District attorney asks police to investigate apparent open meeting violation by Pittsburg County Expo Authority

District Attorney Farley Ward has asked the McAlester Police Department to investigate an apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act by the Pittsburg County Expo Authority, the McAlester News-Capital reports this afternoon.

The FOI Oklahoma Blog on Sunday called on Ward to look into the Expo Authority's closed executive session not listed on its agenda last week.

Expo Authority President Anthony Drizness called for the executive session to discuss leasing the clubhouse at the old Thundercreek golf course to someone, the newspaper had reported last week.

Under the state Open Meeting Act, an executive session must be listed on the agenda unless the subject meets the definition of "new business," which the statute defines as "not known about or . . . could not have been reasonably foreseen' prior to the posting of the agenda and topic is one for which executive sessions are permitted."

It's unclear if discussing "whether or not to lease the club house" to someone met the definition of "new business" or fit within one of the nine permitted topics for an executive session.

Thank you to Ward for asking the police to investigate. That's a step in the right direction by the new district attorney.


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.

OU Graduate Student Senate passes two unlisted bills in apparent violation of Open Meeting Act

OU's Graduate Student Senate apparently violated the state Open Meeting Act on Sunday when it approved two bills not listed on the agenda for that night's regular meeting, The Oklahoma Daily reported today.

The GSS unanimously approved five members to the spring election board and established polling sites for the election, the student newspaper reported.

The author of the two bills said she had submitted them to the appropriate officials the previous Monday. But, somehow, the bills weren't listed on the agenda.

Graduate Student Senate Chair Derrell Cox told the newspaper that GSS leaders decided to propose the bills despite the lack of public notice.

“It was our consensus in the executive meeting that [the legislation] would go forward,” Cox said. “I don’t know exactly who dropped the ball, but someone within the Senate dropped the ball in getting that posted.”

GSS leaders apparently felt pressured to approve the bills because of a requirement that the number and location of polling places be established at least three academic weeks prior to the elections on March 29 and 30.

The election is more than four weeks away, but the GSS won't have another regular meeting until March 6. Spring break is March 14-18.

However, calling a special meeting for this week would have given the public the required notice and avoided a violation of the Open Meeting Act.

Anyone convicted of violating the Open Meeting Act can by punished by up to one year in jail and a $500 fine. Also, any action taken in "willful violation" of the statute is "invalid." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 313)

In 2010, Boynton's three town trustees were charged with violating the Open Meeting Act after voting to appoint a town manager even though no such item was on the agenda for the special meeting.

The Open Meeting Act clearly requires that each agenda "identify all items of business to be transacted" by the public body at the meeting. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(1))

Agendas should be worded in "plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting, in order to give the public actual notice," the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said. (Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

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. That includes any agency action exceeding the scope of action defined by the notice.

Any construction of the statute that would allow a public body to consider an item not listed on its posted agenda – apart from "new business" – "totally vitiates the underlying mandate of the OMA to notify the public of the time and place of meetings of a public body, and the matters the public body intends to consider," the Court of Civil Appeals said in 2009. (Okmulgee Co. Rural Water Dist. No. 2 v. Beggs Pub. Works Auth., 2009 OK CIV APP 51)

The statute defines "new business" as "any matter not known about or which could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of posting." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(9))

At OU, the bills selecting members of the election board and establishing polling places were submitted to legislative leaders six days before the meeting. And those leaders should have known they were facing a deadline for the election.

The Open Meeting Act also permits emergency meetings. An emergency "is defined as a situation involving injury to persons or injury and damage to public or personal property or immediate financial loss when the time requirements for public notice of a special meeting would make such procedure impractical and increase the likelihood of injury or damage or immediate financial loss." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 304(5))

Establishing election board members and polling sites four weeks in advance of an election does not meet the statutory definition of an emergency meeting.

The Open Meeting Act is not a nuisance law to be ignored when it's inconvenient for elected officials, including college students who have taken responsibility for governing their classmates.

As our Court of Appeals said, 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." (1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

That holds true even on the University of Oklahoma campus.


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

Stillwater City Council removes 'new business' as agenda item

Stillwater City Council agendas will no longer include the item "new business," under an ordinance that councilors unanimously approved Monday.

The decision reportedly was to stop residents from addressing the council on issues not listed on the agenda.

It's not clear why such a change was needed because the term "new business" has a statutory definition that doesn't include public comment.

The state Open Meeting Act defines "new business" as “any matter not known about or which could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of posting.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(9))

Council members had expressed concern that "new business" had become a catch-all for speaking time on any subject, the Stillwater NewsPress reported.

But the statutory definition doesn't seem to give the public any right to speak at a council meeting because a 1999 attorney general opinion said audience members do not have a right under the Open Meeting Act or the First Amendment to speak on issues as part of a public meeting. (1998 OK AG 45. See also 2002 OK AG 44, ¶ 3)

The statute “nowhere provides for or guarantees citizens a right to participate in the governmental decisions being made at an open meeting,” state Attorney General Drew Edmondson said.

“The Act is designed to enable citizens to be present and view the workings of government at open meetings, but does not require that citizens become participants at an open meeting or that they have a right to be heard at an open meeting,” he said. (1998 OK AG 45, ¶ 2)

Stillwater City Attorney John Dorman said that in 20 years on the job, he had seen the statutory definition of "new business" met only once.

That's good. Because if news reports about the new ordinance are correct, the council won't be able address or decide any public business that legitimately arises in the 24 hours after the agenda is posted.

I'm relying on the media reports because the council agenda gave only this explanation:

Ordinance No. 3110: An ordinance amending Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Commission, Division 1, Generally, of the Stillwater City Code, to amend Section 2-20, Order of the Business and Section 2-25, Public Addressing the Commission, declaring an emergency.

But 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 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has said.

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. (Haworth Bd. of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, ¶ 8)

In the spirit of open government, the Stillwater City Council should explain to voters in plain language what it's doing rather than relying only legalize in agenda items.

For other coverage of the council's decision: Council removes option to speak, Kenneth Higgs, The Daily O'Collegian, 9.21.10

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications