 
Fallin appointed Ballard, Dreyer and Moore to the board in 2011.
 
As a gubernatorial candidate in 2010, Fallin said she would expect her appointees to public bodies to abide by the state's Open Meeting Act. But her comments this week are an insult to the thousands of Oklahomans who serve on state and local boards and commissions without violating the statute.
 
The Open Meeting Act, as our Court of Civil Appeals noted in 1981, "is not obscure or incomprehensible." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 18)
 
"On the contrary, anyone with ten minutes to spare can read the whole thing and understand virtually every word,” the court said. "Lack of familiarity is no excuse."
 
The Open Meeting Act certainly shouldn't have been incomprehensible to the five parole board members. Three -- Ballard, Dreyer and Harkins -- previously served on the board. And four have experience in enforcing the law: Dreyer is a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent; Dugger was a longtime district attorney in western Oklahoma; Harkins is an attorney and former special judge; and Moore is a former U.S. Secret Service agent.
 
All five also had no excuse because the state Attorney General's Office told them in April 2011 that agendas must give the public actual notice of the actions that might be taken in a meeting.
 
In an affidavit filed with the charges, Prater's chief investigator, Gary Eastridge, described what he heard in the audio recording of the hourlong open government training session that Gay Tudor, then an assistant attorney general, conducted with the board.
 
While Tudor was suggesting more details be added to agenda items, Eastridge said, "a female voice can be heard referencing 'docket modifications.""
 
Eastridge said Tudor made clear that board members could not take action if the possibility of that action was not listed on the agenda.
 
"The female (believed to be Mrs. Harkins) then specifically says 'that would be like docket modification item where we are going to bring someone forward.'"
 
Eastridge said Tudor emphasized during the session that the agenda is "a really big thing" and that agendas should include enough information for people to have an idea of what the board intended to do.
 
None of what Tudor told the board was new.
 
The Open Meeting Act says each agenda "shall 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 language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence," the state 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, ¶ 9)
 
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," the court said. (Id. at ¶ 9)
 
Because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1981, 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 that year. "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)
 
Violating the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor. If convicted, the Pardon and Parole Board members could be punished by up to one year in the county jail and a $500 fine.
 
Those "light penalties for violating the [state's open records and meeting] laws only exacerbate the problem. Unless that changes, behavior isn't likely to either," The Oklahoman's editorial staff lamented in late August.
 
In the 2011 training session, Eastridge said, a board member asked Tudor if "intent" had to be proved for a criminal violation of the Open Meeting Act. She responded that willful violations don't require intent, only "'whether you knew or should have known and see now you know.'"
 
So the parole board members don't seem to fit Fallin's description of appointees making a good-faith effort to follow the Open Meeting Act and the recommendations of legal counsel.
 
Fallin also implied that political appointees serving on statewide boards and commissions fall into the same category as volunteers for charitable organizations. But the members of these government bodies make important decisions regarding state policies and spending.
 
The Pardon and Parole Board, for example, is "a vital part of the criminal justice system" whose mission "is to determine the best possible decision, through a case-by-case investigative process and to protect the public while recommending the supervised released of adult felons."
 
As Prater emphasized: "Public Safety is a core function of our government. As alleged, the Board was making crucial public safety decisions without giving the citizens of Oklahoma an opportunity to scrutinize its activities."
 
None of these statewide boards and commissions, however, is directly answerable to voters for their actions.
 
And if a Washington County district court judge is correct, civil lawsuits over Open Meeting violations may be filed only if the plaintiff was directly harmed.
 
Instead, 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," Judge Russell Vaclaw said in 2011.
 
Yet, Oklahomans have heard from district attorneys a long list of unfounded excuses for not prosecuting Open Meeting Act violations. When a district attorney chose not to file charges in 2011 because city council members hadn't intended to break the law, The Oklahoman complained:

Wouldn't we all love to get away with that excuse if we're pulled over for a traffic violation? Gee officer, I didn't mean to do it.

And in early August prior to Prater publicly criticizing the parole board's agendas, The Oklahoman complained about the lack of teeth in the state's open government laws, saying, "Prosecutors often are in no hurry to pursue what is a misdemeanor offense, nor do they like going after other public servants — the people who violate those laws."
 
But in an editorial Monday questioning Prater's decision to file charges against the parole board, The Oklahoman editorial asked, "What does it profit the state for members of this board to take a perp walk?"
 
The Oklahoman had answered its own question in a 2011 editorial titled "Ignorance of open meeting laws no excuse for public officials."

The laws regarding public meetings are black and white, and need to be adhered to. And those charged with enforcing the law need to do just that.
 
Why? Because laws regarding open meetings and open records allow the public to see how their tax money is being spent, how their elected officials are conducting their business. This is vitally important in our society.
 
When public officials try to avoid that light, they ought to be punished.

That remains true today.
 
Prosecuting the parole board is the right call.
 

 
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
 
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
 

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

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

 
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
 
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
 

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

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

 
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
 
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.