Legislative leaders defend secrecy at Capitol

Oklahoma's legislators must be exempt from the state's open government laws in order to avoid releasing personal or confidential information revealed in constituent e-mails or letters, the author of the state Open Records Act told KWTV.

"If you don't allow citizens the right to communicate on sensitive matters such as family members having AIDS, possibilities of child abuse or other things (then) it would be a mistake," said Stratton Taylor, who served as Senate president pro tempore from 1995 to 2003.

However, legislators could abide by the Open Records Act while exempting such confidential information from disclosure. In fact, medical records and many others are already exempted from the otherwise public documents of state and local agencies. (See, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 36 O.S. § 6927; 43A O.S. § 2-224; 63 O.S. §, 1-729; 63 O.S. § 1-738c; 63 O.S. § 5051.5; 10 O.S. §. 620.1)

Even so, the same load of horse excrement was shoveled by the current Senate president pro tem.

"The staff and members of the Oklahoma legislature deal with numerous inquiries and communications from constituents, fellow members and others who have concerns about state government, and who would need their privacy protected for any number of legitimate reasons," said Glen Coffee.

The Oklahoma City Republican cannot seek re-election this fall because of term limits. The same is true for House Speaker Chris Benge, who also defended the need for secrecy at the state Capitol.

"The long-standing principle of legislative immunity is aimed at protecting a legislator's (and his or her agent while performing legislative functions) ability to deliberate and communicate in confidence to discharge his or her duty as a representative of the public," the Tulsa Republican told KWTV. "Such protection is essential to the functioning of the House."

Yes, unfortunately, secrecy seems to be at the core of how the House and Senate conduct the public's business. And that secrecy has bred incompetency and corruption at the state Capitol.

KWTV said its report was prompted by accusations of political corruption at the Capitol. Its reporters wanted to know who in the last days of the session had added to a bill some language creating a high-paying job at the state Medical Examiner's Office.

(Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater is investigating whether Rep. Randy Terrill conspired with Sen. Debbe Leftwich to give up her Oklahoma City seat so Rep. Mike Christian could run for it and Leftwich would get the job at the Medical Examiner's Office in exchange.)

KWTV's request for notes, e-mails and other information related to the legislation was denied by the bill's author -- none other than Glen Coffee.

At a press conference in June, Coffee denied knowing who had added the language but admitted to signing the conference committee report that included the new job in the bill.

KWTV also looked at how the conference committees -- particularly in the rushed finals days of a session -- create a situation fertile for abuse.

Despite the name "committee," the station reported, most don't actually meet to reconcile the differences between House and Senate versions of bills.

"No, it's a piece of paper that has signature lines on it," said Rep. Ryan Kiesel, D-Seminole.

KWTV noted that the author of a bill sent to a conference committee needs only to get signatures from a majority of the committee members to bring it back for a floor vote.

Kiesel said the system allows unscrupulous legislators to insert self-serving language and then use personal or political persuasion to get enough committee members to agree.

Any notion of real legislative transparency is "out the window," he told the station.

At the press conference, Coffee had dodged the question of whether the conference committee system should be fixed.

"I am a term-limited legislator, and the next Legislature will have the opportunity to address those sort of issues if they choose," he told reporters.

Coffee, Benge and Stratton seem to think the rest of us are stupid. We're expected to believe that legitimate needs for privacy and confidentiality preclude other records or meetings from being open to the public.

But not even other legislators like the smell of that fertilizer.

"The confidentiality issue is just a bad excuse for saying that this law shouldn't apply to the Legislature. That's easily accounted for by a clear set of laws (exemptions) that everyone would follow," Rep. Jason Murphey told KWTV.

Since March when Benge refused media requests for video showing legislators switching portraits of Gov. Brad Henry and President Barack Obama, Murphey has said he will introduce a bill next session to remove the Legislature's self-imposed exemption from the Open Meeting and Open Records laws.

"I think we need to look at how other states do it and basically find some of the best practices and apply them here," the Guthrie Republican told KWTV.

(All six announced gubernatorial candidates have said they also support removing the exemption.)

If Murphey follows through on his promise, we'll 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)

In the meantime, we -- the voters -- can provide Murphey with some support for next session.

Ask legislative candidates to sign FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge just as Murphey and 11 other House members have done.

Then expect those who are elected to operate with the same public scrutiny required of our other state and local officials.

After all, it's our government. Not their private club.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic 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

All 6 gubernatorial candidates: State Legislature should not exempt itself from Open Records Act

The Oklahoma Legislature should be subject to the state's Open Records Act just like the rest of government, the six announced gubernatorial candidates said on Saturday.

Live online audio and video feeds of the House and Senate in session are nothing more than "great window dressing," said Lt. Gov. Jari Askins, a Democratic candidate and former state legislator.

"We will all be better served (with) transparency when the House and the Senate open up the rest of their records and remove their exemption,” Askins told the audience at FOI Oklahoma's third-annual Sunshine Week conference.

The other gubernatorial candidates in agreement were fellow Democrat Drew Edmondson and Republicans state Sen. Randy Brogdon, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, Robert Hubbard and Roger L. Jackson.

Only nine other state legislatures completely exempt themselves from their state open records laws, The Oklahoman reported today.

Oklahoma legislators exempted themselves when the statute was first enacted in 1985.

That means Oklahoman can't see their lawmakers’ e-mails, letters, drafts of bills, memorandums, calendars, phone call logs and other records that might show how those entrusted with the public’s business are doing their jobs, reporter John Estus pointed out.

Current legislative leaders' reasoning for continuing the exemption were galling.

"Protection of the Legislature’s records is vital to the independent functioning of the legislative branch,” a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, said in a statement. "Subjecting the Legislature to open records requirements would chill the flow of communications within and from outside the Capitol."

House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, echoed Coffee’s position in a separate statement, Estus reported.

According to Benge and Coffee, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Other legislative bodies -- such as city councils and county commissions -- should operate with public scrutiny but not so for our state Legislature.

Perhaps our legislative leaders don't know that "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 are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government," states the Open Records Act's preamble.

"The purpose of this 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." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)

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

Other coverage on the issue:

• Hopefuls call for exemption's end, The Oklahoman, 3.14.10.


• OETA reporter Lori Rasmussen talked to government leaders about the exemption of the state legislature from requirements of the state Open Meeting and Open Records Acts. Also discussion with Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association about openness in government. (Click on ONR 03-16-10)

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Legislative Alert: Letting county commissioners employ same aide could lead to violations of Open Meeting Act, says county assessor

State legislation allowing county commissioners to employ the same top aide would open the door for scandal and likely lead to violations of the Open Meeting Act, says Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel.

Yazel has sent an e-mail to all House members in which he opposed HB 3055.

The bill was originally authored by House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa. Last week, Rep. Dan Kirby, R-Tulsa, was substituted for Benge as the principal author.

The bill would allow "two or more county commissioners of the same county" to employ "the same person as their first or chief deputy or assistant.”

In his e-mail, Yazel said:

Where this has been done in the past, there is a clear pattern and history of abuse. And that abuse led to the first deputy being forced to resign in the midst of a scandal.

1. The people elected three county commissioners, not one first deputy?

The commissioner’s first deputy represents him at various meetings. If this law passed, how can the public possibly know which commissioner district that first deputy is speaking for?

How can a single first deputy, when acting as the commissioner, possibly represent the values of three different commissioners, commissioners who may be from different parts of the county, from different political parties, each of whom having made specific and differing representations to their constituents when they ran for office?

How can any public minded legislator think that the public is being fairly served by this?

2. A single person can’t be two people at the same time.

The AG’s opinion states that when a county commissioner is out of the county or becomes incapacitated, his first deputy “automatically” becomes the acting commissioner. So when two commissioners sharing the same first deputy are out of the county, that first deputy
becomes two county commissioners. How does this make any sense? How is this serving the public interest?

3. A quorum exists in violation of the statute.

The law says two commissioners can’t discuss public business unless it is done in a properly called public meeting because two commissioners represent a quorum. So if three commissioners employ a single first deputy to work for them, and a commissioner goes out of the county, then the first deputy (the employee) instantly becomes the acting commissioner (the employer). He is their employee, but he can’t talk to either of the other commissioners - he can’t email them and can’t talk to them on the telephone. To do so constitutes a quorum and a violation of the open meeting act.

Let me emphasize again. Where this has been tried before it led to abuse and scandal, and the first deputy was forced to resign. Why, in light of a clear history of abuse, would any legislator go out of his way to allow that to happen again?

Yazel's concerns regarding the Open Meeting Act reflect what Oklahoma County commissioners were told in 2005. The prohibition on obtaining a consensus through informal discussions applies to the assistants of members of public bodies.

While there was “nothing inherently wrong with [the commissioners’] chief deputies getting together with one another in order to acquaint themselves with” agenda items, “there is a clear prohibition of any chief deputy binding his or her commissioner to how he or she will vote on the matter,” District Attorney C. Wesley Lane II told commissioners.

Chief deputies cannot promise, bind or commit their commissioner to any action on any particular agenda item or public business decision. To do so would be in violation of the [Open Meeting] Act. Thus, no chief deputy can announce at any gathering held between other chief deputies that his or her commissioner will vote a particular way on an issue.

(Letter from C. Wesley Lane II, Oklahoma County District Attorney, Oklahoma City, to Jim Roth, District 1 Commissioner, 2-3 (Mar. 14, 2005) (on file with the Oklahoma County Board of Commissioners))

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism