Oklahoma City, Cherokee elected officials pledge to comply with spirit, letter of state open government laws

Two more recently elected municipal officials have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

Ed Shadid was elected to the Oklahoma City Council's Ward 2 seat. He is the first member of the council to sign the pledge.

Donna Irvin won the Ward 2 position on the Cherokee City Commission. She joins Ward 1 Commissioner Diana Williamson in having signed the pledge.

Each promised that they and the public bodies they were 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 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."

The addition of Irvin and Shadid brings the number of pledge signers elected to municipal offices this year to 18.

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

N.C. judge: Parking tickets issued to state university students aren't education records protected by FERPA

A North Carolina judge on Tuesday ruled that parking tickets issued to UNC athletes are not education records protected by a federal student privacy law, the Student Press Law Center reports.

Why does this matter in Oklahoma?

Because a year ago, officials of Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma refused to release names of ticket recipients, saying disclosure would violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

OSU and OU officials argued that the parking citations are not created for law enforcement purposes, which would make them public under FERPA. Instead, the tickets are processed administratively and therefore, officials contended, are education records protected by FERPA.

University of North Carolina officials apparently made the same argument. But the North Carolina judge didn't buy it, saying:

The parking tickets issued by UNC Public Safety, if any, to 11 players are not education records protected by FERPA.

While section 6-3 of Article VI, Parking Control of the UNC Ordinance relating to parking on the campus of UNC permits, after repeated offenses, may result in referral to an appropriate agency for disciplinary action, the receipt of a parking ticket, in and of itself, is not subject to disciplinary action and thus, is not protected educational information under FERPA.

If a parking scofflaw were to reach the repeated, repeated stage and was referred to disciplinary action, such disciplinary action would be covered under FERPA.

However, this remote possibility does not constitute a sufficient "threat" to cloak every student with invisibility about the number of parking tickets he or she receives. Parking tickets are subject to civil not criminal penalties.

UNC will have 30 days to appeal after the judge issues a formal written order, the SPLC said.

SPLC Executive Director Frank LoMonte said the decision is another indication from courts that "FERPA is to be applied in a common sense manner that recognizes the importance of disclosure and transparency."

"Court after court has told schools that FERPA is not to be applied in an absurd way to conceal information that is not educational and this is yet another affirmation that FERPA can't be abused to conceal newsworthy and non-confidential information," LoMonte said.

Unfortunately, OSU and OU officials aren't likely to release their parking citation information based on anything short of a clarification by the U.S. Department of Education or an Oklahoma court order.


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.

Mannford school superintendent claims Open Meeting Act complied with by listing all district employees on agenda for executive session; Concerns also raised about closed sessions in Norman, Broken Arrow

Mannford School Superintendent Steve Waldvogel told the local newspaper on Monday that the Open Meeting Act may be complied with by listing all district employees on the agenda for an executive session to discuss personnel even if only a few would actually be discussed.

Meanwhile, the Broken Arrow School Board on Monday night discussed behind closed doors the "organization of district administration" without listing specific employees on the agenda.

Then in Norman on Tuesday, the City Council was scheduled to discuss "various workers' compensation cases" in an executive session during a special meeting. No information regarding the cases was listed on the agenda.

These executive sessions seem to violate the Open Meeting Act for the same reason: The agendas fail to provide the public with sufficient advance notice of what will be discussed in the closed-door sessions.

In Mannford, the agenda for the school board's April 11 meeting did not include the names of any district employees even though an executive session was listed to "consider and possibly act upon the following personnel issues: (1) Submitted resignations; (2) Upcoming renewal of certified and support personnel; (3) Employment of special education teacher; Authorized by 25 O.S. 307 (B)(1)."

Waldvogel told the Mannford Eagle on Monday that the school board had offered a list of all district employees and contended that any one of those could be discussed in the executive session.

That contention is nonsense.

A 1997 attorney general opinion says agenda items for an executive session under the personnel exemption must include either the employee's name or job title if it "is so unique as to allow adequate identification."(1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)

A 2006 attorney general opinion emphasized, "Limiting the exception to the discussion of particular individuals protects the confidentiality of current or prospective public officers or employees and preserves the public’s right to be informed about government processes." (2006 OK AG 17, ¶ 9)

The purpose of listing the name or unique title is to identify the specific employee to be discussed. That requirement wouldn't be necessary if a public body could simply list ALL employees, as Waldvogel contends, to camouflage who actually will be discussed behind closed doors.

Listing all employees provides the public with no more actual advance notice than not listing any would. That's why the 1997 attorney general opinion didn't provide it as an alternative to keeping secret the names of those who would be discussed.

In Broken Arrow on Monday, the school board's agenda did not list employees to be discussed even though one statutory authorization listed for the executive session was the personnel exception.

The other statutory authorization listed was the Open Meeting Act's exception for "Discussing any matter where disclosure of information would violate confidentiality requirements of state or federal law." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(7))

How that exception applied wasn't explained on the agenda and isn't obvious.

According to The Broken Arrow Ledger, the school board approved reorganizing the administration by:

• Appointing new high school and middle school principals;
• Promoting the executive director of curriculum to a cabinet-level position as the district’s chief academic officer;
• Moving a principal to director of instructional services; and
• Naming the Performing Arts Center director as the executive director of fine arts.

Those are all personnel actions. The names of those employees should have been listed on the agenda.

In Norman, the City Council's agenda did not list the specific workers' compensation cases. The exception cited was attorney-client privilege. However, the agenda listed five cases involving the city of Norman. Why weren't the compensation cases specified?

(Click here for a previous posting regarding the attorney-client exemption under OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(4).)

And don't forget that the Bernice Board of Trustees held executive sessions on March 14 and April 11 to discuss creating "a town maintenance" position even though the 2006 attorney general opinion prohibits closed-door sessions to discuss "a job opening for a public officer or employee when no particular individual is to be discussed."

These attorney general opinions aren't new. The elected officials -- school board and city council members alike -- are expected to know the state Open Meeting law.

In Mannford, Waldvogel told the newspaper that if the school board violated any laws they would deal with it.

More important, however, is what the district attorneys for each of these towns will do about it. Violating the Open Meeting Act is a crime. The public must rely on the district attorneys to uphold that law.


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.

Complaints that public bodies in Bernice, Mannford conducted executive sessions in apparent violations of Open Meeting Act

The Bernice Board of Trustees and the Mannford School Board are each accused of recently conducting executive sessions that violated the state Open Meeting Act.

Prior to each session, the elected officials dismissed warnings that the closed-door sessions failed to meet the statutory requirements, according to complaints sent to FOI Oklahoma Inc.

In Bernice, the Board of Trustees held executive sessions on March 14 and April 11 to discuss "a town maintenance person" under the personnel exemption. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(B)(1))

No other information regarding the executive sessions was listed on the agendas.

Resident Steve Miller said the board is creating the position and voted after the March 14 executive session to post advertisements for a part-time maintenance person.

Miller told the FOI Oklahoma Blog that he pointed out to the trustees prior to the April 11 executive session that a 2006 attorney general opinion prohibits such sessions to discuss "a job opening for a public officer or employee when no particular individual is to be discussed." (2006 OK AG 17, ¶ 10)

The exemption applies only "to discussing particular current or prospective public officers or employees," then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson said in the opinion. (Id.)

"The legislative history of this exception demonstrates the Legislature's intent to limit executive sessions to discussions involving particular current or prospective public officers or employees, not to general discussions of job openings for the position of a public officer or employee when no individual is going to be discussed," according to Edmondson. (Id. ¶ 8)

"Limiting the exception to the discussion of particular individuals protects the confidentiality of current or prospective public officers or employees and preserves the public’s right to be informed about government processes," he said. (Id. ¶ 9)

A 1997 opinion by Edmondson says agenda items for an executive session under the personnel exemption must include either the name of the person or the person's position if it "is so unique as to allow adequate identification." (1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)

In a letter (pages 1 & 2) that Miller said he gave to the Bernice mayor and trustees on April 11, he objected to the executive session scheduled for that night. Miller said he also sent the letter to Delaware County District Attorney Eddie Wyant.

Another problem: The April 11 agenda listed the wrong statutory authorization for the executive session. The item said the topic was "the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of a town maintenance person as authorized by Title 25 O.S. 307(B)(2)." However, that exemption is for "negotiations concerning employees and representatives of employee groups."

In Mannford, attorney Ronald E. Durbin II said he told the Board of Education during an April 11 meeting that its executive session involving the personnel exemption would violate the Open Meeting Act.

The agenda listed a "Proposed executive session to consider and possibly act upon the following personnel issues: (1) Submitted resignations; (2) Upcoming renewal of certified and support personnel; (3) Employment of special education teacher; Authorized by 25 O.S. 307 (B)(1)."

Durbin said he pointed out to the board that the 1997 attorney general opinion requires that the employee's name or unique title be included on the agenda.

Durbin said the superintendent replied that the school board was free to discuss "any personnel" and refused to identify which employees would be the subject of the closed-door session. Durbin said he was told to contact the school district's attorney, Bryan K. Drummond of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold in Tulsa.

In a letter to Drummond on Friday, Durbin said the agenda "clearly violates the public notice provisions of the Open Meeting Act."

Durbin said the board's refusal to provide the names "was not out of ignorance but rather a willful disobedience" of the Open Meeting Act. He asked Drummond for not only the employee names but also for "all minutes, tape recordings, and all other records, notes and/or documents which [were] reviewed during that executive session."

Durbin of Moyers, Martin, Santee & Imel in Tulsa served as Tulsa Councilor G.T. Bynum’s attorney during open meeting issues involving the council last summer. Durbin 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.”

Both Durbin and Miller seem to have valid complaints regarding the respective executive sessions. The question is whether the local district attorneys will treat these apparent violations seriously.


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.

Jet Town Board member promises to comply with state's open government laws

Jim Blackledge signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge last week after having been re-elected to the Jet Town Board.

Blackledge was the only incumbent on the Town Board retained by voters on April 5. Also elected to the board was challenger Carolyn Crossette, who had signed the pledge just days before the election.

Jet Clerk-Treasurer Donna Keller also had signed the pledge and was re-elected.

By signing the pledge, each promised to "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws."

Each 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.

This year, 16 pledge signers have been elected to municipal offices, with 14 winning on April 5.


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

OSU Student Government Association amends bylaws to abide by Open Meeting Act

OSU's Student Government Association last week amended its bylaws, apparently as a reminder to future members that it must comply with the state Open Meeting Act.

The Daily O'Collegian reported in early March that the SGA didn't send meeting notices to the county clerk as required by the Open Meeting Act and didn't post agendas for regularly scheduled meetings on its website as required by another state statute.

Most troubling was that once again an SGA official was adamant that the public body didn't have to comply with the Open Meeting Act.

A fallacy that OSU legal counsel Doug Price once again had to correct.

A reminder wouldn't seem necessary given that a 1979 attorney general opinion specifically says that OSU's SGA and Residence Hall Association must comply with the Open Meeting Act. (1979 OK AG 134)

But four times since 2002, The Daily O'Collegian has reported on open meeting violations by SGA officials. (Read this blog posting for a listing.)

This time, however, the SGA amended its bylaws so that:

• "All agendas and minutes of the SGA Senate shall be posted to the SGA website. All agendas must be posted 24 hours before Senate convenes, and minutes must be posted following the final edit made by the SGA Senate secretary.
• "Notice shall be given to the county clerk of all regularly scheduled meetings of the SGA Senate.
• "The Senate chair shall give notice in writing the meeting dates, times and places for the following calendar year by Dec. 15 of the current year."

The Daily O'Collegian reported that the bill passed and went into effect immediately.

Good.


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.

Tulsa Technology Center superintendent criticizes state Senate for lack of transparency after 'under-the-table move' for gun bill

A last-minute committee switcheroo for a controversial gun bill last week prompted the Tulsa Technology Center superintendent to question the state Senate's commitment to transparency, the Tulsa World reported.

"It is a case where the sun needed to shine, and it didn't," said Kara Gae Neal, who told the newspaper that she was "stunned by the lack of moral leadership."

Why does Neal care? Because HB 1652 would allow anyone age 21 or older and having a concealed-carry permit to leave guns locked in their cars on CareerTech campuses.

HB 1652 had been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee, but the committee chairman refused to hear it. The bill was reassigned to the Senate Rules Committee less than 15 minutes before it met Wednesday. Meaning that the bill wasn't on the committee's original meeting agenda.

The Rules Committee approved HB 1652, which advanced to the Senate floor without CareerTech input, the Tulsa World reported. The vote was 11-0. All cast by Republicans.

Neal, who was at the Capitol for another event, told the newspaper that the committee switch was an "under-the-table move."

The bill's co-author, Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, justified the last-minute switch because Thursday was the deadline for House bills to leave the Senate, so when one committee chairman wouldn't hear the bill, he had to find one who would.

Even if that meant leaving CareerTech officials and the rest of the public in the dark.

As the Tulsa World editorialized Saturday, "This was an issue that cried out for transparency, for free and open discussion. Is this any way to conduct the people's business?"

No, it sure ain't.

So where were the Democrats during this? Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre of Tulsa told the newspaper that she and some other Democrats on the committee chose not to attend after learning that HB 1652 would be heard. Procedural moves used by the Republicans cut off discussion and would not allow amendments, she said.

"It says very little about transparency," McIntyre said about the way the bill was transferred between committees and passed. "It is empty rhetoric by Republicans."

Given that comment, the public should be able to count on the support of McIntyre and all other Democrats the next time Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, introduces a bill forcing the state Legislature to comply with the Open Meeting Act.

Because under the Open Meeting Act, this last-minute switch would have been illegal -- and for good reason.

Without advance knowledge of what measures a government body will discuss and vote on, the
the public is deprived of its right to witness such decisions being made.

The public must have the opportunity to watch firsthand the debate in which alternatives are weighed, accepted or rejected. The reasoning of our elected officials is as important as their vote.

The Open Meeting Act serves to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of its governmental processes and problems, and ultimately, to restore public confidence in government.

But what happened in the state Senate on Wednesday only discourages our faith in government.


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.