skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Voters on Tuesday elected 14 municipal candidates had who signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.
The candidates had promised that they and the public bodies that they are "elected to govern will comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
They also pledged "to support at every opportunity ... the inherent right [of Oklahomans] to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."
Now it's up to their constituents to hold them to that pledge.
Twenty-one municipal candidates have signed the pledge this year, with 15 being elected.
The pledge signers winning on Tuesday were in:
- Blanchard: City Council, Ward 4: Frank Broyles
- Cherokee: City Commission, Ward I: Diana Williamson
- Edmond: City Council, Ward 2: Elizabeth Waner
- Glenpool: City Council, At-Large: Alyce Korb
- Glenpool: City Council, Ward 4: Tommy Carner
- Jet: Board of Trustees: Carolyn Crossette
- Jet: Clerk-Treasurer: Donna Keller
- Minco: Mayor: Watson Mitchell
- Minco: City Council, Ward 1, Position 1: Rick Anthony
- Minco: City Council, Ward 3, Position 1: Jim Rice
- Piedmont: Mayor: Valerie Thomerson
- Piedmont: City Council, Ward 3: Bill Sharp
- Piedmont: City Council, Ward 5: Wade Johnson
- Vinita: City Council, Ward 2: Carol Austin
Another pledge signer, Roger Gallagher, was elected to the Norman City Council, Ward 1 seat, in the March 1 primary.
FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
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.
The University of Oklahoma might have overcharged the public for copies of records by more than $11,000 during the past three years, The Oklahoma Daily reported today.
The student newspaper based that number on the university charging 25 cents per page when its costs amount to 8 cents per page.
OU officials told the newspaper that each copy actually costs the university 32 cents, including 27 cents per page for labor.
“We calculated labor at a rate of $25,000 plus benefits at 34 percent and assumed that each copy takes one minute of someone’s time,” said Rachel McCombs, OU Open Records Office director.
The newspaper's reporter, Nicholas Harrison, noted that the slowest copier meeting state agency specifications must make at least 10 copies per minute. Based on that number, the newspaper calculated that the most that OU officials could justify in direct costs was 8 cents per page.
Harrison also noted that Norman commercial copy shops profit from 4 to 10 cents per page. While on campus, the Bizzell Memorial Library charges cost 7 cents per page and the Oklahoma Memorial Union’s Crimson & Cream Copy Center charges 10 cents.
The full story is worth reading.
In an editorial, the newspaper called on the university to lower the copy fee and noted that it has been waiting for more than 16 weeks for records related to OU's purchase of a monastery in Arezzo, Italy, to create residence halls for students and faculty abroad.
Kudos to Harrison and The Oklahoma Daily editors for not meekly accepting what OU was charging for the public's documents and instead challenging the numbers with good reporting, common sense and a calculator.
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.
The state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday voted 6-3 for a bill that would expand the attorney-client privilege between public bodies and their lawyers.
The Oklahoma Press Association opposes HB 1559, which heads to the full Senate for a vote.
"Public bodies currently have a limited attorney-client privilege. We think that limitation should stay in place. This bill removes the limitation. Public bodies could hide anything behind their attorney-client privilege," OPA's executive vice president told the Tulsa World.
"This bill puts attorneys in charge of everything," said Mark Thomas. "That is bad public policy, and we are opposed to it."
On Monday, Thomas noted on the FOI Oklahoma Blog that public bodies already have a broad attorney-client privilege for a "pending investigation, claim or action and the court determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest."
The bill by Tulsa Republicans Rep. Fred Jordan and Sen. Dan Newberry was requested by Jenks officials.
"I ought to be able to talk in confidence with my client about a personnel matter without that being exposed," Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley told the Tulsa World. "I ought to be able to talk with the city manager or planner about a potential economic development project without that being disclosed until there was a report that was prepared and went before the council. At that point, it is an open record."
Thomas has called for open government advocates to contact their state senators to oppose HB 1559.
Three senators -- Roger Ballenger, D-Okmulgee; Josh Brecheen, R-Coalgate; and minority leader Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City -- signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge in 2010.
Each man promised "to support at every opportunity ... the inherent right [of Oklahomans] to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."
The vote on HB 1559 is one of those opportunities.
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.
OPPOSE HB 1559 by Tulsa Republicans Rep. Fred Jordan and Sen. Dan Newberry.
This bill would EXPAND the attorney-client privilege for public bodies! (We want to LIMIT this privilege.) Do not allow public bodies to hide behind their attorney!
HB 1559 goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9 a.m. Tuesday.
Senators on the Judiciary Committee are: Chairman Anthony Sykes, Vice Chair Rob Johnson, Josh Brecheen, Brian Crain, Judy Eason McIntyre, Charlie Laster, Richard Lerblance, Jonathan Nichols and Ralph Shortey.
Call your State Senator today!
This bill does not amend the Open Meeting Act but amends another title of law (12) that deals with all types of attorney-client privilege. If this becomes law it will create a conflict, and this language will prevail.
WHY DO WE OPPOSE HB 1559?
Public bodies currently only have attorney-client privilege for a “pending investigation, claim or action and the court determines that disclosure will seriously impair the ability of the public officer or agency to process the claim or conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest.” THAT IS ALREADY A VERY BROAD EXCEPTION.
HB 1559 eliminates the limiting language – which means public bodies can hide behind conversations with their attorney over anything! The ONLY exception in the bill – public bodies can’t use the privilege when called before a grand jury!
If any questions, contact Mark Thomas at 405-659-3966.
Mark Thomas
Executive Vice President
Oklahoma Press Association
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.
Carolyn Crossette has promised to "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws" if elected to the Jet Board of Trustees on Tuesday.
Crossette is one of five candidates for the board. The top three vote-getters win four-year terms.
By signing FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge, Crossette also promised "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."
FOI Oklahoma began the Open Government Pledge in 2008 as part of a national effort to spur public commitments to government transparency from candidates for president down to city council contests.
Eighteen candidates in Oklahoma have signed the pledge this year.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The Pittsburg County Regional Expo Authority met behind closed doors on Thursday in an executive session not listed on the agenda for its meeting, the McAlester News-Capital reported.
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 said.
The Expo Authority owns 13 acres that includes the golf course’s clubhouse, cart barn, highway access and some of the highway frontage. The 18-hole golf course, west of McAlester on U.S. Highway 270, has been closed to the public for years, the newspaper noted in 2008.
After the executive session Thursday, Drizness told the newspaper, "We needed to discuss whether or not to lease the clubhouse."
However, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "If a public body proposes to conduct an executive session, the agenda shall:
- Contain sufficient information for the public to ascertain that an executive session will be proposed
- Identify the items of business and purposes of the executive session; and
- State specifically the provision of Section 307 of this title authorizing the executive session." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(B)(2)(a-c))
Public bodies are permitted to meet in executive session under "new business" provided the subject was '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,” according to a 1982 attorney general opinion. (1982 OK AG 114, ¶ 15. See also OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 311(A)(9))
It's also unclear how discussing "whether or not to lease the club house" to someone fit within one of the nine permitted topics for an executive session. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307)
After the executive session, according to the print version of the newspaper's story, the Expo Authority voted to lease the clubhouse to Pam Shirley for $1,250 per month for two years.
Violating the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in the county jail and a fine of up to $500. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 314)
What will Farley Ward, who serves as district attorney for Pittsburg and Haskell counties, do about this apparent violation reported in the McAlester newspaper? Will he investigate? Will he file charges and prosecute if an investigation confirms that the Expo Authority conducted an executive session that should have been listed on the meeting agenda and/or the topic was not permissible under the Open Meeting Act?
Ward was elected in July and took office in January after serving as an assistant district attorney in Muskogee County.
On his campaign website, Ward described himself as a "career prosecutor and not a career politician," adding:
I know how important the integrity of our legal system is for not only dispensing justice but in protecting its citizens, and I believe that the people in Pittsburg and Haskell counties want a DA who has high regard for upholding the integrity of the system.
Responsible prosecution does not mean filing a charge to get positive publicity. It means following the law, investigating the circumstances and then proceeding with charges whether the defendant is rich or poor, politically connected or not.
Time for him to live up to those promises. When a public body violates the Open Meeting Act, it steals away the right of Oklahomans to understand their government's processes and problems. (See OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)
The Expo Authority members present Thursday were Drizness, Julie Grant, Joyce Carlson, Sandy Bahe, Bill Derischweiler and Kenny Sherrill, the newspaper said.
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.
