The Tulsa City-County Library Commission doesn't keep minutes of its executive sessions, the Tulsa World reported this morning.
So rack up another violation of the state Open Meeting law by this board.
Minutes of executive session discussions must be kept, the state Supreme Court said in 1980.
(Berry v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists, 1980 OK 45, ¶12, 611 P.2d 628, 631. (“Although the municipal attorneys' case permits executive sessions on the advice of counsel in certain specified instances, it does not abrogate the statutory requirement that minutes be kept and recorded.”))
State Attorney General Drew Edmondson came to the same conclusion in a 1996 written opinion. (1996 OK AG 100, ¶ 5)
"The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the requirement for minutes to be kept and recorded also applies to executive sessions," Edmondson said.
He also said state legislators had "explicitly recognized that the requirement to keep a summary of the proceedings in the form of written minutes extends to executive sessions."
Edmondson noted that Legislators had kept confidential the minutes of lawful executive sessions under the Open Records Act (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(1)(b)) and had mandated that a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act caused the executive session minutes to be made public. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(F)).
The penalty for violating the Open Meeting Act is one year in the county jail and/or a $500 fine.
Which public bodies in your area routinely don't keep minutes of their executive sessions? Might be worth asking them.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
Showing posts with label La Verne Ford Wimberly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label La Verne Ford Wimberly. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Tulsa Library Commission violates Open Meeting Act
In an updated Tulsa World story, the Tulsa City-County Library Commission chairwoman says the panel conducted public business by voting in an executive session, which is a violation of the Open Meeting Act.
Tulsa World: Commission Chairwoman La Verne Ford Wimberly told the Tulsa World today a vote was taken in executive session to review the use of employee flexible time and no vote was taken to return to a public meeting.
"It was an error for not going back into open session, and we are trying to re-schedule a meeting on Tuesday to correct that," Wimberly said. "I didn't expect the meeting to last that long, and in my haste to leave, I made a mistake and now I am going back to clean it up."
Violation No. 1: The use of employee flexible time is not one of the nine topics that may be discussed in executive session. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307)
Violation No. 2: The Library Commission cannot vote in executive session. No motion for a vote should have been made until after the panel resumed its meeting in public.
County Commissioner Karen Keith, a member of the panel, told the newspaper that a motion was made and seconded during the executive session but no action was taken because the library commission became side tracked on other business.
What other business? Discussions are limited to the agenda item, and only certain topics may be discussed in executive session. As an earlier posting noted, the posted agenda item of "staff employment issues" was not a permissible topic.
Redoing the meeting won't excuse the criminal violation of the Open Meeting Act’s executive session provision. (Read this earlier posting for an explanation.)
Keith told the Tulsa World that no one had willfully intended to violate the law.
But “willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act," the state Supreme Court said in 1984.
When drivers are pulled over for speeding, they don't get a refresher course on the speeding limit. They most likely get a ticket because they're expected to know the speed limit.
The same is true for public bodies. The library commissioners -- especially Mayor Kathy Taylor and Keith -- and the commission's attorney should know what's required for conducting an executive session before the agenda is posted.
It's a crime to violate the Open Meeting Act. Perhaps someone in Tulsa will take the matter to the police.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
Tulsa World: Commission Chairwoman La Verne Ford Wimberly told the Tulsa World today a vote was taken in executive session to review the use of employee flexible time and no vote was taken to return to a public meeting.
"It was an error for not going back into open session, and we are trying to re-schedule a meeting on Tuesday to correct that," Wimberly said. "I didn't expect the meeting to last that long, and in my haste to leave, I made a mistake and now I am going back to clean it up."
Violation No. 1: The use of employee flexible time is not one of the nine topics that may be discussed in executive session. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307)
Violation No. 2: The Library Commission cannot vote in executive session. No motion for a vote should have been made until after the panel resumed its meeting in public.
County Commissioner Karen Keith, a member of the panel, told the newspaper that a motion was made and seconded during the executive session but no action was taken because the library commission became side tracked on other business.
What other business? Discussions are limited to the agenda item, and only certain topics may be discussed in executive session. As an earlier posting noted, the posted agenda item of "staff employment issues" was not a permissible topic.
Redoing the meeting won't excuse the criminal violation of the Open Meeting Act’s executive session provision. (Read this earlier posting for an explanation.)
Keith told the Tulsa World that no one had willfully intended to violate the law.
But “willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act," the state Supreme Court said in 1984.
When drivers are pulled over for speeding, they don't get a refresher course on the speeding limit. They most likely get a ticket because they're expected to know the speed limit.
The same is true for public bodies. The library commissioners -- especially Mayor Kathy Taylor and Keith -- and the commission's attorney should know what's required for conducting an executive session before the agenda is posted.
It's a crime to violate the Open Meeting Act. Perhaps someone in Tulsa will take the matter to the police.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
Possible open meeting violations by the Tulsa City-County Library Commission
In an FOI version of "Where's Waldo?," can you find the possible open meeting violations committed by the Tulsa City-County Library Commission on Wednesday night?
The Tulsa World reports today:
"The Tulsa City-County Library Commission met in executive session for more than two hours Wednesday to discuss 'staff employment issues.' It is uncertain whether a vote or any public action was taken in open or closed session.
"A Tulsa World reporter and two library staff members who were waiting for any public discussion, possible vote and the meeting's adjournment were not called back into the meeting room after the executive session, and commissioners left the Central Library building immediately.
"Standing in an elevator after leaving the meeting, commission Chairwoman La Verne Ford Wimberly told the Tulsa World that a vote was taken to review some 'internal employee' matters."
Possible Violation No. 1: Meeting Agenda
It lists:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
a) Staff Employment Issues (Action)
The Open Meeting Act, however, does not permit executive sessions for an item as vague as "staff employment issues." Instead, the laws allows closed-door discussions regarding the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any individual salaried public officer or employee. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(1).
An agenda item for an executive session to discuss such personnel matters “must identify either the position or the individual salaried employee who is the subject of the discussion,” Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in 1997. “The Act does not specify that a person must be identified by name; however, in light of case law, it is evident that identification by name is necessary unless the position held by the person is so unique as to allow adequate identification.” (1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)
Possible Violation No. 2: Voting in secret
Unless the library commissioners can explain how such a vote was required by state or federal law to be confidential, the Library Commission may not vote during executive session. Any vote or action taken on an item considered in executive session must be publicly cast and recorded.
(OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3) “Except for matters considered in executive sessions of the State Banking Board and the Oklahoma Savings and Loan Board, and which are required by state or federal law to be confidential, any vote or action on any item of business considered in an executive session shall be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded.”)
Even the vote to adjourn should have been cast and recorded in public.
A willful violation of the Open Meeting Act’s executive session provisions would subject each member to criminal sanctions (up to one year in jail) and cause the minutes and other records of the session, including tape recordings, “to be immediately made public.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25,§ 307(F)(1-2))
Any action taken in “willful violation” of the Open Meeting Act is “invalid.” (§ 313)
In 1984, the state Supreme Court said, “Willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act.”
The personnel exemption and voting in public are not new requirements under our open meeting laws.
Library commissioners, which that night included Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and County Commissioner Karen Keith, should know their obligations under the state’s open meeting laws.
The public should also expect such apparent violations to be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the district attorney. Conducting the public's business in secret weakens our faith in government, paves the way for corruption and incompetency by officials, and warrants attention by those we trust and empower to protect us.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
The Tulsa World reports today:
"The Tulsa City-County Library Commission met in executive session for more than two hours Wednesday to discuss 'staff employment issues.' It is uncertain whether a vote or any public action was taken in open or closed session.
"A Tulsa World reporter and two library staff members who were waiting for any public discussion, possible vote and the meeting's adjournment were not called back into the meeting room after the executive session, and commissioners left the Central Library building immediately.
"Standing in an elevator after leaving the meeting, commission Chairwoman La Verne Ford Wimberly told the Tulsa World that a vote was taken to review some 'internal employee' matters."
Possible Violation No. 1: Meeting Agenda
It lists:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
a) Staff Employment Issues (Action)
The Open Meeting Act, however, does not permit executive sessions for an item as vague as "staff employment issues." Instead, the laws allows closed-door discussions regarding the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any individual salaried public officer or employee. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(1).
An agenda item for an executive session to discuss such personnel matters “must identify either the position or the individual salaried employee who is the subject of the discussion,” Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in 1997. “The Act does not specify that a person must be identified by name; however, in light of case law, it is evident that identification by name is necessary unless the position held by the person is so unique as to allow adequate identification.” (1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)
Possible Violation No. 2: Voting in secret
Unless the library commissioners can explain how such a vote was required by state or federal law to be confidential, the Library Commission may not vote during executive session. Any vote or action taken on an item considered in executive session must be publicly cast and recorded.
(OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3) “Except for matters considered in executive sessions of the State Banking Board and the Oklahoma Savings and Loan Board, and which are required by state or federal law to be confidential, any vote or action on any item of business considered in an executive session shall be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded.”)
Even the vote to adjourn should have been cast and recorded in public.
A willful violation of the Open Meeting Act’s executive session provisions would subject each member to criminal sanctions (up to one year in jail) and cause the minutes and other records of the session, including tape recordings, “to be immediately made public.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25,§ 307(F)(1-2))
Any action taken in “willful violation” of the Open Meeting Act is “invalid.” (§ 313)
In 1984, the state Supreme Court said, “Willfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act.”
The personnel exemption and voting in public are not new requirements under our open meeting laws.
Library commissioners, which that night included Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and County Commissioner Karen Keith, should know their obligations under the state’s open meeting laws.
The public should also expect such apparent violations to be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the district attorney. Conducting the public's business in secret weakens our faith in government, paves the way for corruption and incompetency by officials, and warrants attention by those we trust and empower to protect us.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)