AG says Open Meeting Act doesn't apply when public bodies discuss 'broad general matters' possibly related to their business but on which they cannot take action

Public bodies don't have to abide by the Open Meeting Act when meeting with governmental agencies or private entities to discuss "broad general matters that may be related to the business of the public body, but are not matters on which the public body could take action," Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in a written opinion issued today.
 
Instead, Pruitt said, the statute applies only when public bodies are "considering discrete proposals or specific matters that are within the agency's jurisdiction."
 
For example, Pruitt said the state Corporation Commission isn't subject to the Open Meeting Act when meeting with other governmental agencies "to discuss mutual business, or attends a meeting of a private entity concerning a topic of interest to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's business, ... unless, at the meeting, the commissioners are considering discrete proposals or specific matters that are within their jurisdiction."
 
And the statute wouldn't apply when two of the three commissioners attends a state Senate or House "meeting to provide information about the Commission's business to aid the Legislature in its process of decision-making" because the commissioners would not be "considering discrete proposals or specific matters within their jurisdiction."
 
But when at least two commissioners are present at a public utility hearing, the Open Meeting Act applies because "the commissioners are engaged in the 'conduct of business' because they are considering discrete proposals or specific matters that are within their jurisdiction."
 
Even though Pruitt's 19-page opinion dealt with the Open Meeting Act's application to the Corporation Commission, it sets the framework for other public bodies seeking to discuss issues of public concern with governmental agencies and even private entities.
 
The Open Meeting Act defines a meeting as:

[T]he conduct of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or, ... together pursuant to a videoconference. Meeting shall not include informal gatherings of a majority of the members of the public body when no business of the public body is discussed. (OKLA. STAT tit. 25, §, 304(2))

Pruitt noted that opinions by his predecessors "do not limit the types of discussion that fall under the Act to those that 'effectively predetermine official actions,' and speak in broader terms about discussion, deliberation, and voting as all being the 'conduct of business.'"
 
He also noted 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)
 
"As a result," Pruitt reasoned, "the state law term 'conduct of business' might well include discussions in which the members of the public body are considering information that will aid them in their decision-making, even though those discussions do not necessarily 'effectively predetermine their official actions' or cause the members to form a reasonably firm position on the matter at that moment.
 
"[H]owever, we do not believe that even a liberal construction of the term 'conduct of business' could include broad general matters that may be related to the business of the public body, but are not matters on which the public body could take action.
 
"A public body is thus engaged in the 'conduct of public business' when a majority of the members are considering discrete proposals or specific matters that are within the agency's jurisdiction."
 
For instance, Pruitt said, when at least two corporation commissioners are present at the same time at a legislative public utility hearing, the hearing is subject to the Open Meeting Act because they are "participating in discussions of discrete proposals regarding the regulation of a public utility, a matter within their jurisdiction."
 
"Citizens observing the commissioners at the public utility hearings could gain insight into how commissioners arrived at the decisions that affect their daily lives and an understanding of governmental processes," Pruitt said.
 
The Open Meeting Act would apply even if the two commissioners were "not present at the same time for the entire proceeding" or even if they had "chosen to informally 'drop in' on the same public utility hearing at the same time."
 
"Whether the Corporation Commission or another public body is engaged in the 'conduct of business' in other types of gatherings requires a consideration of the particular facts and circumstances," Pruitt emphasized.
 
As for other applications of the Open Meeting Act to the Corporation Commission, Pruitt said:

• Including meeting notices in utility bills, publishing them in newspapers, and posting them on a calendar in the lobby or other area of the Jim Thorpe Office Building fails to meet the statute's requirements.


• Minutes must record when commissioners are absent during portions of a meeting. Pruitt suggested using a notation such as "Commissioner A left the meeting" and "Commissioner A returned to the meeting" in the section of the minutes describing the matter under consideration when the commissioner left and returned. He said commissioners are absent when they are "not both visible and audible to the other members and the public."


• "Neither a court reporter's untranscribed verbatim notes nor transcript meet the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act's requirements for minutes of a public meeting."

Pruitt also said commissioners "may not post notice of and attend two separate meetings held in separate locations at the same time on the same day."
 
"As a majority of the Corporation Commission cannot be in two places at the same time, it is not possible for two 'meetings' to occur at the same time."
 
For example, notices and agendas might be posted for a commission meeting and a public utility hearing conducted by an administrative judge to be held at the same time in different locations. This would allow the commissioners "to move back and forth between the two meetings as they desired."
 
Pruitt called such a practice "misleading to the public."
 
"Rather than 'encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of governmental process and governmental problems,' it would more likely confuse and frustrate citizens who wanted to observe the commissioners actions in both the commission meeting and the public utility hearing," Pruitt said. "The public would essentially have to follow the individual commissioners back and forth from place to place.
 
"An interpretation of the Open Meeting Act to allow posting of two sets of notices for meetings held at the same time on the same day but in different locations so individual commissioners can move back and forth between the two meetings as they desire does not attain or champion the spirit and purpose of the 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.

AG: Mug shots are public records whose release isn't an invasion of privacy

Police booking mug shots are public records that must be released in electronic format if kept that way by the law enforcement agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in a formal opinion Thursday.
 
Because mug shots are public records, releasing them doesn't constitute an invasion of privacy even if the person was acquitted, Pruitt said.
 
Public access to mug shots became an issue in June when the Cleveland County district attorney's office briefly said the photos taken at the county jail would not be released to the public unless there was a legitimate "law enforcement purpose."
 
Assistant District Attorney David Batton justified the decision as protecting the privacy of innocent people who've been arrested and because the photos were being requested by publications that Batton apparently didn't like.
 
Batton also argued that releasing the mug shots could leave county officials vulnerable to lawsuits. He also contended that Oklahoma should abide by a federal appellate decision limiting the release of such photos under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
 
Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn reversed Batton's opinion about a week later and dismissed him.
 
Pruitt's opinion refuted Batton's arguments.
 
Mug shots are public because the Open Records Act requires law enforcement agencies to make available the descriptions of people arrested, Pruitt said. (See Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1))
 
"The inclusion of a picture within the term description has long been recognized by law," Pruitt said. "Because a mug shot is one of the best physical descriptions on an arrestee, it is a type of record that must be disclosed."
 
Pruitt said the mug shots must be given to "any person" who requests them. Electronic copies must be provided if requested and the law enforcement agency keeps the photos in that format.
 
An agency isn't required to convert the photos into an electronic format but may charge a reasonable fee for doing so, Pruitt said.
 
Simply releasing the photos "would not constitute an invasion of privacy because mug shots are public records, required by law to be disclosed upon request," Pruitt said.
 
"By itself, the act of disclosing a mug shot is not enough to constitute an invasion of privacy even if the person has been acquitted," Pruitt said. "This is because a mug shot taken during the booking process does not show that the person has been convicted of a crime but only that the person has been arrested and booked into jail.
 
"An invasion of privacy may occur when the disclosure of the mug shot is accompanied by a knowing or reckless false communication that the person in the mug shot has been convicted of a crime."
 
Pruitt emphasized that the opinion applies only to the mug shots of adults, not to confidential law enforcement records of juveniles. However, he noted that if the juvenile loses that confidential status, the mug shot is subject to the Open Records and his opinion.
 
The opinion was requested by Sen. Ron Justice, R-Chickasha, and State Sen. Jim Halligan, R-Stillwater.
 

 
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. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

AG's open meeting, records seminars start Sept. 27

Officials from the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office will answer questions about the state's Open Records and Meeting laws during a series of workshops this fall and winter.
 
The workshops are free and open to the public. Registration is not required.
 
Each will be from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
 
The first is Sept. 27 in Lawton at the Great Plains Technology Center (Seminar Room 301, Building 300, Worley Seminar Center, 24500 W. Lee Blvd.).
 
The workshops are sponsored by Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Press Association and Oklahoma Newspaper Foundation.
 
For more information, contact Lisa Potts at OPA, (405) 499-0040, toll-free in Oklahoma at 1-888-815-2672 or lpotts@okpress.com.
 
The rest of the seminars are scheduled for:

• Oct. 18: Weatherford: Stafford Air & Space Museum, Apollo Room, 3000 Logan Road


• Oct. 25: Oklahoma City: Metro Tech Conference Center, Auditorium, 1900 Springlake Drive


• Nov. 29: McAlester: Kiamichi Technology Center, Auditorium, 301 Kiamichi Drive


• Dec. 6: Tulsa: Tulsa Technology Center - Riverside Campus, Auditorium, 801 E. 91st St.


• Dec. 13: Enid: Autry Technology Center, 22 Lectrium, 1201 W. Willow Road

The workshops will be conducted by First Assistant Attorney General Rob Hudson and Communications Director Diane Clay.
 
They will explain the statutory requirements regarding access to public records and the conduct of public meetings, as well as answer FOI-related questions.
 
Attorneys, technology center board members, and school board members and superintendents can earn three continuing education credits from the Oklahoma Bar Association, Department of Career and Technology Education, and Department of Education, respectively.
 

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

Newspaper editorial's right on message but wrong on law

I sincerely appreciate the basic message of The Oklahoman's editorial on Monday that police departments must follow the state Open Records Act.

The editorial, however, indicates that release of incident reports is subject to judicial review under the Open Records Act.

It is not.

The Open Records Act requires law enforcement agencies to make incident reports and other specified information available for public inspection. (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))

Police departments are given no leeway regarding these records.

Law enforcement agencies may deny access to other records "except where a court finds that the public interest or the interest of an individual outweighs the reason for denial." (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.8(B))

Contrary to the editorial, that is not a step that police have skipped. The burden is on the person seeking the records to ask a court to rule in favor of access.

The problem in Edmond and elsewhere involved police departments claiming that incident reports are part of investigatory files that may be withheld from the public at the discretion of the law enforcement agencies.

Incident reports are not part of such investigatory files.

As Attorney General Scott Pruitt recently agreed, the Open Records Act clearly distinguishes between incident report information that must be made available for inspection when requested and investigatory files that may be closed to the public

The Open Records Act states, "Access to records which, under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, would otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, shall not be denied because a public body or public official is using or has taken possession of such records for investigatory purposes or has placed the records in a litigation or investigation file." (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.20)

As Pruitt agreed, incident reports must be made available to the public when requested.

The Open Records Act does not empower law enforcement agencies to ask a court to block public access to incident reports.


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.

AG to police: Incident reports must be open for public inspection

State Attorney General Scott Pruitt wants police to know that initial incident reports may not be withheld from the public as part of investigatory files.

"The state Legislature has made it clear in this regard that a police department's initial offense report or 'cover sheet' should be open for public inspection, regardless of its inclusion in an investigation file," Pruitt said in a letter being distributed to local departments.

FOI Oklahoma Inc. asked Pruitt in late November to notify police departments that incident report information must be released when requested.

The Edmond Police Department and others in the state were refusing to provide incident reports, claiming they were part of files that wouldn't be released until investigations were completed.

That reasoning is at odds with the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which clearly distinguishes between incident reports and investigatory files. The statute states:

A. Law enforcement agencies shall make available for public inspection, if kept, the following records:

1. An arrestee description, including the name, date of birth, address, race, sex, physical description, and occupation of the arrestee;
2. Facts concerning the arrest, including the cause of arrest and the name of the arresting officer;
3. A chronological list of all incidents, including initial offense report information showing the offense, date, time, general location, officer, and a brief summary of what occurred;…”
(OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.8(A)(1-8))

The statute also states:

Access to records which, under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, would otherwise be available for public inspection and copying, shall not be denied because a public body or public official is using or has taken possession of such records for investigatory purposes or has placed the records in a litigation or investigation file.
(OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.20)

The state Legislature drew a clear distinction between incident report information that must be made available for inspection when requested and investigatory files that may be closed to the public, argued FOI Oklahoma Inc.

