Must city councils and other local public bodies keep electronic recordings of meetings once the written minutes are completed?

Question from the public: I recently requested copies of electronic recordings of a committee subject to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. The city attorney said the electronic copies don’t exist because the secretary disposed of the recordings after using them to write the meeting minutes. Is the public body required to keep the recordings? I believe Fabin v State (2004 OK 67) covers this very thing.

Unfortunately, state law doesn’t appear to require local public bodies to keep electronic recordings of public meetings after the written minutes are created.

However, no state statute requires that the city destroy (or reuse) the recordings. In other words, no state statute prohibits the city from keeping the recordings.

Therefore, this is a policy question. It best serves the public in a democracy to retain the recordings for a certain number of years. Seek an on-the-record explanation from the elected city officials as to why the electronic recordings of all public meetings are not retained. Perhaps they would decide that future recordings should be kept. If they don’t, this could be an issue for the next municipal elections.

State law does require that the city establish a schedule regarding the retention and destruction of records. What is the city’s retention schedule for records?

Fabian is not necessarily applicable because it concerned the records of state government, not a local government.

At issue in Fabian was whether the Department of Public Safety was required to retain electronic recording of administrative hearings concerning revocation of drivers' licenses. (Fabian & Associates v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67)

The court did not prohibit DPS from ever destroying the tape recordings but said it could do so only “in accordance with The Records Management Act.” (Id. at ¶19)

So we should look to The Records Management Act and to interpretations of the statute for guidance.

The Attorney General’s Office has noted, "The Records Management Act does not apply directly to local governments.” (2002 OK AG 13 ¶5) (see also 2009 OK AG 12, 2001 OK AG 46)

The state statute explicitly differentiates between the records held by the state and those held by local governments. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 67, § 203)

The statute requires the governing body of each county, city, town, village, township, district and authority to, “as far as practical, follow the program, established for the management of state records.” (Id. at § 207)

In at least two formal opinions, the state attorney general has said that under the statute, “political subdivisions are mandated by the Legislature to maintain a records management program, and, ‘as far as practical,’ utilize the program established by the Records Management Act, with the assistance of the Administrator.” (2002 OK AG 13, ¶7) (see also 2001 OK AG 46)

In other words, the attorney general has said, local governments “are not exempt from records management and must use the State Records Management Act as a model to the extent practical.” (2002 OK AG 13, ¶3)

“Such a schedule would determine the amount of time the records must be kept, and in what form. What constitutes ‘as far as practical’ is a question of fact beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. Likewise, the length of time to keep a particular record hinges on the nature of the specific record, which also constitutes a question of fact beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion,” the attorney general said in 2005. (Id. ¶8)

Based on the statutory language and the attorney general opinions, the city would not be required to keep its recordings of public meetings once the written minutes are created.

I welcome explanations to the contrary.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

FOI Oklahoma Inc. seeks nominees for the Justice Marian Opala First Amendment Award

FOI Oklahoma Inc. is seeking nominees through Oct. 16 for the Justice Marian Opala First Amendment Award.

The award recognizes an Oklahoman who has promoted education about or protection of the individual rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, which include freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Previous recipients include civil rights leader Clara Luper and state Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

Nominations for the award should include the nominee's name, address, brief biographical information and what the person has done to promote education about or protection of the individual rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Nominations may be sent to FOI Oklahoma Inc., P.O. Box 2408, Edmond, OK 73083, or e-mailed to kaybickham@sbcglobal.net.

This year’s recipient will be honored Oct. 29 during the 11th annual First Amendment Congress Professional Day session at The Oklahoman in Oklahoma City.

The award was initiated in 2002 to honor Justice Marian Opala, a Polish immigrant who exemplifies a belief in the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Opala was appointed to the state Supreme Court in 1978 and served as chief justice in 1991-92.

Opala, born in 1921, had just enrolled in law school when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939. He enlisted in the Polish Army and later fought as a member of the Polish Resistance Movement. He was captured in 1944 and held in a concentration camp in Bavaria. When the camp was liberated in 1945, Opala was befriended by a 45th Infantry Division captain from Oklahoma City. Opala settled in Oklahoma City in 1947 and became a U.S. citizen in 1953.

Opala is well-known as a strong advocate of First Amendment rights. He attributes that commitment to his experiences in Nazi-occupied Poland.

FOI Oklahoma is a statewide organization founded in 1990 to educate the public and officials about rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and to actively support openness in government.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association must be accountable to taxpayers, students

(Danny Rennels, OSSAA’s former executive secretary, pleaded guilty Thursday to embezzling $421,500 from the organization. He admitted to taking the money to pay off loans and gambling debts. He will not go to prison and has 30 days to pay restitution.

OSSAA regulates not only high school sports in Oklahoma but also other activities such as music, speech and debate competitions.

The following is a recent column by Oologah Lake Leader Publisher John M. Wylie II in which he makes a case for OSSAA to be subject to the state’s open government laws.)

We’re not sure what the most shocking revelation was when Danny Rennels, who served for a decade as the chief regulator of Oklahoma high school athletics and activities, was charged with felony embezzlement Monday. Among the revelations contained in a probable cause affidavit used to secure an arrest warrant:

• The total amount taken is at least $457,500—almost five times the amount acknowledged by his employer, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association, when it fired him in March. According to the affidavit, Rennels has admitted embezzling the funds.

• The man responsible for ensuring legal and ethical conduct of student athletes admitted to OSSAA officials that he spent the money on Internet gambling.

• He apparently took $100,000—the first installment under a five-year endorsement deal with Reebok that required all Oklahoma schools to use their basketballs in tournament play even though the schools weren’t consulted—that school officials were told would provide catastrophic injury insurance for high school athletes.

• Even though OSSAA is governed by a board composed of school officials, “Rennels had exclusive control over the day-to-day handling and expenditure of OSSAA funds.”

• Rennels’ fund diversions began with $16,000 in rights fees from an Oklahoma City television station in 2005 and escalated to $174,000 in rights fees and sales of a prime billboard location in 2006. He obtained an OSSAA credit card in 2007 which he used for personal expenses totaling $26,000 over two years and embezzled another $14,000 in TV rights fees. In 2008 it was $217,000 (including the Reebok money) and in 2009—when he was employed for just three months--$161,000.

• Although the DA investigator handling the case wanted 10 felony counts filed, his boss filed only one and bond was set at a measly $2,000.

Why is the last point important? Because it reeks of a deal in the works, and since OSSAA is classified as a “private, non-profit” organization it is not subject to the state’s Open Records act. (New Executive Secretary Ed Sheakley said no one has ever submitted a request for records and he is uncertain how such a request would be handled.)

Never mind that OSSAA regulates the lives of every student athlete and activity participant in the state.

Never mind that it wouldn’t have a dime without drawing funds from taxpayer-supported programs ranging from football to debate.

Never mind that taxpayers have no way to ensure that OSSAA is properly handling their money.

The Rennels case makes it abundantly clear that OSSAA must be classified as a public agency. It is funded with public money and should be subject to all the laws that go with that—including annual state audits. Giving OSSAA the discretion to choose what state transparency laws it follows would clearly be a case of letting the fox guard the henhouse.

We hope lawmakers will make OSSAA’s status clear in the next session. Lawmakers who balk can expect stiff opposition in November 2010.

It is the public’s money, not OSSAA’s, and the public has a right to know that it is being spent responsibly.

Oklmulgee officials charged with violating Open Meeting Act

Members of the Okmulgee County Criminal Trust Authority, including the county sheriff and city police chief, were charged Thursday with 38 counts of violating the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.

They are accused of unauthorized voting in executive session, failure to give notice of action actually taken, failure to record each member’s vote and two counts of failure to give notice of action taken, according to published reports by Sheila Stogsdill in the Tulsa World and The Oklahoman.

The charges stem from meetings occurring from Dec. 7, 2006, to Feb. 1, 2007.

Stogsdill reported that court records don't indicate the next court date for the men.

The case is being prosecuted by Muskogee County District Attorney Larry Moore.

