Open Meetings law and the Tulsa County Commission

[RecycleMichael]

KOTV has this story...

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8036600

County Commissioners May Be Violating Sunshine Law

Since there are only three county commissioners, it only takes two to make a majority. The News On 6 used the Oklahoma Open Records Act to check the commissioners' official county e-mail accounts. Violating the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in the county jail, and a $500 fine.

Thanks to Oklahoma's Sunshine Laws, you have a right to know how your elected officials are conducting business on your behalf.  That means if elected leaders are discussing government business, they must do so in an open meeting.  News On 6 anchor Scott Thompson reports in a News On 6 Investigation that two Tulsa County Commissioners are discussing county business in private, through e-mail.

The Tulsa County Commission holds its regular weekly meeting every Monday morning.  The meetings are often very brief.  This Monday, for example, the commissioners worked through a three-page agenda in less than 15 minutes.  Does the commission conduct its business very efficiently or is there another reason the meetings are so short? As the name implies, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires public bodies to hold their meetings at specified times and places, to make it easy for the public to attend.

The act reads:  "No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action." Since there are only three county commissioners, it only takes two to make a majority.  That means if two commissioners go to lunch, talk on the phone or meet in the hallway, they're breaking the law if they discuss county business.  It also means they can't talk about county business via e-mail, either. The News On 6 used the Oklahoma Open Records Act to check the commissioners' official county e-mail accounts.  After looking through all the e-mails they sent last year, it was discovered that two of the commissioners may have violated the Open Meeting Law many times.

In one example, Commissioner Randi Miller and Commissioner Fred Perry discuss filling a position in the county's computer department.  Commissioner Perry wants the position filled ASAP, but Commissioner Miller wants to wait until the county's performance audit is complete. In another example, Commissioner Miller violated the county's internet policy, by using her county e-mail account to accept an invitation to a fundraiser for the Tulsa County Republican Party.

And, there was also an email from Fred Perry, just a month after becoming a county commissioner, indicating he knows the Open Meeting Law.  It's an e-mail to a reporter about how Commissioner Miller plans to handle last year's River Tax campaign.  He explains he has some suggestions for the Commissioner, but writes "due to the public meeting act I can't reply back to Commissioner Miller by email or verbally." The News On 6 found only one e-mail sent by Commissioner Smaligo to another commissioner.  He did not discuss county business in that e-mail; he simply corrected the other commissioner's grammar.

Neither Commissioner Miller nor Commissioner Perry would talk with The News On 6 about how they use their county e-mail accounts. Violating the Open Meeting Act is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in the county jail, and a $500 fine.

KOTV sure has taken on the County administration lately. I know what the law says, but it would be hard to not talk to another commissioner on business. Their offices are all pretty close to each other.

[mrhaskellok]

I agree in principal, but as an elected official,I can say it can get downright silly sometimes.  But alas, I know it is all for the right reasons.
Two elected officials should be able to discuss but not make decisions without holding a meeting.  Otherwise, you can expect a slow moving government.

[TheArtist]

Just to be sure I understand....

The wording states...

"No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action."

1. used to decide any action.   means to me, that,,, the purpose "use" of the conversation was to decide upon an action... So, for instance, asking someone for information about something would be ok. They were not "deciding any action" nor was there an intention to use the conversation to do so. The article mentions "discussing county business" but thats not what the wording in the act says. You could discuss county business (according to this wording) as long as the conversation or the inent/use, of the conversation, is not deciding any action.  

2. There seems to be an implied differentiation between informal and formal gatherings. Two people could have a formal gathering. So two people could have a formal electronic "gathering" as well. Right? The interesting point to me would then be, What constitutes a formal gathering? What would constitute a formal electronic gathering? Does someone else have to be there at the time? Does it mean there has to be an appointment? Would recording the "gathering", having its time and date, and having it publicly available for anyone to see, suffice to make it formal versus informal?

If no one else were at a "formal gathering" and you recorded it, what would be the difference between that and being able to see the e-mail "recordings/gatherings"? Nobody else was witnessing either at the time, but anyone could see what discussion occurred at anytime, unlike an improptu or private discussion in a hallway where there is no record and no witnesses. Would the formal recordings of the e-mail and their availability "sunshine on what was discussed" suffice to make the meeting formal? Unlike say an email or discussion that wasnt recorded and not available "in the dark" like between someones personal computer or someones personal phone.  Does the letter of this law express its intent?

And again, were these discussions used to decide any action?

[Conan71]

My feelings about Commissioner Miller aren't a real secret around here, but I really do think that law, as it is being applied, is incredibly draconian.

[CoffeeBean]

If you're so curious about what they're discussing, you can clearly ask for the emails.

[patric]

I didnt even have to read thru the story to know who was involved.
Funny.

[mrhaskellok]

You are right Artists, but as Conan described it, it can be so draconian that it becomes a battle of one mans word against another.  For example, I have to be very careful how I present issues to other councilman because I don't want them to give me their decision.  If they do and someone hears it or knows that then I can be accused of violating this law.  Of course, in order to technically violate it in this method, one must determine the decisions of a quorum of members of the governing body.  So, if I went to two other members and asked them what there decision was to be on an agenda item then someone could build a case against you.  
It is sad, because in the case of small towns, most council members work full time and the meeting once a month may be the only opportunity to discuss issues together.  That does not sound bad does it?  Well, here is the kicker...if the topic of our discussion is not on the agenda, we can't discuss it. So if, through our discussions, we want to take action on an item, if that action is not specifically spelled out in the form of an agenda item, we have to wait another month before we can take action on the issue.  Again, it slows the process down considerably.  Instead, it would be nice to be able to, in good conscience, "shop" issues with the other councilors to determine what should actually be on the agenda (because then you know it has a better chance of passing and ultimately accomplishing something ).  

It isn't always a drag, but it does make it difficult to relax when you know there are hyper sensitive people out there looking for you to make one false move so they can smear you.  
I call them CAVEmen, Citizens Against Virtually Everything.  It takes all types.
[]

[Wrinkle]

Unitl County Government is dissolved or restructured, it's going to be a problem.

Since it's a State entity, doubt it's going to happen. So, until it does, the less power they have, the better. Certainly, no more Sales Taxes.

Built-in disfunction, moreso than normal.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by patric

I didnt even have to read thru the story to know who was involved.
Funny.

The ongoing saga of Randi "Brain Candy" Miller and "Brain Dead" Fred Perry just keeps getting better all the time. They just keep on bending the rules till they eventually break.