skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A district judge is expected to rule by Friday on whether the Woodward Industrial Foundation must comply with the state Open Meeting Act.
The foundation is challenging Woodward County District Attorney Hollis Thorp's recent opinion that it is a public body subject to the Open Meeting Act.
Judge Paul K. Woodward heard arguments in the case last Monday. Attorneys for the foundation and Thorp were expected to submit their written legal arguments today. (Woodward Indust. Found. v. Oklahoma, CV-2012-00058 (Woodward Co. Sept. 10, 2012))
In a letter to the foundation on Aug. 28, Thorp provided no explanation for his conclusion.
WIF Board Chairman Alan Case II disagreed with Thorp, telling the Woodward News that the foundation receives public funding through "contracts with the City of Woodward to provide economic development and business recruitment services."
That would mean the foundation is not a public body under a 2002 attorney general opinion, which said, "Private organizations which contract with a governmental body and are reimbursed for identifiable goods or services are not public bodies under the Act." (2002 OK AG 37, ¶ 17)
"Receiving payment from public funds for performing specific services or providing goods pursuant to a contract is not the same as being 'supported' by public funds," the opinion agreed. (Id. ¶ 15)
In contrast, the opinion said, a private organization would be supported by public funds if
It did not submit itemized invoices for services rendered to receive public funds but instead received a direct allocation of public funds and
There was no direct relationship to the amount of services performed by the private entity and the funds it was allocated because the entity received funds regardless of whether it performed services. (Id. ¶ 18)
The question is whether the Woodward Industrial Foundation receives public funds to operate regardless of what it does or receives a payment for performing specific services. The former meaning it is subject to the Open Meeting and Open Records laws. The latter meaning it’s not.
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.
An attorney representing four Oklahoma City TV stations says they won't appeal a judge's order banning cameras from the same courthouse floor as criminal proceedings involving an Oklahoma County judge and her husband, The Associated Press reports.
Robert D. Nelon has said the order by Judge Paul Woodward is blatantly unconstitutional.
I'm told the decision not to appeal is about newsroom budgets, not the chances of winning. OKC stations spent a lot of money attempting to get cameras into the courtroom for the murder trial of pharmacist Jerome Ersland.
Coincidentally, it was Oklahoma County Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure who initially approved allowing cameras in the Ersland trial courtroom. Now it's her criminal trial in the Oklahoma County Courthouse that Judge Paul Woodward is keeping television cameras away from.
On Tuesday, Woodward refused to hear Nelon's motion challenging the judge's order that TV cameras be kept away "from the immediate vicinity" of his Oklahoma County courtroom during hearings for Bass-LeSure. Woodward threatened to have TV crews arrested for contempt and to confiscate their cameras if he sees them near the courtroom again.
Unfortunately, Oklahoma County voters -- in whose courthouse Woodward is hearing motions regarding criminal allegations against one of their elected officials -- won't have any say the next time Woodward's name is on the ballot.
Woodward is a Garfield County judge but is hearing this case because his Oklahoma County counterparts recused themselves.
On Wednesday, a FOX 25 reporter and videographer learned that television cameras aren't banned from the hallways of the Garfield County Courthouse.
When the news crew shot video of Woodward's office door from the hallway, one of the judge's staffers asked, "Have you gotten permission to do that?" The news crew replied, "It's a public hallway."
Chief Judge Dennis Hladik told the reporter that the news media has a right to be in the Garfield County Courthouse.
So what is Woodward's compelling reason for banning them from the Oklahoma County Courthouse floor? Don't know. He hasn't given one. And he won't if the news stations don't ask a higher court to overturn his order.
Woodward's order starts down a slippery slope. May he ban TV crews from the entire courthouse or even the sidewalk outside? That's no more farfetched than his banning them from an entire floor of the courthouse.
Before newspaper folks start rejoicing over the ban on TV cameras, they should ask whether Woodward's order applies to them as well. Won't they want to shoot videos of interviews outside the courtroom if an actual trial occurs? Seems to be the thing to do in an era of converged media.
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.
Judge Paul Woodward wouldn't hear legal arguments on Tuesday against his order banning TV cameras in the same courthouse hallway as a criminal hearing involving an Oklahoma County judge and her husband.
Woodward threatened to hold TV crews in contempt and confiscate cameras if he sees them again in the hallway outside the courtroom, KFOR and KOKH Fox 25 reported.
Woodward's order relies upon a judicial canon no longer in effect.
A Garfield County judge, Woodward was assigned the case after Oklahoma County judges recused themselves. Oklahoma County Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure and her husband are charged with perjury and making a fraudulent claim against the state for taking payments for children they adopted but who don't live with them.
On Wednesday, Woodward ruled against Bass-LeSure's motion to have District Attorney David Prater removed from the case.
In May, Woodward issued the order banning TV news cameras from the hallway near the courtroom.
Local TV stations hired media attorney Robert Nelon to fight the order.
But on Wednesday, Woodward refused to hear Nelon's arguments. (Ironically, when Woodward announced his candidacy for a district judgeship a year ago, he said, "You want someone you feel like you have a fair chance with, who’ll listen to both sides.")
Nelon said Woodward had apparently "only skimmed the motion and hadn't fully read it."
"He just told us to get out of the courthouse," Nelon said.
He believes Woodward's order is "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The judge has the right under the law to control access in terms of a camera inside the courtroom," Nelon told KOCO and KFOR. "And he can probably tell you not to shoot [video] through the window of the courtroom.
"But I don't think the judge has the constitutional power to tell you that you can't be in a public place," said Nelon.
Woodward cited a judicial canon that had been in effect since 1997. The canon required the trial judge's permission first before cameras could be used in the courtroom. The canon did not require a judge's permission for news cameras to be used in courthouse hallways.
Also, the judicial canon hasn't been in effect since April 15. The state Supreme Court in December adopted a new Code of Judicial Conduct that makes no mention of cameras in courtrooms.
The change came at the recommendation of the Oklahoma Bar Association.
An OBA committee "discussed this issue at length but eventually decided that such rules did not belong in a Code of Judicial Conduct. These rules, if they are to be kept, would be better placed in the Rules for the District Courts or some other set of rules," according to the final report presented to the OBA membership for approval in November.
An attorney for the Oklahoma Press Association said judges should not construe the deletion of the regulations "as a direction that cameras in the courtroom are not allowed."
"Judges will hereafter have to decide on their own whether to allow cameras in the courtroom and, if so, will have to create their own ad hoc guidelines," wrote Michael Minnis.
Prior to formally opposing Woodward's order, the stations tried to meet with the presiding judge but got no response, reported FOX 25.
The station also reported that county commissioners are divided over whether they have the authority to require the judge to allow cameras in the courthouse hallway. Commissioner Brian Maughan said he would seek an opinion from Prater on the issue.
For now, Nelon points out, Woodward's order prohibits TV crews from a public area of the courthouse while allowing print journalists to "roam freely, to interview people, to stand where they want to, but the electronic media can't do the same thing."
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.