A violation of the Open Records Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500 and/or up to one year in the county jail. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.17(A))

More details on the charges are available in Stogsdill's stories.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Does the Open Meeting Act permit a school board to meet 80 miles outside its district?

Question from the public: Our school board recently called for a special school board meeting. The board was to discuss school safety, stimulus money, general operational procedures, facilities/master growth development, and departments. Is it OK for a special school board meeting to be held on a weekend at a resort approximately 80 miles from our school district, so long as the special meeting is posted?

I disagree that it’s OK for a school board to conduct a special meeting 80 miles from its district. I believe it violates the spirit and letter of the Open Meeting Act.

That also seemed to be the belief of the Attorney General’s Office a decade ago.

Under the Open Meeting Act, meetings must be held at “specified times and places which are convenient to the public.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 303)

For example, a county excise board’s meeting at a courthouse locked and closed for the Labor Day holiday did not comply with the Open Meeting Act, the state Supreme Court held in 1984. (Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK 95, ¶14, 701 P.2d 754, 761)

The board’s “failure to hold the meeting at a place convenient and accessible to the public” was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act, the court said.

I would argue that a meeting site 80 miles from the district is not convenient to the public.

The Open Meeting Act stresses, "It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems.” (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)

That policy seems thwarted by conducting the meeting 80 miles from the district’s voters.

In spring 1998, the head of the AG Office’s civil division said the thrust of the Open Meeting Act is that a strictly local organization would be prohibited from holding a retreat outside its jurisdiction, according to an article by Wayne Trotter in the FOI Oklahoma Newsletter.

"It's a common sense deal. You need to have your meetings where your constituents are," Vic Bird reportedly told public officials and the public attending an open government workshop conducted by the AG's Office.

"The whole purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to facilitate democracy," Bird said.

On a different note, if I were a voter in the school district, I would ask if the school board is spending tax dollars to meet at a resort 80 miles away -- especially if it could meet for free in its own building or regular meeting hall.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Former Boynton official's trial on open records violations set for October

Former Boynton Town Clerk/Treasurer Pauline Osburn’s jury trial on two counts of violating the state Open Records Act has been scheduled for Oct. 26.

Osburn was charged in May after refusing to grant town trustees access to the town's water records. She resigned May 26.

Once officials had the records in hand, they learned the town had about $15,000 in the bank but more than $40,000 in debts. At the same time, the city was owed thousands of dollars for delinquent water bills. One resident owed more than $8,000, The Muskogee Phoenix reported.

The newspaper originally reported Osburn’s jury trial was scheduled for July 27.

However, that was apparently the date set for her disposition hearing, which was then rescheduled for this past Thursday.

An editor at the newspaper confirmed Monday that Osburn’s jury trial has been set for Oct. 26.

Osburn was 73 when she was charged.

A violation of the Open Records Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500 and/or up to one year in the county jail. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.17(A))


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Open Government Pledge signers advance to general elections for Tulsa municipal offices and House District 55 seat

Six signers of FOI Oklahoma Inc.’s Open Government Pledge will be on Tulsa’s municipal general election ballot Nov. 10.

A seventh signer, Republican Bill Christiansen, was re-elected to his Tulsa City Council District 8 seat in the Sept. 8 primary. He received 50 percent of the vote.

The House District 55 general election ballot on Oct. 13 will include signer Todd Russ, a Republican.

By signing the pledge, candidates 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.”

Municipal candidates also specifically promised that they and the public bodies 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.”

In Tulsa's mayoral race, both party nominees, Democrat Tom Adelson and Republican Dewey Bartlett Jr., signed the pledge prior to the primary. Bartlett, however, has been criticized for having his divorce case sealed a day or so after signing the Open Government Pledge.

Other signers on the Tulsa ballot are Roscoe Turner, Democrat, Dist. 3; Jim Mautino, Republican, Dist. 6; G.T. Bynum, Republican, Dist. 9; and Phil Wood, Democrat, city auditor.

Legislative candidates specifically “pledge to support legislation to strengthen the letter and the spirit of Oklahoma's Open Meeting and Open Records laws.”


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism