Tulsa city council chairman drops one-on-one meetings after newspaper raises concerns of Open Meeting Act violation

Tulsa City Council Chairman G.T. Bynum decided against one-on-one meetings with other councilors last week to discuss a personnel issue regarding Council Administrator Drew Rees, the Tulsa World reported.

Instead, the council discussed Rees' job performance in executive session during Thursday's meeting. No action was taken afterward, the newspaper reported. His probation period as council administrator has passed and a review is due, the newspaper said.

An executive session had been scheduled the previous week but was pulled because no name or unique title was listed on the agenda as is required for closed-door sessions on personnel issues.

Rather than reschedule the executive session with the required information, Bynum said he would instead meet individually with councilors to inform them of the personnel issue.

Bad idea.

The council may not meet one-on-one to decide an issue. That’s well-established law.

"Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed," said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

In 2010, Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, warned the council against using small group meetings to mediate issues with the mayor, saying such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA."

Durbin told them:

In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public.

The council members really shouldn't be meeting one-on-one to discuss any issues. Tulsans are entitled to witness the council's discussions of policy.

Meeting one-on-one doesn't demonstrate a commitment to open government and erodes public trust. It would have been a bad habit for the new council to start.

What subject would have been next for such meetings? How long before council members were coming to a consensus through such meetings.

Bynum avoided a lot of headaches down the road by starting off on the right foot.

He told the Tulsa World that the one-on-one meetings were dropped in favor of a properly posted executive session on Thursday out of "an abundance of caution, and to avoid any appearance of impropriety."

Good.

The Open Meeting Act "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public" because the statute was "enacted for the public's benefit," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1981. (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, ¶ 18)

Sound advice for all public bodies.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Profesor
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.

Decision to drop investigation of mayor's aide comes after Tulsa City Council chairman meets privately with other councilors

Tulsa City Council Chairman Rick Westcott says a decision to end an investigation into a mayor's aide came after he met individually with other councilors, the Tulsa World reported Wednesday afternoon.

Westcott told a reporter he met one-on-one with a majority of the council.

(So who among the nine councilors was left out of the decision-making process?)

One-on-one discussions by a majority of the council to come to that decision would be a serious violation of the Open Meeting Act.

A 1981 state attorney general opinion prohibits such serial meetings among the members of a public body – and for good reason.

“Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed,” said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

Even Councilor G.T. Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, recently warned the council against using small group meetings to mediate issues with the mayor, saying such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA.”

“In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public,” he told them.

The same principle applies to the decision to drop the investigation into the mayor’s aide. That was a decision reached after, the council chairman told the newspaper, he had met individually with a majority of his fellow council members.

The council should not have come to any such decision outside of a public meeting abiding by the notice and agenda requirements of the Open Meeting Act.

“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,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1978. (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, ¶ 10)

Or, as the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reiterated in 1981, “Sunshine legislation reaches, not just ‘formal’ meetings, but the ‘entire decision-making process.’” (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶ 6 )

Or, as Cartwright explained a year later:

[I]f 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. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 7)

Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the “discussion stage” to be covered by the Open Meeting Act.

“[I]t is clear that, when members of a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body, regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act,” he concluded. (Id. ¶ 11)

Despite these admonitions, some Tulsa city councilors persist in the belief that they may meet one-on-one or in small groups to decide the public’s business.

In late July, six of the nine councilors jointly filed a response to a lawsuit accusing them of violating the Open Meeting Act during an executive session in June. A Tulsa reporter was told that an attorney spoke to some of the six council members individually and some in groups of three.

In other words, they purposefully met in groups smaller than a majority with the intent of not triggering the Open Meeting Act. Westcott and the other five council members must have thought they were conducting public business if they thought it necessary to avoid meeting as one group.

The defense put forth by Westcott and the others against that lawsuit was that Oklahomans have no right to file lawsuits to enforce their state's Open Meeting Act. A nonsensical – and insulting – claim given that just a month earlier the state Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Pitcher residents in their Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the Tar Creek relocation trust.

But let’s humor Westcott and the other councilors this time. No lawsuit. After all, members of the public shouldn’t have to dig into their pocketbooks to pay for what their tax dollars already pay the police and county district attorney to do: Enforce the law.

Violating the Open Meeting Act is a crime – a misdemeanor that can be punished by up to one year in the county jail and a fine of up to $500.

So it’s up to you, Tulsans. File a complaint with the police and demand an investigation, or get comfortable with your elected representatives deciding your business in private.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Tulsa mayor says no public meetings to hash out differences with City Council, insists on private talks 1v1

Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. refuses to publicly mediate disputes with the City Council, insisting instead on private discussions with each councilor, the Tulsa World reported this week.

Bartlett's reason for secret meetings? He's afraid that councilors might "posture or politicize things."

"Especially if someone gets irritated or gets mad, things could be said in the heat of the moment," he said. "For us to have very frank conversations, that's what needs to happen."

In other words, something might be said that Bartlett doesn't want the public to hear.

So much for the Open Government Pledge that Bartlett signed when he ran for office only a year ago.

In putting his name to that paper, Bartlett pledged “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.”

But for a third time, Bartlett's actions indicate he either doesn't understand the promise he made to fellow Tulsans or had no intention of living up to it when he signed the document.

Last September, just a day or so after FOI Oklahoma Inc. received Bartlett's signed Open Government Pledge, he got a Tulsa County judge to seal his divorce case, which had been filed in public court seven years earlier. Bartlett wanted the documents closed after a small portion of the case file was posted on the conservative blog Batesline.

In March, Bartlett said open meetings would hamper frank discussions of a city-county committee looking for ways to save taxpayer money.

But the pledge that Bartlett signed isn't conditional. It contains no exemption for "frank discussions" only behind closed doors.

On Tuesday when Bartlett nixed the idea of public mediation with the council, he took a shot at the Tulsa World, which has editorialized in favor of open discussions.

"I know the media loves this," he said. "I feel like we all should get royalties off the newspapers that have been sold."

No, Mr. Mayor, your problem isn't with the news media.

It's with the spirit of our state's open government laws, which you endorsed when you signed that pledge. Here is a reminder: "The purpose of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws [is] to ensure and facilitate the public's understanding of governmental processes and problems."

That understanding occurs best when the public observes frank and open discussions by its elected officials.

As our state Supreme Court said, “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)

Tulsa city councilors, to their credit, seem to be taking that sentiment to heart, having twice rejected pressure from Bartlett to conduct these talks behind closed doors. I urge them to do so again.

In the meantime, FOI Oklahoma is asking state and local candidates on this November's ballot to sign the Open Government Pledge -- but with one caveat. Don't sign if you don't believe in and won't support the inherent right of Oklahomans to know and be fully informed about what their government does.

This is one campaign promise we won't let you ignore.

For more coverage of this issue:

• The feud, Tulsa World editorial, 9.16.10.
• Mayor's 'Mr. Positive' approach in speech gets mixed reviews, Brian Barber, Tulsa World, 9.16.10

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council cancels closed meetings with mayor, facilitator

Tulsa city councilors won't meet privately Tuesday with the mayor and a facilitator to set the ground rules and topics for public meetings aimed at mediating disputes with the mayor.

Instead, Council Chairman Rick Westcott said Friday he will call for a special meeting -- likely on Thursday -- to publicly decide how the subsequent public meetings, hosted by the Tulsa Metro Chamber, will be conducted, the Tulsa World reported.

This blog had warned Thursday that meeting in groups of less than a quorum to decide the public's business would violate the Open Meeting Act.

Westcott told the newspaper that the council wants to make sure that it "not only complies with the letter of the Open Meeting Act, but also with the spirit and intent of the Open Meeting Act."

A sincere thank you to Westcott and the other city councilors for opting to discuss and decide the public's business in full view of the public.

Operating in the open is certainly not always the most convenient or easiest way to do their job. But in a democracy, it's the right way.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council considering private meetings with mayor to set ground rules, topics for public discussions

Less than a week after voting not to mediate disputes with the mayor in an executive session, members of the Tulsa City Council are saying they’ll divide into smaller groups to meet privately with him and a facilitator on Tuesday at the request of the Tulsa Metro Chamber, the Tulsa World reported today.

The closed-door meetings are to “set the ground rules and discuss how we are going to go about all of this” to hold chamber-facilitated public meetings later, a council member said.

Tuesday's meetings reportedly would include deciding which topics will be discussed during the public meetings.

Councilors Roscoe Turner, Maria Barnes and Jim Mautino said they likely would not participate unless the meetings are open from the beginning, the Tulsa World reported.

Good. Because setting ground rules and agreeing to topics will require council members to vote or otherwise come to a consensus regarding public business -- something they are not entitled to do outside of a public meeting.

In the proposed meetings Tuesday, the facilitator hired by the chamber essentially becomes a go-between for the city councilors.

But a 1981 state attorney general opinion prohibits such serial meetings among the members of a public body.

“Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed,” said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

In other words, members of a public body cannot meet secretly in groups smaller than a quorum to decide public business.

That prohibition on obtaining a consensus through informal discussions also applies to the assistants of members of public bodies, Oklahoma County commissioners were warned in 2005.

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,” then-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,” Lane said.

That reasoning would apply to Tulsa city councilors telling the facilitator what ground rules and topics they will agree to for public meetings.

The persistent belief by some council members that they can meet in small groups to decide the public’s business is an absolute outrage. Their admission that they’re using this ploy in an attempt to avoid the Open Meeting Act’s requirements shows a willful intent to violate the law.

Even Councilor G.T. Bynum’s attorney, Ronald E. Durbin II, had recently warned the council against using small group meetings to mediate issues with the mayor, saying such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA.”

“In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public,” he told them.

Council members are using the Open Meeting Act's definition of a meeting as a loophole. The statute defines a meeting as “the conducting of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or . . . together pursuant to a videoconference." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 304(2))

So council members -- as other public bodies have done -- figure that they can meet in groups of less than a quorum to conduct -- or at least discuss -- the public's business.

But they should keep in mind this admonition from then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright:

The Open Meeting Act should be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purpose ... [and] should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid establishing potential evasion loopholes. (1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 13)

Better yet, state legislators should improve the Open Meeting Act by simply prohibiting two members of a public body from even discussing public business outside of a public meeting of that body.

Announcing these closed meetings on Tuesday with the mayor does not absolve the council members of their obligations under the law.

And the concern is about more than the city council making decisions behind closed doors.

“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,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1978. (Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. Derryberry, 1978 OK 59, 577 P.2d 1310, 1313-14)

The stated purpose of 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)

A 1980 attorney general opinion requires that the statute "be given a construction which will effectuate and not subvert the intention of the Legislature in facilitating an informed citizenry’s right to participate in government and understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken.” (1980 OK AG 215, ¶ 12)

Only an open deliberative process reveals which alternatives are rejected and why, both of which the public is entitled to know. (See 1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 5)

If Tulsa City Council members and the mayor can’t abide by not only the letter but also the spirit of our open government laws, then they should quit public office and stick with the private sector.

It’s a heaping pile of horse excrement to claim that elected officials must meet in secret because otherwise some would not be candid or others would posture in front of the public. That they cannot act like responsible adults is not an exemption to our Open Meeting Act.

Political cowardice on the part of elected officials is not an excuse for secret discussions of the public’s business.

If these elected officials are afraid to speak openly, honestly and candidly in front of the public, then Tulsa voters should hire replacements in the next election – or sooner.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council decides against closed-door mediation, votes for public meetings to hash out differences with mayor

The public's need to know prevailed in Tulsa on Thursday.

City councilors -- in a series of 7-2 votes -- decided against mediating their legal disputes with the mayor in a closed-door executive session, the Tulsa World reported.

Instead, the council invited Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. to participate in a series of public meetings to resolve their differences.

Bartlett indicated he would participate but warned that in public discussions "people have a tendency to posture."

On Wednesday, this blog argued against using that as an excuse for conducting the public's business behind closed doors. Certainly these elected officials can speak openly, honestly and candidly like adults in front of voters.

Councilor Roscoe Turner, who had signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge during his 2009 campaign, voted against the closed mediation.

"Transparency is ultimate," he said. "We're not going to solve anything by doing it in secret."

Amen, brother.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Closed-door mediation necessary for Tulsa City Council, mayor to be 'frank and open,' proposed mediator says

Mediation between the Tulsa City Council and Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. must take place behind closed doors for there to be "frank and open discussion," one of the proposed mediators told the Tulsa World this week.

“They need to feel that they can say something and it not be used against them legally, politically and socially,” said Daniel Boudreau, a former state Supreme Court justice.

“Honestly, people are not going to be (open) if journalists are sitting there reporting everything they say,” he said. “People would posture. They would not be candid.”

Well, I've heard the same argument put forth by other public bodies in Oklahoma and in other states. It was a heaping load of horse excrement elsewhere, too.

As Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association said about Tulsa officials' reluctance to resolve their problems publicly:

They're saying as elected officials, 'We don't want the public to know our true feelings. We want to say one thing behind closed doors and say something else at the coffee shop.'

Boudreau said he and the other proposed mediator, Sam Joyner, “can’t deny there’s a concern you could circumvent the spirit" of the Open Meeting Act.

“People have an absolute right to be informed about how government is working, and there ought to be transparency,” he said. “We are fully on board with that.

“You don’t want people using mediation to undercut the policy provisions of the act,” he said.

Of course, there was a "but."

Boudreau said only proposals would be discussed in the private mediation. “Any action you are going to take has to be explained, justified, argued and voted on for the record,” he said.

However, the pros and cons of those proposals won't be argued in plain view of the public. That will have taken place behind closed doors.

As a former Supreme Court justice, Boudreau is understandably comfortable with officials negotiating their differences of opinion behind closed doors. Granted, appellate courts issue their conclusions and reasoning in writing. But the public doesn't see the give-and-take, the exchange of ideas, that results in those decisions.

Our city councils, county commissions and other local public bodies don't operate with the same kind of secrecy as do courts.

Only an open deliberative process reveals which alternatives are rejected and why, both of which the public is entitled to know. (See 1982 OK AG 212, ¶ 5)

"The public is interested in how and why officials decide to act or not to act," said then-state Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright in 1982. (Id. at ¶ 6)

The stated purpose of 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)

That understanding is diminished when public bodies hash out proposed solutions in private.

Political cowardice on the part of elected officials is not an excuse for conducting a closed executive session.

If these elected officials are afraid to speak openly, honestly and candidly in front of the public, then Tulsa voters should hire replacements in the next election.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Tulsa city councilor's attorney agrees: Small group meetings cannot be used to mediate disputes with mayor, all votes must be public

Tulsa city councilors meeting in groups of less than a quorum to mediate disputes with the mayor would be a violation of the state Open Meeting Act, an attorney for one of the councilmen advised.

All council votes to settle the disagreements would have to be made in the public portion of its meeting, Ronald E. Durbin II also said in his Aug. 11 letter to the mayor's attorney.

On these two points, Durbin came to the same conclusions as those published by this blog on Aug. 9.

Some councilors believed they could meet with Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. in small groups or individually to avoid violating the Open Meeting Act.

But Durbin warned -- just as this blog had done -- that such meetings would be "not only inadvisable but would also result in a clear violation of the OMA," explaining:

In this situation, it is obvious that any plan to use smaller numbers of Councilors would inevitably result in the need for those Councilors in attendance to share information and discuss settlement proposals with those Councilors not in attendance. This activity would be a clear violation of the OMA, and thus, only an executive session including a quorum of the Councilors should be utilized if any mediation session is to be closed to the public.

The Open Meeting Act defines a meeting as “the conducting of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or . . . together pursuant to a videoconference." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 304(2))

A 1981 state attorney general opinion prohibits serial meetings among the members of a public body.

“Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed,” said then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright. (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)

In other words, members of a public body cannot meet secretly in smaller groups to decide public business.

The Open Meeting Act also requires that "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." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3))

Another provision of the statute requires that "[i]n all meetings of public bodies, the vote of each member must be publicly cast and recorded." (OKLA. STAT. 25, § 305)

As such, Durbin agreed, "Any decision by the City Council to affirm terms reached during the proposed mediation must be taken outside of the executive session."

Though not an issued addressed by Durbin, the public should expect the councilors to clearly explain the details what they are voting on. Just saying they are voting on what was decided behind closed doors would be an insult to the voters of Tulsa.

In his 11-page letter, Durbin explained why he believes the council is entitled to meet in executive session to mediate the various disagreements with Bartlett.

Durbin relied largely upon exemptions allowing a public body to meet in executive sessions to discuss individual salaried employees and to discuss investigations and pending litigations with its attorney. He noted that under the latter exemption, the council would have to "determine that 'disclosure will seriously impair' the body's ability to deal with the issues in the public interest."

Durbin also believes the council may invite into the executive session the several attorneys representing councilors individually, saying:

While in my personal opinion, as well as the opinion of my client, Councilor G.T. Bynum, that the purposes of mediation will best be served if the Councilors and the Mayor have frank and open communication with as few attorneys present as possible, I recognize the fact that it may become necessary for some attorneys to attend the proposed mediation.

Durbin relied upon a 1978 attorney general opinion deciding that a school board could have permitted a legislator to attend an executive session by "

exercising its judgment and discretion."

(1978 OK AG 144)

I've heard the current attorney general, Drew Edmondson, tell public officials that they may invite whomever they want into an executive session absent a specific statutory prohibition.

However, what the Tulsa City Council may do and should do are two different things in this situation.

The city attorney's office is representing the council against the lawsuit accusing councilors of violating the Open Meeting Act during an executive session in June. The other attorneys should be representing the councilors only as individuals should they be later prosecuted for violating the statute.

Those attorneys, including Durbin, have no more right than the rest of Tulsa to attend that closed door meeting. If the council is going to exclude the public, then those attorneys should have to wait outside as well.

* Durbin's letter can be found online as part of the Tulsa World's coverage: Mediation between Tulsa mayor, council could break law, by Brian Barber and P.J. Lassek.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communications

Tulsa City Council likely to vote on proposal to mediate Open Meeting Act lawsuit, conflicts with mayor

Tulsa City Council Chairman Rick Westcott says he intends to call for a vote this week on whether the council will mediate its disputes with Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr., the Tulsa World reported this afternoon.

Westcott said he will likely call a special meeting for Thursday to discuss and vote on the proposal by former Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Daniel Boudreau and former federal magistrate Sam Joyner.

Joyner last week said the mediation could take place in an executive session of the council.

On Friday, this blog questioned whether the mediation could and should take place behind closed doors.

Among the issues suggested for mediation is the lawsuit filed by three Tulsans accusing the council of violating the Open Meeting Act during an executive session in June.

UPDATE: Westcott pushes vote back a week so Councilor Roscoe Turner can attend. Turner is out of town this week. Judge had hand in effort for council-mayor mediation

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication