skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
A member of the state commission overseeing the Veterans Affairs Department wants to do more than meet socially with a majority of the board without public notice, which the state Open Meeting Act already allows.
Thomas Howell wants legislators to allow the War Veterans Commission to discuss the public's business in secret.
"I said just throw it all out and say commissioners can meet whenever they wanted to, to discuss the problem that you have so you can have an answer when you come to these meetings on the problems we are having to address now," Howell said.
Howell, who represents Disabled Veteran Americans on the board, said he has spoken with two state senators about proposing a bill allowing a majority of the nine-member commission to meet secretly without violating the Open Meeting Act.
The Oklahoman's article didn't identify which two senators might be considering such idiotic legislation. But another news outlet reported that Howell has spoken with Sen. Don Barrington, R-Lawton.
Howell's public comments were made Friday during a meeting in which the commission voted to remove "interim" from John McReynolds' job title as executive director of the state's Veterans Affairs Department.
Ironically, the commissioners interviewed McReynolds and another candidate during an executive session, which means the public was excluded from that part of the meeting.
But the Open Meeting Act prohibits the majority of a public body from meeting without posting advance notice and an agenda telling the public that such an executive session is scheduled. (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 303)
These requirements exist for good reason. As the state Court of Civil Appeals said in 2008:
The [Open Meeting] Act is designed to ‘encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems. … The Act serves to inform the citizenry of the governmental problems and processes by informing them of the business the government will be conducting. (Wilson v. City of Techumseh, 2008 OK CIV APP 84, ¶ 10)
This includes the entire decision-making process, our state Supreme Court has said.
"The underlying goals of the 'open meeting laws' can not be seriously challenged. 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." (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, ¶ 10)
Or as an attorney general opinion later explained, "Public access to a mere 'rubber stamp' vote is all but useless." (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 7)
Howell complained that the Open Meeting Act's requirements cause problems because more than four commissioners are members of the VFW and the American Legion. He apparently believes that the statute prohibits the majority of a public body from gathering at parties, dinners or other social events.
In 2007, however, legislators added language to the statutory definition of "meeting" to clarify that a majority of a public body may gather informally as long as "no business of the public body is discussed." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 304(2))
But Howell's comments indicate that he believes commissioners should be able to discuss -- and essentially decide -- the public's business far from the prying eyes of the people they're supposed to serve.
Fortunately, Commission Chairman Richard Putnam seems to understand the purpose of the Open Meeting Act, saying:
My interpretation is we're not prevented from attending things like conventions where we are all members. We are just prevented from meeting as commissioners during those events. In psychology, we call it face validity. I think in order to have the public's trust we need to demonstrate we will not meet secretly.
The War Veterans Commission and the Veterans Affairs Department need to be building public trust. The agency has been criticized for a "series of premature deaths, abuse and neglect cases" at the seven nursing centers it operates. A former nurse's aid at the Veterans Center in Norman was convicted last week of one count of first-degree rape and two counts of forcible oral sodomy on patients.
In August, Gov. Mary Fallin requested an audit to review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's management, the efficiency and effectiveness of the oversight of department operations, the reasonableness of expenditures, and a review of the expenditures of the department's administration for compliance with appropriate state statutes and regulations.
Howell of Duncan was one of eight new members appointed by Fallin to the commission in May. He had served on the commission previously as an appointee of Gov. Frank Keating in 1995.
Fallin, as a gubernatorial candidate in 2010, publicly said she expected her appointees to public bodies to abide by the Open Meeting and Open Records laws.
Fallin should emphasize that to Howell or replace him.
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.
Wagoner County commissioners didn't violate the state Open Meeting Act when they met with residents in unposted meetings to discuss a possible ad valorem tax on county residents, District Attorney Brian Kuester told the Broken Arrow Ledger on Thursday.
"It was not public business. They were not conducting business. They were not deliberating, they were not making decisions, and they were not taking formal action," Kuester told Neighbor Newspapers Executive Editor William Swaim.
"As I understand it, there was one commissioner fielding questions from the crowd," Kuester said. "And that was extent of the commissioners' involvement in the discussion."
Swaim disagrees with Kuester's interpretation of the Open Meeting Act -- and for good reason.
The Open Meeting Act defines a meeting as "the conduct of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together" or by videoconference. A majority of a public body may gather informally "when no business of the public body is discussed." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 304(2))
Swaim contends the majority of commissioners were discussing the public's business at the meetings.
"When you clear away the excuses, at the heart of the issue is that you have a topic that is a matter of public concern being discussed without making all county residents aware of the issue," Swaim wrote in a column published online Friday.
"They were fielding questions, which were asked of them because they are county commissioners and not just county residents," wrote Swaim. "The commissioners, in their official capacity, discussed and took input on the possible petition and proposal for a 'county' ad valorem tax in a public place about an issue they will be deciding in their 'official' capacity at some point. Presumably if the petition gathers enough signatures."
Undisputed is that no public notices and agendas were posted for the meetings held in Coweta churches on Feb. 17, March 10 and 24. All three commissioners attended the first meeting, and two attended the March ones.
The meetings have been described as a grassroots effort to come up with suggestions for fire coverage once Coweta's rural fire service area is adjusted. The Coweta-American reported April 11 that Wagoner County officials want Coweta to pull the city’s fire service to the city limits and let rural fire districts cover the surrounding area.
According to the newspaper, Wagoner County Commissioner James Hanning that night told a meeting of some 500 people that the way to solve the rural fire service issue would be to vote on an ad valorem tax, a property tax assessed by the county.
Hanning and fellow Commissioner Tim Kelley attended the February and March meetings.
Kuester said he had known about these meetings "due to the fact I had an assistant DA at two of the three meetings."
Kuester contends those meetings didn't violate the Open Meeting Act because the commissioners didn't conduct public business.
"These meetings were scheduled by concerned citizens out there, concerned about losing their fire protection. And they invited the commissioners to come," Kuester said. "The simple fact is they were not conducting business.
"Although two or three of the commissioners were present, one of them spoke, fielding questions from the crowd. There were certainly no decisions to be made that night. It was really informative for the public if they had questions," Kuester said.
"There were no decisions that could be made that night," Kuester said. "In order for this fire protection district to be created, it requires a petition by the citizens, not the commissioners. So there was nothing those commissioners could have done that night with regards to the fire protection district."
However, county commissioners would have to approve the election for the public to vote on the ad valorem tax.
And does it matter under the Open Meeting Act that commissioners didn't take formal action at those meetings?
Kuester points to a 1982 attorney general opinion to support his narrow interpretation of what constitutes conducting public business.
In the opinion, then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright said:
Business should be assumed to include the entire decision-making process, including deliberation, decision or formal action. Therefore, when members of a public body meet among themselves to discus the appropriation of funds, the requirements of the Open Meeting Act must be met. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 3)
That sentence says the entire decision-making process includes deliberation, decision or formal action. It doesn't exclude other discussions by a majority of the public body about the public's business. To the contrary. Cartwright's opinion expands the definition of conducting public business.
For example, in the sentence immediately preceding the one seemingly relied upon by Kuester, Cartwright said, "'Business,' not having been defined in the Open Meeting Act, must be given a construction in consonance with the ordinary meaning of the term and in harmony with the purposes of the Open Meeting Act; and as stated, supra, a liberal interpretation must be indulged. (Id.)
And in the sentence immediately following it, he said, "Clearly, the Legislature must have intended for the discussion stage to be covered by the Open Meeting Act."
Cartwright began the opinion by noting the state Supreme Court in 1978 had "recognized that one of the policies sought to be advanced by the Legislature in adopting the Open Meeting Act was to facilitate an informed citizenry's right to participate in government and understand why government acts affecting their lives are taken." (Id. ¶ 1)
Elsewhere in the opinion, Cartwright also made the following points:
Statutes are to be construed with reason to accomplish the Legislature's purpose, as opposed to construing them in a manner to encourage the evil against which such statutes are directed. The Open Meeting Law, because it is enacted for the public's benefit, is to be construed liberally in favor of the public. (Id. ¶ 2)
The Oklahoma Supreme Court in Oklahoma Ass'n of Mun. Att'ys v. State stated that the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed. (Id. ¶ 7)
No open meeting legislation should open to public scrutiny purely private conduct. However, if government officials use their private or social time to discuss agenda items and, even more importantly, to determine how they will vote, the purpose of the open meeting law will have been circumvented. Public access to a mere "rubber stamp" vote is all but useless. (Id. ¶ 7)
The goal of the Oklahoma Legislature in enacting the Open Meeting Act was not simply to prevent or punish deliberate violations, but to restore sadly sagging public confidence in government, a goal which is hurt by every noncomplying meeting regardless of whether or not the noncompliance resulted from evil motives. (Id. ¶ 11)
The Open Meeting Act should be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose. Also, the Act should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid establishing potential evasion loopholes." (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 13)(Id. ¶ 13)
To answer the specific questions asked of him, Cartwright concluded that the requirements of the Open Meeting Act must be complied with when:
- "Members of a public body meet among themselves to discuss the appropriation of funds,"
- "A public body meets with a group of experts in order to gain insight into a particular matter," and
- "A majority of members of a public body are together in an informal setting and begin discussing matters concerning the business of the public body." (Id. ¶ 7)
"Each situation is part of the 'deliberation process,'" Carwright said. (Id. ¶ 13)
He had relied upon earlier decisions by the state appellate courts:
Furthermore, providing the public with advance 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. "Without public notice, Sunshine legislation is ineffective." (1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 19)
The principle is "very simple," the court said. "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State."
Why does it matter that Wagoner County commissioners didn't let everyone know about the meetings by posting public notices?
Because, as Swaim wrote:
There is so much misinformation being peddled out there right now about the [possible ad valorem tax] (one only has to look at the message boards to see it), that county residents were robbed of the opportunity to become more informed by not having posted notice of these meetings and having the opportunity to discuss, with their elected leaders, a topic that concerns the public.
"At the very least," as Swaim pointed out, "commissioners should have erred on the side of the public’s best interest to be informed."
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.
Unposted meetings attended by Wagoner County commissioners were called by residents to discuss Coweta's decision to scale back its fire protection district, the County Commission chairman told a newspaper Wednesday.
"I am also a citizen, and this does affect me," James Hanning told the Muskogee Phoenix. "We (the commissioners) were there, if anything, for moral support — my concern is that the people have the power and knowledge they need to make an informed decision."
So why not post public notices and agendas for the meetings?
The Broken Arrow Ledger reported Tuesday that because Coweta is pulling back on its fire service area, the meetings concerned a possible ad valorem tax on county residents to fund a rural fire district.
No public notices and agendas were given for the meetings, which were held in Coweta churches on Feb. 17, March 10 and 24, the Broken Arrow Ledger reported. All three commissioners attended the first meeting, and two attended the March ones.
The Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires 48 hours advance notice for special meetings in which a majority of a public body discusses public business and that agendas be posted 24 hours prior to such meetings. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(11))
"At least one county commissioner at each of these meetings actively took part in the discussion," the Broken Arrow Ledger's executive editor said in a letter to District Attorney Brian Kuester.
"It is our belief the county commissioners are also working toward a consensus on the item and topic at hand, which is to propose and pass an ad valorem tax," said William Swaim, Oklahoma Neighbor Newspaper executive editor.
"Commissioners have circumvented the process while we believe attempting to garner support for an ad valorem tax proposal," Swaim said.
Hanning told the Phoenix the topics discussed during those meetings were not county issues. However, he conceded that the commission would have to vote to approve an election to pass an ad valorem tax.
The Coweta-American reported April 11 that Wagoner County officials want Coweta to pull the city’s fire service to the city limits and let rural fire districts cover the surrounding area.
According to the newspaper, Hanning told a meeting of some 500 people that the way to solve the rural fire service issue would be to vote on an ad valorem tax, a property tax assessed by the county.
The newspaper reported that Hanning explained how the tax would be assessed and the mechanism for calling an election on the ad valorem tax.
"No matter what proposal comes to the table, our need is not a fire station, it is a fire district," Hanning said. "Our goal is to create options to have a fire district that will sustain a station."
At the same meeting, the newspaper reported, a member of the Wagoner County Excise Board said he appreciated the "great amount of effort" the county commissioners had put in to coming up with solutions.
Sure sounds like a county issue involving the commissioners despite Hanning's characterization to the Muskogee Phoenix.
Hanning also defended the unposted meetings as permissible because no decisions were made at them. However, that is irrelevant under the Open Meeting Act.
In 2007, legislators added language to the statutory definition of "meeting" to clarify that a majority of a public body can gather informally as long as "no business of the public body is discussed." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 304(2))
Judicial and attorney general opinions, though, had made clear for the previous 25 years that members of a public body are prohibited from discussing the public's business during social gatherings.
"Sunshine legislation reaches, not just ‘formal’ meetings, but the 'entire decision-making process,'" the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals said in 1981. (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 7)
Hanning also told the Phoenix that Assistant District Attorney John David Luton assured him the commissioners could attend the three unposted meetings without violating the Open Meeting Act.
The newspaper said a telephone call to Luton was not returned Wednesday.
Oklahoma's public policy, as stated in the Open Meeting Act, is "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)
Therefore,"a governmental body must operate with such openness that the citizenry is informed of its activities," said then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson in 2000. (2000 OK AG 7, ¶ 30)
Because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1981, the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
The principle is "very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals said that year: "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57)
That didn't happen in Wagoner County.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communiations
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.
Wagoner County commissioners met three times to discuss a possible ad valorem tax on county residents to fund a rural fire district but didn't post public notices and agendas for the meetings, the Broken Arrow Ledger reports.
The Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires 48 hours advance notice for special meetings in which a majority of a public body discusses public business and that agendas be posted 24 hours prior to such meetings. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(11))
Providing the public with advance 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. "Without public notice, Sunshine legislation is ineffective." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 19)
Yet, Wagoner County commissioners failed to post notices and agendas for meetings Feb. 17 at the First Baptist Church in Coweta, and March 10 and 24 at the First United Methodist Church in Coweta, according to a letter from Oklahoma Neighbor Newspaper Executive Editor William Swaim to a number of public officials.
Swaim said at least two of the three commissioners were at each meeting and discussed a proposed county ad valorem tax for the funding of a county rural fire district.
"It is our belief the county commissioners are also working toward a consensus on the item and topic at hand, which is to propose and pass an ad valorem tax," Swaim said.
According to Swaim:
- Commissioners James Hanning, Tim Kelley and Chris Edwards attended the Feb. 17 meeting with people comprising a grassroots effort to come up with suggestions for fire coverage once Coweta's rural fire service area is adjusted.
- Hanning and Kelley attended the March 10 meeting with 80-90 people. Hanning told a reporter that an assistant district attorney had said no meeting notice or agenda was required.
- Hanning and Kelley also attended the March 24 meeting that included about 200 people.
A notice and agenda weren't posted until an April 7 meeting at the Coweta High School gymnasium in which all three commissioners again attended, Swaim said.
"These meetings, concerning what has developed into a volatile topic, did not keep Wagoner County residents properly informed of the discussion of an ad valorem tax to fund a fire district in the county," said Swaim in the letter. "At least one county commissioner at each of these meetings actively took part in the discussion.
"Because of these violations, commissioners have circumvented the process while we believe attempting to garner support for an ad valorem tax proposal. Residents now may not fully understand the issue or other reasonable options available as they were not properly notified of these public meetings that may effect them," said Swaim.
"These are issues we take seriously and believe the county commissioners should follow the law and should be held accountable for the specific violations that occurred," Swaim said in the letter, which was sent to Wagoner County District Attorney Brian Kuester.
Indeed, these would be outrageous violations of the Open Meeting Act. Absolutely criminal violations if they occurred as described. If true, then those commissioners stole from Wagoner County residents their right to understand and participate in their county government.
The Legislature's goal in enacting the Open Meeting Act "was not simply to prevent or punish deliberate violations, but to restore sadly sagging public confidence in government, a goal which is hurt by every noncomplying meeting regardless of whether or not the noncompliance resulted from evil motives," then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright said in 1982. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 11)
The public policy stated in the Act is "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)
Therefore,"a governmental body must operate with such openness that the citizenry is informed of its activities," said then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson in 2000. (2000 OK AG 7, ¶ 30)
Because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1981, the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
The principle is "very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals said that year: "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57)
Unfortunately, Wagoner County Commissioners Hanning, Kelley and Edwards didn't follow Oklahoma's open-meeting policy.
Violations of the Open Meeting Act are a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and up to one year in the county jail. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 314)
These meetings by Hanning, Kelley and Edwards warrant the fullest investigation and prosecution by the district attorney. What is Kuester going to do?
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.
OSU's Student Government Association last week amended its bylaws, apparently as a reminder to future members that it must comply with the state Open Meeting Act.
The Daily O'Collegian reported in early March that the SGA didn't send meeting notices to the county clerk as required by the Open Meeting Act and didn't post agendas for regularly scheduled meetings on its website as required by another state statute.
Most troubling was that once again an SGA official was adamant that the public body didn't have to comply with the Open Meeting Act.
A fallacy that OSU legal counsel Doug Price once again had to correct.
A reminder wouldn't seem necessary given that a 1979 attorney general opinion specifically says that OSU's SGA and Residence Hall Association must comply with the Open Meeting Act. (1979 OK AG 134)
But four times since 2002, The Daily O'Collegian has reported on open meeting violations by SGA officials. (Read this blog posting for a listing.)
This time, however, the SGA amended its bylaws so that:
- "All agendas and minutes of the SGA Senate shall be posted to the SGA website. All agendas must be posted 24 hours before Senate convenes, and minutes must be posted following the final edit made by the SGA Senate secretary.
- "Notice shall be given to the county clerk of all regularly scheduled meetings of the SGA Senate.
- "The Senate chair shall give notice in writing the meeting dates, times and places for the following calendar year by Dec. 15 of the current year."
The Daily O'Collegian reported that the bill passed and went into effect immediately.
Good.
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.
