Question: Does Open Meeting Act require that votes be recorded in meeting minutes?

Minutes of the OU Undergraduate Student Congress meeting Sept. 27 failed to include how each member voted, which members were present or absent, and whether two emergency allocations to student organizations were passed, The Oklahoma Daily reported today.

The Open Meeting Act requires written minutes that are an "official summary of the proceedings showing clearly those members present and absent, all matters considered by the public body, and all actions taken by such public body." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 312(A))

So the Undergraduate Student Congress minutes apparently violate the statute by not including the roll call, all the matters considered and all the actions taken.

But are the minutes required to include each member's vote on agenda items?

In a provision separate from the minutes requirement, the Open Meeting Act says, "In all meetings of public bodies, the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 305)

The OU Undergraduate Student Congress keeps its voting record as a separate document under the "resources" tab of its website.

That's not the most intuitive location for such important information. The voting record also is only for the most recent session for which minutes have been approved. In contrast, minutes are available for meetings since April.

So the voting record is not provided online in a way that most effectively helps students hold their individual student representatives accountable.

But does keeping a voting record separate from the meeting minutes satisfy the Open Meeting Act's requirement?

In 1975, the state Supreme Court emphasized that public bodies have to use a roll call vote and record the vote for each member. (Oldham v. Drummond Bd. of Educ., 1975 OK 147, ¶ 7)

The court was interpreting the 1971 predecessor to the current Open Meeting Act, but the statutory language was essentially the same. The previous version required that "any vote or action thereon must be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded."

The "language is clear," the court said. "The vote of each member must be recorded."

The court rejected a school board's practice of voting "by a show of hands unless a roll call was asked." The votes of each member were not recorded.

The court pointed out that no record of the each member's vote was included in the minutes. But it didn't say the votes must be recorded in the minutes -- only that votes must be recorded.

For practical purposes, it would make sense to include the votes in the minutes. For the public to make the most of the minutes, the votes should be included.

The Open Meeting Act requires that minutes be an "official summary of the proceedings." And 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)

Does that mean votes must be recorded in the minutes? Or would a separate record of votes be sufficient under the statute?

Seems like another gray area that state legislators should address.

But if you have the answer, please tell me. I'd be happy to pass it along here.


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.

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