FOI Oklahoma's complaint wasn't the only one received by Pruitt regarding access to initial incident reports.

Pruitt said that during open government workshops this fall, his staff heard of police departments withholding the reports or delaying release "for up to a week after the incident occurred."

In Pruitt's letter Wednesday to the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police, he urged the organization to discuss the Open Records Act provisions "with police chiefs and law enforcement officers across the state to ensure they are aware of the statutes and can avoid unintended complications...."

The association will forward the letter to local police departments, Pruitt's spokeswoman Diane Clay said Sunday.

Such an explanation shouldn't be necessary because the Open Records Act is clear in this regard.

But Thank You to Pruitt for telling police to abide by the law.

Pruitt is a member of the FOI Oklahoma Inc. Board of Directors. The nonprofit is a statewide coalition advocating for open government.


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.

AG says agenda item for executive session with attorney must list name of lawsuit being settled

A state agency's agenda was too vague under the Open Meeting Act when it listed an executive session "for the purpose of considering a settlement of a lawsuit(s)," Attorney General Scott Pruitt reportedly said in an informal opinion this week.

The meeting agenda should have listed the name of the parties in the lawsuit and a brief description of the litigation, Pruitt reportedly told the Commissioners of the Land Office.

This is important because other public bodies in the state, including the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, Bartlesville Redevelopment Trust Authority, and Glenpool and Chickasha city councils, have been deliberately vague when conducting closed-door sessions with their attorneys.

The Open Meeting Act permits public bodies to conduct executive sessions to discuss

confidential communications between a public body and its attorney concerning a pending investigation, claim, or action if the public body, with the advice of its attorney, determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public body to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation, or proceeding in the public interest. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(4))

But the statute also states, "If a public body proposes to conduct an executive session, the agenda shall:

Contain sufficient information for the public to ascertain that an executive session will be proposed;

Identify the items of business and purposes of the executive session; and

State specifically the provision of Section 307 of this title authorizing the executive session." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(2)(a-c))

However, rather than stating the specific investigation, claim or action to be discussed, these public bodies have provided only the specific statutory authorization for the proposed executive session.

Their attorneys contend that the Open Meeting Act exception is subject to the statute providing for the attorney-client privilege. In other words, these government lawyers contend attorney-client privilege trumps the agenda requirements under the Open Meeting Act.

In contrast, I have contended that the specific investigation, claim or action must be identified on the agenda as required by the Open Meeting Act. I am not alone in this understanding of the statute’s requirement.

Identifying the item of business on the agenda would not nullify or impair the attorney-client privilege, which shields from third parties the content, not the topic, of confidential communications between a client and attorney, said then-Stillwater attorney Doug Wilson. (He is now an assistant district attorney for Tulsa County.)

In fact, identifying the item of business on an agenda is no different from what attorneys must already do to withhold information under the state statute governing discovery in civil lawsuits, Wilson pointed out.

That statute requires the attorney to "describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 3226(B)(5)(a))

Another attorney with experience in open government cases said identifying the claim "is extremely important."

"Absent the claim or case, the session has no limits. One can talk about whatever they want," said Michael Minnis of Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson L.L.P.

Listing the specific investigation, claim or action on the agenda is "intended to allow an initial objective evaluation that the proposed executive session meets the criteria of the cited statute and to allow a subsequent evaluation if someone objects that the executive meeting held under that agenda description exceeded the authorization," said Minnis.

"The latter refers to situations, for example, where the executive session discussed Case 1, not Case 2 as set forth in the agenda," he explained.

(For the complete explanation, read Glenpool City Council agenda omits specific item of business to be discussed with its attorney behind closed doors.)

In June, the district attorney for the Oklahoma Panhandle told a hospital board that public bodies must identify the nature of the claim or investigation on the agenda for an executive session under the Open Meeting Act's attorney-client privilege exemption.

"It is my opinion that the agenda item to consider an executive session must identify either the position or the individual who is the subject of the discussion or the nature of the investigation or claim to be discussed in the agenda that would apprise the public of the matters to be addressed in the executive session," said James M. Boring, district attorney for Cimarron, Texas, Beaver and Harper counties.

Attorney General Scott Pruitt seems to agree.

The Commissioners of the Land Office Sept. 8 agenda item listed simply "for the purpose of considering a settlement of a lawsuit(s)" when commissioners went behind closed doors to discuss a nearly $1.4 million settlement of a royalty case.

A former attorney for the public body objected to the agenda item as insufficient under the Open Meeting Act, reported the Tulsa World.

(The commissioners are Gov. Mary Fallin, Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, State Auditor Gary Jones, State schools Superintendent Janet Barresi and Agriculture Secretary Jim Reese.)

Fallin's office asked Pruitt for an informal opinion and put the settlement on hold, the Tulsa World reported.

On Friday, Judy Copeland, Fallin's general counsel, told the newspaper:

The Attorney General's Office reviewed the agenda as the governor requested and determined that the agenda item did not sufficiently describe the matter. As a result, the CLO will place the item back on the agenda at its next regularly scheduled meeting so that action can be taken.

Pruitt's advice apparently will improve the commission's future agendas as well.

"In the future, we will list all parties of pending litigation," said Terri Watkins, a spokeswoman for the agency.

Other public bodies should take note of Pruitt's opinion and do so as well.


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.

Order closing telephone companies' annual reports to public violates state Open Records Act, says Corporation Commission attorney

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission should not have closed public access in 2004 to all the annual reports it receives from telephone companies, the commission's legal counsel recently said.

Andrew Tevington said the 2004 order violates the Open Records Act by exceeding the commission's statutory authority to close public utility records in its possession.

"The scope of the order is absurd. It goes against the State’s policy that records will be open unless a good, supportable, indiviualized reason exists otherwise," said Tevington in written testimony submitted to the commission on Aug. 11.

He urged commissioners to revoke the 2004 order and to decide case by case whether any information in each telephone company's annual report should be kept confidential.

But Attorney General Scott Pruitt said,

Nothing in the express language of the [Open Records] Act dictates or restricts the manner in which the Commission makes such a determination - whether it be on a case-by-case basis particular to a specific utility or a determination that a category or type of information is confidential as applied to several utilities, as in the case of the Annual Reports.

The written testimony by Pruitt and Tevington was given as the commission considers a request by one of its officials to change the rule.

David B. Dykeman, director of the Public Utility Division, is asking commissioners to issue an order determining what information required to be in the annual report "will be deemed proprietary, confidential, and competitively sensitive."

Dykeman also wants the commission to determine "what records will be deemed proprietary, confidential, and competitively sensitive in Protective Orders."

A hearing on the merits of the request is scheduled before Administrative Law Judge Jacqueline Miller for 10:30 a.m. Thursday in Room 301 of the Jim Thorpe Building in Oklahoma City.

Tevington said the only testimony heard in 2004 was from representatives of four telephone companies and the then-Public Utility Division director.

Order No. 493818 "allowed all information in all telephone annual reports to be confidential."

Tevington contended that "goes too far for four reasons":

1. "The order is too broad. Read literally it applies even to the names of telephone companies and other information already in the public domain."
2. "The order covers too many telephone utilities. ... It applies across the board to all telephone companies without any determination of whether a specific company’s information requires protection."
3. "The order covers all of each telephone utility's annual reports without specific, individualized consideration of the information in any report. No attempt is made to discern whether any trade secrets or sensitive commercial information is even in the report."
4. "Order No. 493818 is a general order, analogous to an administrative rule, and was entered without appropriate public participation as required by" state law.

Tevington noted that the policy underlying the Open Records Act "seeks to make state government and government business transparent to the people" and that "disclosure is favored over secrecy."

He also emphasized that the Open Records Act does not create a right of individual informational privacy.

"In the ordinary course of government business, any person who submits information to a state agency has no right to keep this information confidential," Tevington said. "An expectation of confidentiality may exist only when the Legislature or Congress creates a specific exemption.

"Furthermore, even when an expectation may be created by statute, the party seeking confidentiality bears the burden of proving the specific record should be kept confidential.

"These provisions show clearly stated legislative policy requires records coming into the possession of a state agency to be presumed open to public access."

Under the Open Records Act, "The Corporation Commission shall keep confidential those records of a public utility, its affiliates, suppliers and customers which the Commission determines are confidential books and records or trade secrets." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.22(A))

Based on that statutory language, Tevington argued, "The commission's statutory ability to decide some utility information may remain confidential does not allow the OCCC to make all information confidential.

"The Legislature did not say the Commission may keep records of public utilities confidential; instead, it said OCC may 'keep confidential those records of a public untility . . . which the Commission determines are confidential books and records or trade secrets.'" (emphasis included)

Tevington concluded that the order closing all the telephone company annual reports "goes beyond the legislative grant of authority."

The statutory language "indicates a decision concerning confidentiality must be made about one utility at a time," he said. "It is not appropriate to aggregate all public utilities of a class and make a blanket pronouncement about access.

"The Open Records Act requires an individualized determination of whether a specific utility's information should be protected from public scrutiny. One size does not fit all."

Tevington said the 2004 order "is overbroad both as to the number of entities it covers and as to the type of information is covers" and violates "the Open Records Act's requirements for specific findings."

He also noted that the telephone companies receive money from the Oklahoma Lifeline Fund and the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund.

"These legislatively created funds require openness to public scrutiny to assure the citizenry that the monies are spent appropriately by the correct parties," Tevington said. "Information concerning telecommunications lines and the leadership of telephone companies may provide necessary information for the public to make sure these funds are spent appropriately.

"The use of public monies by telephone utilities demands openness of their records in the commission’s possession."

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission consists of Chair Dana Murphy, Vice Chairman Jeff Cloud and Commissioner Bob Anthony. The three commissioners are elected by statewide vote to serve six-year terms.


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.

All 3 AG candidates say government workers' birth dates should be public; 2 support keeping autopsy records open

All three announced candidates for state attorney general say the birth dates of government employees should be a matter of public record, The Norman Transcript noted in an editorial today.

Republican candidates Ryan Leonard and Scott Pruitt also said they support keeping autopsy records open. Democratic candidate Jim Priest took a neutral stance, saying he needs to study the issue.

The candidates spoke Saturday at the Oklahoma Press Association's Summer Conference.

Priest and Leonard have signed FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s Open Government Pledge. In doing so, 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.”

Hopefully, Priest will keep that promise in mind as he studies the issue of public access to autopsy records.

This blog noted in April that the press and public have used autopsy reports elsewhere to uncover incompetency and corruption by police, medical examiners and coroners.

A state bill that would have restricted access to portions of homicide autopsy reports was pulled in May because of stiff opposition on the House floor. Among the representatives critical of the bill were Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, and Rep. David Dank, R-Oklahoma City. Both legislators had signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge during their most recent campaigns.

Leonard, Priest and Pruitt are seeking to replace Democrat Drew Edmondson, who is running for governor.

In December, Edmondson issued a formal opinion that government employees' birth dates in their personnel files are presumed open unless the public body can demonstrate that the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

Edmondson said public bodies must decide each case individually and may not enact policies blocking access to all employee dates of birth. (2009 OK AG 33)

Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City, had requested the opinion. Legislative attempts by Leftwich and Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, failed to close public access to the birth dates.

The issue is now before a court. In April, Oklahoma County Judge Bryan Dixon 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 next scheduled court date is Friday.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism