Answer: Meeting minutes should include votes of individual members on agenda items

Meeting minutes should include how each member of the public body voted on each agenda item, a city attorney said.

"The argument, of course, is that the vote is the action of the Council/Board, and the actions must be shown in the minutes," said Michael Vanderburg, city attorney for Oklmulgee.

Whether meeting minutes must include such votes became an issue last week. The Oklahoma Daily reported that meeting minutes of the OU Undergraduate Student Congress don't include votes. Instead, the voting record is kept as a separate document under the "resources" tab of the student government website.

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))

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

Given those provisions, must the minutes include each member's vote on agenda items?

Vanderburg said they must.

"The fact that at a separate place in the law, the vote is separately required to be publicly cast and recorded, does not support a separate record, but merely states the manner of the vote," said Vanderburg, a former city attorney for Broken Arrow.

"This is the first instance I have heard of where the votes were not included in the minutes, but instead recorded elsewhere," said the longtime member of FOI Oklahoma.

Another FOI Oklahoma member noted that the meeting minutes section of Robert's Rules of Order states, "When the voting is by roll call, the names of those voting on each side and those answering 'Present' should be entered." (RONR (10th ed.), p. 453, l. 33-35).

("[W]hen the voting is by yeas and nays [the chairman] should enter a list of the names of those voting on each side." (Public Domain Edition of Robert's Rules, Art. 10, sec. 60))

"One could make the argument then, if RONR is the adopted authority, that not including the roll call vote in the minutes would make them out of compliance," said Tyson Wynn, publisher and executive editor of WelchOk.com.

(While Robert's Rules of Order would apply when the Open Meeting Act is silent, it cannot trump the statute's requirements or prohibitions. "The statute makes no mention of Robert's Rules of Order and is not controlled thereby," the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted in 1975. (Oldham v. Drummond Bd. of Educ., 1975 OK 147, ¶ 7))

Recording the votes in the minutes seems to be "just common sense," said Korina Dove, an FOI Oklahoma member and editor of the Cherokee Messenger & Republican.

"Isn't the main purpose of keeping minutes so that the public can know the business - and the outcome of the business - on the agenda?" Dove noted.

For the public to make the most of the minutes, the votes should be included.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
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.

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.

Votes recorded for DHS commissioner who wasn't present; DA investigation into apparent Open Meeting Act violations by commission likely finished in about two weeks

DHS Commissioner George Young Sr. voted to return from an executive session and to adjourn the meeting June 14, according to commission records.

But Young wasn't present for most of the executive session or for the adjournment, the Tulsa World reported today.

The statewide commission overseeing the Oklahoma Department of Human Services is being investigated for apparent Open Meeting Act violations at the meeting.

For example, members of the Oklahoma Commission for Human Services left after the closed executive session on June 14 without a public vote to adjourn.

Oklahoma Watchdog Editor Peter J. Rudy provided information about that apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act to the Oklahoma County district attorney.

Assistant District Attorney Scott Roland says his investigation will likely be finished in about two weeks, the Tulsa World reported today.

Commissioner Steven Dow, who has complained publicly about the lack of openness by the public body, has said a staff person asked each member individually for a vote on whether to adjourn.

DHS spokeswoman Sheree Powell told the Tulsa World that the roll-call vote was taken "in a public area of the room."

That doesn't comply with the Open Meeting Act, which states, "In all meetings of public bodies, the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 305)

Under the commission's procedure, a staff person could collect votes on any measure while members of the public body milled about in a public hallway or lobby.

That defeats the purpose of requiring a public roll-call vote. The public would have no idea who voted which way until the meeting minutes were available.

The commission's haphazard method also makes more likely the kind of mistake that Powell says occurred when votes were recorded for Young. She told the Tulsa World that the recorded votes were a "scrivener's error" and would be corrected in the minutes up for approval at the July 26 meeting.

Rowland's investigation should go beyond whether the commission cast public votes to return from the executive session and subsequently to adjourn.

When the commission approved the DHS budget on June 14, it also increased co-payments made by clients who receive child-care benefits and reduced the income eligibility.

But no mention of that important decision was made on the meeting agenda.

Chairman Richard L. DeVaughn later told the Tulsa World that the commission would add more detail to its agendas if told to by a court or state Attorney General Scott Pruitt.

If Pruitt won't, hopefully Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater will.

Agendas should be worded in “plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting, in order to give the public actual notice. The language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence," the Court of Civil Appeals has said. (Haworth v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8) (emphasis added)

The purpose of the Open Meeting Act "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems . . . is defeated if the required notice is deceptively worded or materially obscures the stated purpose of the meeting," the court said.

Any act or omission that "has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting" would be a "willful" violation of the Open Meeting Act, the court said. (Id. ¶ 8)

The commission's June 14 agenda failed to give the public actual notice and materially obscured the scope of matters commissioners would consider.

Rowland also should be investigating Dow's claim that the commission's Budget Committee made decisions when it met secretly.

The commission relies on loopholes in the Open Meeting Act to avoid having the Budget Committee meet publicly and post meeting notices and agendas. No more than four of the commission's nine members are on the Budget Committee. But that avoids the Open Meeting Act's requirements only if the committee has no actual or de facto decision-making power.

But Dow, who said he was barred from the Budget Committee's meetings, said the commmittee "has de facto decision-making authority."

"They did not decide to approve the overall budget, but it did decide the details of that budget," he told the Tulsa World.

Violating the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine.

Will DHS commissioners face charges, a stern finger-wagging, or be allowed to go merrily on their way? That will depend on what Rowland says he found and what Prater decides to do based on those findings.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
OSU Associate Professor
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.

DHS Commission adjourns without public vote; Member says budget committee avoids Open Meeting Act

The statewide commission overseeing the Oklahoma Department of Human Services doesn't seem too keen on open government.

On Tuesday, members of the Oklahoma Commission for Human Services just packed up their things after an executive session and left without a public vote to adjourn, reported Oklahoma Watchdog Editor Peter J. Rudy.

And Commissioner Steven Dow complained to Rudy that he -- Dow -- is not allowed to attend the commission's budget committee hearings.

Rudy said he has provided information about the lack of a public vote to adjourn -- an apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act -- to the Oklahoma County district attorney.

Rudy said he was the only person in the meeting room when commissioners returned from about a 15-minute executive session. Rather than dealing with the next agenda item or even voting to adjourn, commissioners "started gathering their things and leaving," Rudy reported.

Rudy said he was told the meeting was over. During a subsequent interview, he was told that the commission's clerk "asked each member individually for their vote on whether to adjourn."

However, the Open Meeting Act states, "In all meetings of public bodies, the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 305)

That doesn't mean voting behind closed doors at the end of the executive session or in the hallway walking back to the meeting room.

Leaves me wondering what else commissioners vote on outside the view of the public.

Also indicative of the commission's disrespect for an open government was Dow's complaint of being barred from the commission's budget committee hearings.

"They do not want the committee subject to the Open Meetings Act. There is no agenda, no minutes, no way for me to find out what the deliberations were,” said Dow, executive director of the Community Action Project of Tulsa County.

Apparently the budget committee isn't a majority of the commission members, but having Dow there would put it over the magic number.

Yes, it's that old game again.

For a detailed explanation, read how the OU Regents use a strict compliance with the letter of the Open Meeting Act to defeat its purpose.

Here is a summary of how it works: (1) The Open Meeting Act's definition of "meeting" allows less than the majority of a public body to meet secretly to discuss the public’s business. (2) The Open Meeting Act says it applies to "all committees and subcommittees of any public body." But a state Supreme Court decision years ago said that despite that language, the statute doesn't apply to committees that are strictly advisory.

Public bodies use these loopholes by saying the committee -- consisting of less than a majority of the public body -- isn't subject to the Open Meeting Act because the committee doesn't make decisions.

Seems odd that the budget committee wouldn't make any decisions.

Nothing in the statute prohibits the committee from following the Open Meeting Act by posting notices and agendas. They don't because they don't want the public to know what they're doing. That's outrageous.

And the Legislature needs to address these loopholes by clarifying that ALL means ALL, even those committees that just advise or recommend, and especially those committees whose members are from the parent public body.

On Tuesday, Dow was one of two commissioners to vote against the proposed budget for the Department of Human Services, Rudy reported in a separate story.

Dow's complaints about the budget and the budgeting process are worth reading.

The nine-member commission, established by the Oklahoma Constitution, "approves program budgets, funding, and policies and procedures that direct the Department's program and service delivery."

The other commissioners are Chairman Richard L. DeVaughn, Vice Chairman Aneta F. Wilkinson, Jay Dee Chase, Linda English Weeks, Michael L. Peck, Robert D. Rawlings, Anne M. Roberts, and George E. Young Sr.

They do an important job that should be done in the open. But that doesn't seem to be the commission's mind-set.


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.