DA: Sue me if you want records

The district attorney for Payne and Logan counties told the OSU student newspaper Wednesday that it would have to sue him if it wants to know the employment dates of a former assistant.
 
Otherwise, Tom Lee said he won't release the information even though -- as The Daily O'Collegian reporters pointed out -- the state Open Records Act explicitly requires that employment dates for government employees be available to the public. (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7(B)(3))
 
In a recorded interview, Lee cited no exemption, saying only that the information about Jill Tontz is an "internal personnel issue."
 
"We will resist that," Lee said in response to being read the Open Records Act provision.
 
"If I get sued, I’d rather get sued by your newspaper than her," Lee said.
 
But the Open Records Act says he can't be held civilly liable for damages for releasing records in accordance with the Open Records Act. (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.17(D))
 
The statute does not create a right of individual informational privacy that would block access to government-held information. Instead, the statute says, "The privacy interests of individuals are adequately protected in the specific exceptions to the Oklahoma Open Records Act or in the statutes which authorize, create or require the records." (Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.2)
 
The reporters said Lee also asked why they wanted the information. But a 1999 attorney general opinion said public officials could ask only for enough information to determine if a search fee should be charged.
 
Otherwise, the opinion said, "In no event could a public body or public official ever require a requestor to provide the reason for a request for access to records...." (1999 OK AG 55, ¶¶ 18-19)
 
Reporters cannot be charged a search fee.
 
Lee was appointed to the job by Gov. Mary Fallin two years ago this month.
 
Lee's refusal to abide by the Open Records Act is outrageous and an insult to the public.
 
Here is Lee, the official responsible for enforcing the Open Records Act, blatantly violating the law. And if Lee won't comply with the law, why should other public officials in Payne and Logan counties do so?
 
So whom is the newspaper supposed to turn to for help? State Attorney General Scott Pruitt? The AG's Office has long maintained that it has no authority to enforce our open government statutes.
 
Coincidently, House Bill 1450 by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, would give Oklahomans the right to appeal record denials to the attorney general, who would be given the power to order the document released immediately. Best solution? Not sure.
 
Maine's first Public Access Ombudsman and the chairman of Iowa's new Public Information Board will be among the speakers for FOI Oklahoma's upcoming 2013 Sunshine Week Conference. They will explain their roles in making government accessible to the public and give some advice on which approach Oklahoma should eventually adopt.
 
In the meantime, Lee expects the public to file expensive and time-consuming lawsuits to obtain information guaranteed by the Open Records Act. It's no skin off his nose. If the newspaper were to sue and win, its attorney's fees wouldn't come out of his pocket. Taxpayers would pick up the tab.
 
But violating the Open Records Act is also a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in the county jail and a $500 fine.
 
I've suggested that the newspaper file a criminal complaint against Lee and also a complaint with the Oklahoma Bar Association.
 
Lee's refusal to provide the information exemplifies why Oklahomans need a change in the way their Open Records Act is enforced.
 
Because we cannot count on district attorneys to support the inherent right of Oklahomans "to know and be fully informed about their government." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)
 

 
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.

Senate committee hears case for more transparency by state Legislature

The Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday heard why the Legislature should be more transparent in its operations and how open government laws apply to state lawmakers elsewhere.

Bills removing the Oklahoma Legislature's self-imposed exemptions from the state's Open Records and Open Meeting laws are expected this coming session from Republican Sen. David Holt of Oklahoma City and Rep. Jason Murphey of Guthrie.

Holt was responsible for the Senate hearing Tuesday.

Peter J. Rudy of Oklahoma Capitol Source urged senators to adopt the House practice of having standing conference committees with public meetings and votes on bills. Rudy's full comments can be read here.

News coverage of the hearing:

• Sean Murphy, Okla. Senate panel hears from opengovt. advocates, The Associated Press, SF Gate/San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13, 2012.
• Phil Cross, Critics want an open government, KOKH FOX 25, Nov. 13, 2012.
• Barbara Hoberock, Panel hears call for open government, Tulsa World, Nov. 14, 2012. 

Here are my prepared remarks to the committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the application of open government laws to the legislative process.

I will begin by pointing out that Oklahoma's Open Records Act starts with the following statement of principle:

As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is 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.

The stated purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public’s right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."

Similarly, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems."

Those statutes eloquently declare important principles. As one author has noted, "A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency."

I have heard previous legislative leaders claim that one Legislature may not legally bind future legislatures to the Open Records and Open Meeting acts. However, the Legislature has done just the opposite by explicitly exempting future legislatures from these statutes.

The Oklahoma Legislature appears to be one of only three in the nation to still be explicitly exempted from its state open records law. The other two are Massachusetts and Oregon.

In contrast, the open records statutes of our neighboring states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas -- have been interpreted to include their respective state legislatures.

In at least 40 states, the legislature must abide by its open records law to at least some degree. Records of these legislatures are often open to the same extent as records of other public bodies.

Oklahoma’s Legislature also appears to be one of only eight nationwide to be explicitly exempted from its open meeting law.

In contrast, meetings of the state legislative bodies in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas are opened to the public, to varying degrees, by either statutory or constitutional provisions.

I am told that some Oklahoma legislators are concerned that public notice of meetings is unworkable in four to five month sessions. However, other state legislatures operate under such a requirement.

• The Colorado General Assembly meets 120 days each year. Senate committees are expected to post at least one calendar day prior to the meeting a notice of the measures to be considered.
• The Texas Legislature meets only every two years for a maximum of 140 calendar days. Yet, its committees must give at least 24-hour notice of hearings on bills.

In all, state legislative bodies in 36 states must meet in the open to some degree because of a statutory or constitutional provision.

In Minnesota, for example, the legislature passed a statute that is separate from the state's Open Meeting Act and that requires all its meetings to be open. This includes the sessions and joint sessions of both chambers and meetings of standing committees, subcommittees, conference committees and legislative commissions.

Courts may not interpret or enforce the statute. Instead, each chamber adopts rules to implement it as well as the remedies for violations.

• The House and the Senate allow anyone to file a written complaint alleging a violation of the open meeting requirements. Under the House rules, the Speaker must investigate the complaint promptly.
• If the Speaker concludes that a violation may have occurred, the Speaker must refer the complaint to the Committee on Ethics for further proceedings.
• In the Senate, the written complaint is submitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, who must immediately forward the complaint to the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct.

Such an approach here could alleviate concerns that a separation of powers prevents the courts from enforcing the Open Meeting and Records acts against the Oklahoma Legislature.

Regardless of the approach in Oklahoma, a need to protect legitimate privacy and confidentiality concerns will preclude some records and meetings from being open to the public.

But legislators should strive for the greatest transparency while exempting only truly confidential information from disclosure.

In fact, medical records and similarly private information are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies.

In the context of legislative records, personal communications to a legislator in which a person exercises rights under the federal or state constitutions could be exempted from public disclosure. 

In fact, an exemption for personal communications exercising constitutional rights already exists under the Open Records Act.

But I would urge you not to exempt communications to a legislator from other government officials or from registered lobbyists.

As noted earlier, the purpose of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws is to ensure and facilitate the public's understanding of governmental processes and problems.

That understanding occurs best when the public observes frank and open discussions by its elected officials.

As our state Supreme Court 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."

Exempting the Legislature from our state's open government laws diminishes the public’s role as a watchdog over the elected officials who most directly shape our state's policies and laws.

Without advance knowledge of what measures a government body will discuss and vote on, the public is deprived of its right to witness such decisions being made.

The public must have the opportunity to watch firsthand the debate in which alternatives are weighed, accepted or rejected. The reasoning of our elected officials is as important as their vote.

Implementing greater transparency at the state Legislature would help foster public confidence in this body and in state government overall.

As U.S. Sen. Russell Long noted in 1964:

A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty.

These principles are true whether the public body is a city council or the state Legislature.

When a legislature avoids open government laws, it doesn’t build the public's trust or confidence. Instead, it raises suspicion that corruption is occurring behind those closed doors.

It creates the appearance that back-room deals are being cut. 

Consider, for example, this Tulsa World editorial in January 2011, "Senators [and representatives] have nothing to fear from letting the public know what they are doing, unless they're doing something they don't want the public to know about."

Such secrecy also fosters incompetency and mediocrity.

Oklahomans expect their legislators to operate with the same public scrutiny required – rightfully so – of our other state and local officials.

Some 85 percent of Oklahomans believe the state Legislature should comply with the same open government mandate that applies to other public officials, according to a SoonerPoll released in March 2012.

The survey revealed overwhelming bipartisan support for removing the Legislature's exemptions from the Open Records and Meetings acts:

• 85 percent of Republicans,
• 84 percent of Democrats, and
• 93 percent of independents.

Some 85 percent of conservatives, 91 percent of liberals and 86 percent of moderates said they would support legislation to remove the exemptions.

Clearly, Oklahomans want you to abide by the Open Meeting and Open Records acts.

I will close by acknowledging that operating in the open is certainly not always the most convenient or easiest way to conduct the public’s business.

But in a democracy, it's the right way.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

An annotated copy of these comments is available 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.

House committee to vote on creating open government law for Legislature

Oklahoma legislators would have to give public notice of their meetings and open most of their records to public inspection, under a bill scheduled for a House committee vote Thursday.

House Bill 1085 by Rep. Jason Murphey is before the House Government Modernization Committee, which the Guthrie Republican chairs.

The committee members' email addresses and home pages are linked at the end of this posting if you want to tell them what you think of HB 1085 prior to Thursday afternoon's vote.

Murphey, House Speaker Kris Steele, and Sen. David Holt will discuss legislative transparency at the state's fifth annual Sunshine Week conference on March 10 in Oklahoma City. They will explain proposals requiring the state Legislature to comply with our open government laws.

Legislators exempted themselves from the Open Meeting and Open Records acts when the statutes were passed decades ago.

HB 1085 would create the "Oklahoma Legislative Open Records and Meetings Act."

Under the bill, the House and Senate, as well as their committees, would have to post notices of meetings 48 hours in advance and agendas 24 hours in advance.

However, partisan caucuses would be exempted, and any meeting could be closed to the public "for cause" by the House speaker or the Senate president pro tem. The reason for the closure would have to be posted in writing and signed by the speaker or president pro tem.

The bill opens all records of legislative entities for inspection and copying. It specifically defines a record as all documents "created by, received by, under the authority of, or coming into the custody, control of or possession of a legislative entity." It defines a legislative entity as the House, Senate and Legislative Service Bureau.

Murphey said the bill is intended to open the records of individual legislators. For example, correspondence among legislators and between legislators and registered lobbyists would be public records.

Four sets of records would be exempted:

• Communications between legislators and their district constituents who aren't registered lobbyists;
• "Materials in the possession of a legislative entity originating from another state agency that are otherwise exempt from disclosure under" the Open Records Act.
• Documents "relating to internal personnel investigations not leading to loss of pay, suspension, demotion or termination; and
• "Personnel records where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of employees such as employee evaluations, payroll deductions and employment applications submitted by a person not hired.

Records of "work product directly related to the creation of legislation" would become public "simultaneously to the first legislative deadline at which the legislation is made available to the public."

The same would be true for "work product directly related to the development of legislation subsequently not filed by the author." Embargoes on these records would be "lifted simultaneously to the first legislative deadline at which the proposed legislation would have been made available to the public."

The bill limits copy fees to 10 cents per page and $10 per gigabyte for data.

However, the bill exempts the news media, but not the general public, from paying legislative staff to search for records. It doesn't define "news media." Will that include citizen journalists in an age when newspapers and broadcast stations are cutting back on reporters?

To avoid that can of worms, the bill should be amended to use language from the Open Records Act:

In no case shall a search fee be charged when the release of records is in the public interest, including, but not limited to, release to the news media, scholars, authors and taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants.

After all, the bill says, "It is the public policy of the Legislature ... to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the legislative process."

And the bill's purpose is to "provide the public with the means to hold their legislators to account so that the public may exercise their inherent political power."

Record denials may be appealed to oversight committees, which would be designated by the House speaker or Senate president pro tem "with the responsibility of adjudicating ethics or rules-related matters for the respective chamber."

The oversight committee must meet "as soon as practical" and "cast a public vote either denying or directing the release of the requested record."

Anyone could also file a complaint with the oversight committee alleging a violation by the Legislature of the open records or meeting provisions. The committee would be required to "investigate the complaint as soon as practical" and "hold a public vote substantively addressing each filed compliant."

Overall, the bill represents a significant step forward in transparency for the Legislature. Tell members of the Government Modernization Committee what you think of HB 1085 prior to their vote Thursday.

Besides Murphey (jason.murphey@okhouse.gov), the committee members are:

David Brumbaugh, R-Tulsa, david.brumbaugh@okhouse.gov;
Josh Cockroft, R-Tecumseh, josh.cockroft@okhouse.gov;
David Derby, R-Owasso, david.derby@okhouse.gov;
Mark McCullough, R-Supulpa, mark.mccullough@okhouse.gov;
Lewis H. Moore, R-Arcadia, lewis.moore@okhouse.gov;
Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, richard.morissette@okhouse.gov;
Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa, seneca.scott@okhouse.gov;
Aaron Stiles, R-Norman, aaron.stiles@okhouse.gov;
Wes Hilliard, D-Sulphur, wes.hilliard@okhouse.gov;
Randy Terrill, R-Moore, randyterrill@okhouse.gov;
John Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, john.trebilcock@okhouse.gov; and
Purcy D. Walker, D-Elk City, purcy.walker@okhouse.gov.

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.

Prepared Remarks, News Coverage of Interim Study on Legislative Transparency

Good Morning Rep. Jason Murphey and Members of the House Government Modernization Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the issue of government transparency at the state Legislature.

I will begin by pointing out that Oklahoma’s Open Records Act starts with the following statement of principle:

As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is 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.

The stated purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."

Similarly, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems."

Those statutes eloquently declare important principles. As one author has noted, "A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency."

However, the Oklahoma Legislature appears to be one of only three in the nation to still be explicitly exempted from its state open records law.

In contrast, the open records statutes of our neighboring states – Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas – have been interpreted to include their respective state legislatures.

In at least 40 states, the legislature must abide by its open records law to at least some degree. Records of these legislatures are often open to the same extent as records of other public bodies.

Oklahoma's Legislature also appears to be one of only seven nationwide to be explicitly exempted from its open meeting law.

In contrast, meetings of the state legislative bodies in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas are opened to the public, to varying degrees, by either statutory or constitutional provisions.

In all, state legislative bodies in 36 states must meet in the open to some degree because of a statutory or constitutional provision.

In Minnesota, for example, the legislature in 1990 passed a statute that is separate from the state Open Meeting Act and that requires all its meetings to be open. This includes the floor sessions and joint sessions of both chambers and meetings of standing committees, subcommittees, conference committees and legislative commissions.

Courts may not interpret or enforce the statute. Instead, each chamber adopts rules to implement it as well as the remedies for violations.

The House and the Senate allow anyone to file a written complaint alleging a violation of the open meeting requirements.

Under the House rules, the Speaker must investigate the complaint promptly. If the Speaker concludes that a violation may have occurred, the Speaker must refer the complaint to the Committee on Ethics for further proceedings.

In the Senate, the written complaint is submitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, who must immediately forward the complaint to the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct.

Such an approach here could alleviate concerns that a separation of powers prevents the courts from enforcing the Open Meeting and Records acts against the Oklahoma Legislature.

Regardless of the approach in Oklahoma, a need to protect legitimate privacy and confidentiality concerns will preclude some records and meetings from being open to the public. But legislators should strive for the greatest transparency while exempting only truly confidential information from disclosure.

In fact, medical records and similarly private information are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies.

In the context of legislative records, personal communications to a legislator in which a person exercises rights under the federal or state constitutions could be exempted from public disclosure. In fact, an exemption for personal communications exercising constitutional rights already exists under the Open Records Act.

But I urge you not to exempt communications to a legislator from other government officials or from registered lobbyists.

As noted earlier, the purpose of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws is to ensure and facilitate the public’s understanding of governmental processes and problems.

That understanding occurs best when the public observes frank and open discussions by its elected officials.

As our state Supreme Court 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."

Exempting the Legislature from our state’s open government laws diminishes the public's role as a watchdog over the elected officials who most directly shape our state's policy and laws.

Without advance knowledge of what measures a government body will discuss and vote on, the public is deprived of its right to witness such decisions being made.

The public must have the opportunity to watch firsthand the debate in which alternatives are weighed, accepted or rejected. The reasoning of our elected officials is as important as their vote.

Implementing greater transparency at the state Legislature also would help foster public confidence in this body and in state government overall.

As U.S. Sen. Russell Long noted in 1964:

A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty.

These principles are true whether the public body is a city council or the state Legislature.

When a legislature avoids open government laws, it doesn’t build the public's trust or confidence. Instead, it raises suspicion that corruption is occurring behind those closed doors. It creates the appearance that back-room deals are being cut. It fosters incompetency and mediocrity.

Consider, for example, this Tulsa World editorial this past January, "Senators [and representatives] have nothing to fear from letting the public know what they are doing, unless they're doing something they don't want the public to know about."

Oklahomans expect their legislators to operate with the same public scrutiny required – rightfully so – of our other state and local officials.

I will close by acknowledging that operating in the open is certainly not always the most convenient or easiest way to conduct the public's business.

But in a democracy, it's the right way.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

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

Click on link for annotated version of these remarks.

News Coverage:

• Audio and copies of prepared statements are available at Interim Study 11-020. (Scroll to 11-020 and click on link.)
• Notes from the House Government Modernization Committee interim study, Peter J. Rudy, Oklahoma Watchdog, 11.10.11
• Okla. lawmaker touts proposal to end legislative exemption to state's Open Meetings Act, Sean Murphy, The Associated Press, 11.10.11
• Lawmaker plans to revive openness bill, Michael McNutt, The Oklahoman, 11.11.11, at 5A.

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.

Requiring Legislature to abide by Oklahoma's open government laws is subject of interim study committee hearing Thursday

A Delaware senator will tell Oklahoma lawmakers on Thursday how her General Assembly conducts public business while complying with that state's open government laws.

Democrat Karen E. Peterson was instrumental in ending the Delaware General Assembly's self-imposed exemption from that state's open meeting and records laws in 2009.

An Oklahoma House committee is studying legislation to do the same here.

The House Government Modernization Committee, chaired by state Rep. Jason Murphey, will meet at 9 a.m. in Room 432A of the state Capitol.

Audio of the hearing will be streamed live on the House website and remain posted.

All documents and presentations used during the hearing will be posted. As will the interim study report.

Other speakers are Peter J. Rudy of Oklahoma Watchdog and myself.

The interim study, titled "Enhancing Transparency of the Legislative Process," will "focus on the positive effects of recent legislative rule changes and analyze the possible application of open records and meetings laws to legislative proceedings."

Murphey, a Guthrie Republican, requested the study after his bill requiring the Legislature to abide by the Open Meeting and Open Records laws died in a House committee during the last legislative session.

Murphey proposed adding the Legislature to the definition of public body under the Open Records and Open Meeting acts while removing its exemption from the statutes.

But HB 1085 wasn't taken up by the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Fred Jordan, R-Jenks.

In Delaware, political observers credited removing the General Assembly's overall FOI exemption with making the budget process more transparent and with cutting down on legislative shenanigans in the waning hours of the session.

By contrast in Oklahoma, a state trial judge last week indicated that "unseemly actions and even unethical behavior" are "business as usual" in the state Legislature.

In ruling that prosecutors have sufficient evidence against state Rep. Randy Terrill and former Sen. Debbe Leftwich for a bribery trial, Oklahoma County Special Judge Stephen Alcorn said,

Judges tend to be a bit cynical and tend to be realistic, but the court admits to being disappointed in what has repeatedly been described as business as usual at the Capitol.

Oklahoma legislative leaders should pay heed to a recent study that found strong state open government laws reduce corruption levels and increase the probability that corrupt acts are detected.

Sunshine goes a long way as disinfectant.


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.

Requiring Legislature to abide by Open Meeting, Records laws is subject of interim study by House committee

Ending the Oklahoma Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the state's open government laws is the subject of an interim study approved today by House Speaker Kris Steele.

The study will be conducted by the House Government Modernization committee, which is chaired by state Rep. Jason Murphey.

The Guthrie Republican requested the study after his bill requiring the Legislature to abide by the Open Meeting and Open Records laws died in a House committee during the last legislative session.

The interim study, titled "Enhancing Transparency of the Legislative Process," will "focus on the positive effects of recent legislative rule changes and analyze the possible application of open records and meetings laws to legislative proceedings."

Murphey can hold hearings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, beginning Aug. 2. Meeting notices will be posted on the House website.

Steele approved 80 of the 120 interim studies requested.

For the first time, a report will be compiled on each interim study and posted on the House website. All documents and presentations used during interim study committee hearings will be posted, too. Audio of the hearings will be streamed live on the House website and remain posted.

"These changes are part of the House's ongoing commitment to transparency and increasing the public's access to the work done by their government," Steele said in a news release. "This small change should produce big results in disseminating useful research, fostering fact-based decisions and retaining institutional knowledge."

Last legislative session, Murphey proposed adding the Legislature to the definition of public body under the Open Records and Open Meeting acts while removing its exemption from the statutes.

But HB 1085 wasn't taken up by the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Fred Jordan, R-Jenks.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media and 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.

Opening legislative caucus meetings likely to stir most opposition to HB 1085, Rep. Murphey says

Requiring state legislative caucuses to discuss the public's business in public will likely create the most opposition to a bill forcing the Legislature to abide by Oklahoma's open government laws, Rep. Jason Murphey said Friday.

"Closed caucus meetings have been an institution forever, and legislators like the ability to talk behind closed doors," the Guthrie Republican told the FOI Oklahoma Blog after filing House Bill 1085 on Friday.

(Read more about the bill.)

In an Edmond Sun column last month, Murphey said opening legislative caucuses is "one of the most important aspects" of his proposal.

"An important principle of open meeting laws is the concept that dictates that a majority of a governing body should never meet behind closed doors to discuss business. This concept helps keep policy makers from taking a public stand different from the position taken in private," Murphey wrote.

On Friday, Murphey seemed optimistic that his bill would pass if he can get it heard in committee and the House floor.

"I do think there is bi-partisan support for the idea. And, make no mistake about it, anytime this bill is given a vote, it will pass overwhelmingly," he said. "This challenge will be getting the hearing in committee and on the floor."

Murphey said he thinks HB 1085 will be assigned to the House Rules Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Gary W. Banz, R-Midwest City.

The bill should find support in that committee because Vice Chair Weldon Watson, R-Tulsa, and three committee members -- David Dank, R-Oklahoma City; Randy McDaniel, R-Oklahoma City; and Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa -- signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

Other House members who signed the pledge are:

• John Bennett, R-Sallisaw
  
• Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City
  
• Al McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City
  
• Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa
  
• Todd Russ, R-Cordell
  
• Mike Sanders, R-Kingfisher
  
• Emily Virgin, D-Norman
  
• Harold Wright, R-Weatherford
  

Gov. Mary Fallin also signed the pledge and as a candidate last spring said she supports removing the Legislature's exemption from the Open Records and Open Meeting laws.
 
In the Senate, Josh Breechen, R-Coalgate, Roger Ballenger, D-Okmulgee, and minority leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, signed the pledge.
 
Along with Murphey, each of these politicians promised to support the public's right to know at every opportunity and to "support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
That's why Murphey should be able to count on their public support for HB 1085.
 

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

Rep. Murphey files bill requiring Legislature to abide by state Open Meeting, Open Records laws

The Oklahoma Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the state's open government laws would end, under a bill filed Friday by Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie.

House Bill 1085 would add the Legislature to the definition of public body under the Open Records and Open Meeting acts while removing its exemption from the statutes.

Murphey's bill addresses one of the objections raised by legislative leaders last summer: That legislators must be exempt in order to avoid releasing personal or confidential information revealed in constituent e-mails or letters.

Murphey's bill would exempt from the Open Records Act personal communications to a legislator in which a person -- who cannot be another legislator or a registered lobbyist -- exercises rights under the federal or state constitutions.

An exemption for personal communications exercising constitutional rights already exists under the Open Records Act. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.14)

"Except for the fact that a communication has been received and that it is or is not a complaint, a public official may keep confidential personal communications received by the public official from a person exercising rights secured by" the state and federal constitutions, according to the statute. "The public official's written response to this personal communication may be kept confidential only to the extent necessary to protect the identity of the person exercising the right."

For example, a 1988 attorney general opinion explained, a person filing a complaint with the Board of Governors of Registered Dentists or with the Board of Medical Licensure would be exercising a right under the state and federal constitutions "to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances." (1988 OK AG 79,¶ 17)

Therefore, the identity of the complainant could be kept confidential, the opinion concluded. (See also Bd. of Medical Licensure v. Miglaccio, 1996 OK CIV APP 37, ¶ 9)

The attorney general opinion noted that the statutory language did not require that the complainant's name be kept confidential, only that public officials may do so.

In contrast, Murphey's bill would require the communications to be kept confidential by adding them to a list of records specifically exempted from the Open Records Act. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(1))

But even so, HB 1085 would finally require Oklahoma legislators to follow the state's open government statutes just as other public bodies are required to do.


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

State legislative caucuses would be required to meet in public under bill planned by Rep. Murphey

State legislative caucuses would be prohibited from "discussing issues behind closed doors," under a bill that Rep. Jason Murphey says he will sponsor.

The Guthrie Republican this week reiterated his intention to file a bill that would require the Legislature to comply with the state Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

"This is not a ground-breaking proposal. Other state governments already require that their legislative bodies follow their respective state’s open record and open meeting laws," Murphey wrote in a column published in The Edmond Sun.

"One of the most important aspects of this law would be the cessation of legislative caucuses discussing issues behind closed doors," Murphey wrote. "An important principle of open meeting laws is the concept that dictates that a majority of a governing body should never meet behind closed doors to discuss business. This concept helps keep policy makers from taking a public stand different from the position taken in private."

Having the Legislature comply with the Open Records Act "would establish a clear set of criteria that would govern which legislative records should be kept private and which should be made public," Murphey wrote.

"Passing this particular proposal will be a difficult challenge, but I am convinced that it is the right thing to do," said Murphey, who is chairman of the House Government Modernization, Accountability and Transparency Committee.

In July, then-legislative leaders Glen Coffee and Chris Benge defended the need for secrecy at the state Capitol, arguing that legislators must be able to "deliberate and communicate in confidence."

They also contended that the self-imposed exemption from our open government laws is necessary to protect the privacy of constituents who contact legislators.

But legislators could abide by the Open Records Act while exempting truly confidential information from disclosure. In fact, medical records and many others are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies.

Murphey should find support for his bill from incoming Gov. Mary Fallin, who last spring said she supports removing the Legislature's exemption from the open records and meeting laws.

Murphey also should be supported by fellow representatives

• John Bennett, R-Sallisaw
  
• David Dank, R-Oklahoma City
  
• Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City
  
• Al McAffrey, D-Oklahoma City
  
• Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa
  
• Randy McDaniel, R-Oklahoma City
  
• Todd Russ, R-Cordell
  
• Mike Sanders, R-Kingfisher
  
• Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa
  
• Emily Virgin, D-Norman
  
• Weldon Watson, R-Tulsa
  
• Harold Wright, R-Weatherford
  

and state Sens. Roger Ballenger, D-Okmulgee, and Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City.
 
Along with Murphey, each promised to support the public's right to know at every opportunity once elected and to "support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
 
As Murphey noted in this column:

These two important laws require Oklahoma governing bodies to conduct business according to a set of rules that are designed to ensure your right as a citizen to know that what happens in government is upheld. However, the Legislature is exempted from these laws. In my view this is wrong, and I believe the Legislature should abide by the same laws they ask other Oklahoma governing bodies to abide by.

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

GOP legislator prods House leadership for truly open legislative process

State Rep. Jason Murphey said he supports proposals to stop waiving the 24-hour rule before House votes in the last two days of the session and to force House conference committees to meet publicly before signing off on bills.

But the Republican said his party's leadership in the Legislature must do more to dismantle the closed legislative process that has "proven to be so conducive to corruption."

"Each year that goes by without a complete overhaul of the system makes it more likely that the new Republican majority will become co-opted by the process and become defenders of the status quo," wrote Murphey in a column published Tuesday in The Edmond Sun.

Murphey represents House District 31, which encompasses Logan County and part of north Edmond.

Murphey said that when he took office in 2007, he realized the "new generation of Republican legislative leaders in the House had taken significant steps toward making the legislative process more open and transparent, but had in no way dismantled the closed system that had been in place for many years."

Though not included in his newspaper column, Murphey has said since March that he will introduce a bill next session to remove the Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the Open Records law.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media and Stratetgic Communication

House speaker denies media requests for video of portraits being moved; Guthrie rep. plans bill to add Legislature to Sunshine Laws

House Speaker Chris Benge this week denied media requests for video footage showing portraits of Gov. Brad Henry and President Barack Obama being switched.

Benge first denied a request from KTOK-AM, reported FOX 25 on Wednesday.

The Oklahoman reports today that Benge has also denied the newspaper's request.

The Oklahoman requested surveillance camera footage focused on the back wall of the House from Feb. 15 to March 12 because House Democratic leaders say Obama's portrait has been moved more than the one time admitted to by Rep. Lewis Moore, R-Arcadia, earlier this week.

House Democratic leaders called on Benge, a Tulsa Republican, to release the video, the newspaper reported.

Benge said he wouldn't release the video because disclosure would lead to "further embarrassment of the House" and "further ridicule a House member."

Embarrassment of an elected official isn't an exemption under the state Open Records Act. If it were, plenty of local and other state officials would claim it.

Unfortunately, as has been noted several times this week here and by other media, legislators exempted themselves from the state Open Records and Open Meeting laws when those statutes were enacted decades ago.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander when it comes to public scrutiny of the Legislature.

However, Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, told The Oklahoman that he will introduce a bill next year to remove the Legislature's exemption from the Open Meeting and Open Records acts. (Murphey signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge in 2008.)

Last Saturday, all six announced gubernatorial candidates said they support removing the exemption.

Perhaps that will happen during next year's legislative session. Or, at the very least, we would get to see which legislators truly believe in the Open Records Act's founding principle:

It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

That should include the Legislature.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

Oklahoma universities exempted from online database disclosing purchases by agency employees on state-issued credit cards

Taxpayers can now go to the Open Books Web site to learn what state employees are buying with state-issued credit cards, The Oklahoman reported today.

But don't expect to find what employees of the state universities and colleges have bought.

The newspaper's Paul Monies reports that higher education was exempted from the online disclosure law and have purchase card contracts separate from the rest of state government.

One of the bill's authors, Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, said he was surprised to learn that higher education purchase card information isn't included in the online database.

"We’ll certainly look at adding them in future legislation," said Murphey, who signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge in the 2008 election.

In the meantime, OSU is examining how to make its purchase card transactions available online, said spokesman Gary Shutt.

OU spokeswoman Catherine Bishop said that school would comply with Open Records Act requests for the purchase card data but has no plans to post the information online.

Monies notes on the newspaper's Right to Know blog that higher education "consumes 17 percent of the state budget."

"Don’t taxpayers deserve to know how that money is spent, too?" asks Monies.

Yes, they do -- and without having to request the records each time.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism