Former state Superintendent Sandy Garrett denies ordering her e-mail account deleted

Former Oklahoma schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett said Saturday she didn't direct a state employee to delete her e-mail account and is positive the deleted e-mails can be retrieved, The Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, a state Department of Education employee who helps maintain the e-mail accounts said Garrett asked her late on Jan. 7 to delete the account immediately.

Garrett's version of that conversation was the exact opposite.

"I certainly wouldn't order anybody to delete anything," Garrett told the AP. "The first call I got on this, I thought it was a joke."

The article doesn't address the claim reported Saturday that Garrett was communicating with her staff via her private e-mail accounts or what happened to those e-mails.

I still hope, as I noted on this blog Saturday, that there has a misunderstanding and all Garrett's e-mails conducting the public's business remain available at the Education Department.

Because if Garrett did order her e-mail account wiped clean, that would be one of the most outrageous and egregious violations of the public trust by a statewide elected official that I've seen in Oklahoma.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Former state Superintendent Sandy Garrett directed her e-mails deleted in apparent violation of state law, The AP reports

Former Oklahoma schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett ordered that her e-mail account be deleted shortly before she left office on Jan. 10, The Associated Press reports.

An Oklahoma City television station was told likewise on Thursday after it requested Garrett's e-mail correspondence with the state Board of Education.

Garrett served five terms before deciding not to seek re-election in 2010.

The Associated Press reports that Garrett communicated with her staff through her private e-mail accounts in her last month on the job.

Those e-mails, as well as those on her state account, were public records if they dealt with the expenditure of public funds, the transaction of public business or the administration of public property. (See 2009 OK AG 12)

Such e-mails also were subject to the Records Management Act, which requires state records to be maintained for certain periods of time.

For example, the state's General Records Disposition Schedule requires that substantive correspondence with boards and commissions be transferred to the State Archives after three years. (See sec. 1-58)

The Associated Press reported that no one in the State Office of Archives and Records Management was consulted before Garrett's e-mail account was deleted.

The Oklahoma City television station was also told that Garrett's office did not receive permission to destroy the correspondence.

I sincerely hope that is some sort of snafu and that the e-mails are somewhere at the state Department of Education.

Because otherwise, this would be one of the most outrageous and egregious violations of the public trust by a statewide elected official that I've seen in Oklahoma.

How could an elected official such as Garrett, who had been in office for 20 years, not know she was required to maintain such records? There is no excuse for such ignorance.

What would possess a statewide elected official to destroy such records? And why was she using her private e-mail accounts to communicate with staff?

What didn't Garrett want us to know? Was there evidence of corruption, incompetency? I hope not. But what other impression can the public have?

Even if destroying those e-mails were not illegal, it was ethically wrong. Our elected officials have an ethical obligation to preserve such documents to serve the public interest.

Those records didn't belong to Garrett. They belong to us all. They document not her private life but rather the education of our children and the expenditure of taxpayer money.

Again, I hope this is one whopper of a misunderstanding and the records are stored somewhere.

Otherwise, Garrett should not only find herself in court facing the fullest criminal penalty possible but also be ashamed of herself.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

State Board of Education meets in questionable executive session

The state Board of Education met in executive session Thursday to investigate its “legal powers and duties” to implement a state law that some school districts are refusing to comply with, the Tulsa World reported today.

The meeting agenda cited a state Open Meeting Act exemption permitting executive sessions for

Confidential communications between a public body and its attorney concerning a pending investigation, claim, or action if the public body, with the advice of its attorney, determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public body to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation, or proceeding in the public interest. (OKLA. STAT. tit 25, § 307(B)(4))

When Kay Harley, the board’s attorney, was asked what pending investigation, claim or action the board discussed during the closed-door session, she said it was to have "a confidential conversation with their attorney about the implementation of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships," which she said was an investigation, the Tulsa World reported.

The newspaper added:

When asked who was being investigated, Harley said, "We are investigating our legal powers and duties."

Based on that explanation, the board violated the Open Meeting Act. A public body determining its “legal powers and duties” does not constitute the kind of investigation covered by the exemption. If it did, then every discussion about research into an issue would constitute an investigation. Say good-bye to open government.

And how would a public discussion "seriously impair" the board's actual authority to implement the statute?

Just because an attorney was involved in the discussion did not automatically justify an executive session. Not every discussion between a public body and its attorney – even about a lawsuit – is exempted from public scrutiny, state Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in 2005.

Rather, such issues may be discussed in executive session only if the public body and its attorney determine that disclosure will ‘seriously impair’ the body’s ability to deal with the issues in the public interest. This limitation on the basis for an executive session . . . means a public body may not close a meeting merely to get general legal advice from its attorney that does not meet the standard of serious impairment and injury to the public interest. (2005 OK AG 29, ¶ 11)

In other words, the exemption for a confidential discussion between a public body and its attorney does not exist so that public bodies can do an end run around the Open Meeting Act. It was not intended to allow public bodies to discuss in secret what they should be discussing in front of the public.

Unfortunately, we don’t vote for the members of the state Board of Education with the exception of the state school superintendent of public instruction. But we do vote for the governor, who appoints the other six members of the board.

Regardless of whom we hire on Nov. 2 as governor, let’s hope she will demand her appointees abide by the letter and the spirit of our Open Meeting law or replace them with those who will.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications