skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Glenpool real estate developer would have to pay more than $1,400 to receive copies of the city manager's e-mails for a seven-week period, according to documents provided to the FOI Oklahoma Blog.
Keith Jones said he believes the emails "will prove" that City Manager Ed Tinker and two other Glenpool officials "should not be employed by the City of Glenpool."
On Monday, the City Council is scheduled to discuss hiring an outside attorney "regarding indefinite but possible future actions of the Council with respect to the employment of the City Manager."
Jones requested emails sent from Assistant City Manager David Tillotson and City Planner Rick Malone to Tinker from April 1 to May 20 and all of Tinker's emails during that time.
Jones has been told to pay the $1,200 that Aktec Computer Solutions charged the city for 14.5 hours retrieving the emails and $200 for the Tulsa company to print 1,051 pages, according to the company's invoice to the city.
Jones, who writes a blog commenting on Glenpool issues, will be charged a $15-per-hour search fee for City Attorney Lowell L. Peterson "to review the resulting emails to determine whether any are subject to confidential privilege," according to a June 17 email from Peterson to Jones.
However, the state Open Records Act prohibits search fees being charged to "taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))
Jones said he isn't sure what final amount he will be asked to pay for the emails and hasn't decided whether to pay the $1,400 or appeal to the City Council.
"I'm waiting to see if the city council takes action against the city manager over the next two city council meetings," he said in an email Saturday.
Jones had asked to inspect the emails, but in the June 17 email, Peterson said:
The City is not going to allow you (or any other requester) to examine emails on-screen. This means it will be necessary for someone to retrieve and print both archived and currently stored emails. The charge for such printing will be identical to that of providing copies.
However, the state Open Records Act states that unless a statutory exemption applies, "All records of public bodies and public officials shall be open to any person for inspection, copying, or mechanical reproduction during regular business hours." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5)
Jones requested the emails on May 24. In an email June 16, Jones asked City Clerk Susan White when the emails would be available for viewing. "I think eighteen (18) working days is adequate time to allow me to view these records," Jones said in the email.
Peterson responded:
We have neither a duty nor a policy of reporting our office operations to you. Our obligation ends with complying with the Open Records Act and that does not include explaining delays to you.
Notwithstanding that fact, and not hereby setting any precedent of explaining ourselves to you, I will inform you of the following:
- For a portion of the time since your request, Ms. White was out of town and unable to give this her attention.
- As to another staff person being designated to reply to your request in Ms. White’s absence, that person has been preoccupied with a competing records requests that has literally numbered in multiple thousands of documents. That alone is a legitimate cause for the delay you have experienced.
Peterson said that based on requests for emails, "not just from you and not singling you out for any kind of disparate treatment, we are instituting a more formalized procedure regarding email requests."
"Don’t bother asking for a copy of a 'policy' as adopted by the City Council because this is an internal administrative decision that is outside the scope of Council oversight," Peterson added.
In a July 12 email, Peterson said Jones would have to pay the $1,400 before the city would complete his records request.
"Charges thus far do not include staff time for internal review to ensure compliance with all provisions of the Open Records Act," said Peterson.
Jones had already paid a $120 deposit, which Peterson said would be "applied to the final computation of charges."
Once the $1,400 payment is received, the records would be available "both in written and electronic format as requested, within two business days," Peterson said.
"If you advise us that you do not wish to proceed any further with this matter, or if we do not hear from you within 30 days from today’s date, we will not expend any more time on the request and your $120.00 deposit will be returned," he said.
Under the Open Records Act, public bodies "may charge a fee only for recovery of the reasonable, direct costs of record copying, or mechanical reproduction." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))
In 1992, the state Supreme Court said the "reasonable, direct costs" for copying computer records should be "based upon the cost of materials [and] labor needed for providing the computer program and service to produce the requested data." (Merrill v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 1992 OK 53, ¶ 13)
Taking into account that decision and the statute’s admonition that fees are not to be used to discourage requests, a 1996 attorney general opinion said, "Public bodies . . . may only recover the cost of materials and labor specifically incurred in reproducing existing computer records in a computer-readable format. This means the public body could charge for:
- "The storage media used, including disk, tape, or other format unless provided by the requestor;
- Any access or processing charges imposed upon the public body because of the request;
- Any hardware or software specifically required to fulfill the request and reproduce the record in computer-readable format which would not otherwise generally be required or used by the public body; and
- The cost of labor directly attributable to fulfilling the request." (1996 OK AG 26, ¶ 10. See also 2005 OK AG 21, ¶ 11 (reaffirming 1996 OK AG 26))
"The public body would not, however, be able to charge for:
- Hardware or software or a percentage thereof which is otherwise generally required or used by the public body for day-to-day operations;
- Storage, processing or access charges not specifically linked to the request;
- Maintenance and materials generally required by the public body for day-to-day operations and not directly resulting from the request.
"In the context of a request for a paper record, this is like a public body being unable to charge for (1) a percentage of the cost of a typewriter or copying machine used to make the copies; (2) the cost of archiving and storing the records; or (3) the cost of fixing a copier which broke while copying a record," the opinion said.
A "per-page fee may not be charged for electronic copies of records which are kept in a computer-readable format," a 2005 attorney general opinion said. (2005 OK AG 21, ¶ 11)
The Open Records Act says fees "shall not be used for the purpose of discouraging requests for information or as obstacles to disclosure of requested information." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3)(b))
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 proposed change in Oklahoma Corporation Commission rules could open telephone company annual reports that include the number of "trouble tickets per exchange."
The Corporation Commission official requesting the change is scheduled to file written testimony Monday explaining why a change is needed.
David B. Dykeman, director of the public utility division, is asking the commission to issue an order determining what information required to be in the annual report "will be deemed proprietary, confidential, and competitively sensitive."
Dykeman also wants the commission to determine "what records will be deemed proprietary, confidential, and competitively sensitive in Protective Orders."
In an application for the orders, Dykeman said he "has noticed that many of the Protective Orders have become vague and broad and that the orders have extended the scope of protecting proprietary and competitively sensitive information."
The reports don't contain information about individual callers or phone company employees. They also don't include income or financial statements of the telecommunications companies.
But the reports do contain "some financial information, such as government subsidies received and total revenue," said Matt Skinner, public information officer.
The annual reports of operations were open to the public until 2004.
Under the state Open Records Act, the commission determines which records of a public utility, its affiliates, suppliers and customers are confidential books and records or trade secrets. (51 O.S. § 24A.22(A))
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.
Committees advising the city of Norman would have to abide by the state Open Meeting Act and city emails would be kept for at least one year, under a proposal by Councilman Tom Kovach.
Kovach also wants executive sessions of the city's public bodies to be recorded.
His proposal is on the agenda for the City Council's regular meeting Tuesday.
Under what would become Norman's first records retention policy, "all records, written and electronic, shall be retained for at least 1 year unless there is pending litigation, in which case it will be retained for at least 2 years after the ultimate disposition or the resolution of the litigation."
"I have received stiff opposition to even this limited time," said Kovach. "Staff insists this will put a burden on our existing storage capacity and is trying to limit this. It not perfect but it is better than what they do now, which is delete every day."
Under Kovach's proposal, "all meetings of committees, sub committees and ad hoc committees" would be subject to the Open Meeting Act and to a state statute requiring that notices and agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be posted on the public body's website.
Kovach said this provision is intended to cover advisory committees, even those appointed by the mayor, regardless of whether they have actual or de facto decision-making power.
Kovach is one of five Norman council members to have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge as candidates. The others are Carol Dillingham, Hal Ezzell, Roger Gallagher and Mayor Cindy Rosenthal.
Each promised to "support at every opportunity the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."
Kovach's proposal would do just that.
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.
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.
Jet's attorney agrees that the town is overcharging for some copies of records.
The small town in Alfalfa County charges 50 cents for each page larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, the FOI Oklahoma Blog reported a week ago.
But under the state Open Records Act, the town may not charge more than 25 cents per page for uncertified paper documents 8 1/2 by 14 inches or smaller. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))
In an email today to Fox 25 reporter Phil Cross, town attorney E. W. "Bill" Shaw agreed that "the charges were not in compliance with the statute."
Shaw said the charges "will be formally changed at the next board meeting."
Shaw didn't indicate how many people the town has overcharged for copies and whether those people be reimbursed the overcharge.
However, the Enid attorney did seem defensive because of Cross' request for the town's contract with Shaw.
"I am not sure of what your purpose is in these records," wrote Shaw, adding:
As I mentioned to you earlier, the town of Jet is a rural community with a listed population of 204 citizens, mostly elderly. The Town's financial resources are very limited and the work required the town clerk to keep up with all the government imposed tasks is very demanding. The board members receive minimal pay for a great deal of time dealing with the maintenance of the streets, cleaning trash, dealing with abandoned buildings, etc. I try to assist the town when requested. Because I am aware of the limited resources of the town I only charge half of my hourly rate for my services.
Of course, town officials could save themselves some of those fees if they would respond directly to questions from reporters and residents rather than having Shaw run interference for them.
Shaw's email also thanked Cross for sending citations for two state attorney general opinions requiring that records be made available in electronic format if kept that way.
In emails with resident Paul Blackledge, Shaw had defended town officials' refusal to provide meeting agendas as email attachments because doing so isn't required by the Open Records Act. True, it isn't.
But Shaw also said records don't have to be released in electronic format. Wrong, they must be.
Shaw had told Cross that he didn't know about the following two attorney general opinions:
- 1999 OK AG 55, ¶ 23: Because "the Open Records Act does not distinguish between the form of public records," records must be provided "in whatever form they exist."
- 2006 OK AG 35, ¶ 19: "There are no Oklahoma statutes or laws generally requiring public agencies or public officers to keep records in an electronic format. However, if a governmental agency elects to keep its records in electronic format we believe that such agency must provide records under the Act in this format if so requested."
A town attorney -- even one charging half-price -- should have known about these formal written opinions.
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.
The state Board of Education last week cut several programs even though its meeting agenda noted only "discussion and possible action on the FY2012 Common Education Budget Work Program."
"Some board members complained during the meeting that they only received the budget details the evening before the meeting and they wanted more time to look over the numbers," reported Oklahoma Watchdog Editor Peter J. Rudy.
"The budget details were not posted online and the press did not receive copies until just before the meeting started," Rudy noted. "It could be argued that ... stakeholders (like National Board Certified teachers) had no idea looking at the agenda that their programs were being eliminated."
The board cut funding for National Board Certified teacher bonuses, adult education, charter school startup grants, new robotics programs, and middle school mathematics laboratories, The Oklahoman had reported.
The newspaper had also noted that board members complained about not having enough time to study the budget prior to being asked to vote on it.
"I just think it's kind of unfair to give it to us the day before and want us to try to vote on it," board member Gayle Miles-Scott said. "Could we not have a special meeting?"
State schools Superintendent Janet Barresi told Rudy that staff had worked on the budget "up to the 11th hour."
"We had to make a decision yesterday that we had to move forward with this," she said.
(Watch Barresi's reaction in the video as Rudy explains that the Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office is investigating the Oklahoma Human Services Commission for a possible Open Meeting Act violation because its agenda's budget item did not specify increased co-payments for clients who receive child-care benefits and reduced income eligibility.)
So it literally wasn't possible to call a special meeting to give board members and the public time to mull over the budget details? And to include those important details on the agenda for a special meeting?
The Open Meeting Act says each agenda "shall identify all items of business to be transacted by a public body at a meeting." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(1))
The state education board's agenda didn't do that. Barresi should have asked for a special meeting so the agenda could specify such important budget cuts. The public and the board members being asked to vote on that budget deserved more time to consider it. The board's vote is not supposed to be a rubber-stamp.
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.
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.
