The Lie Brary

[FOTD]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090703_11_A1_TheTul617422

Attorney Jay Chandler confirmed that he attended the meeting. However, he referred questions about the executive session to Wimberly.

"I was there as the counsel for Tulsa City-County Library and commission," Chandler said. "I was invited to attend the executive session for the purpose to render legal advice, which I did. These were discussions with me that I consider attorney-client privilege. I can't comment further."



Chandler said the computer audit was not related to the Tulsa World's request for records.


Ok, let's get down to this piss ant attorney! He is a manipulator of the law. Anything he says will represent his clients even if it requires twisting the law to match a desired outcome or to keep the client out of trouble. But, he will twist the laws and facts so much to try to achieve his goals that it will more than often result in integrity and ethical issues.

The very reason we have open meeting rules is to protect victims from the claim of " attorney-client privilege"....

This demon thought libraries were becoming museums and faced becoming obsolete. With these elitist lawyers making the rules up it's coming sooner than expected...

[cannon_fodder]

Am I missing something?   In that article he wasn't defending the meeting as being on par with the open meetings act or discussing anything about open records.  He didn't even defend the merits of whatever counsel he gave them.  He simply said he can't discuss matters between him and his client.  Which is the appropriate response. 

If the board is his client, he can not discuss matters that are not public without their consent.  Attorney-client privilege is not the attorneys to give away.  He would be in trouble with the Bar as well as personally liable for any damages that resulted.  Not to mention shamed by an ethical violation and probably lose additional clients.

I'm not defending whatever they did or did not do, but I don't really see a great need for outrage towards this attorney based on this article.

[FOTD]

Am I missing something?   In that article he wasn't defending the meeting as being on par with the open meetings act or discussing anything about open records.  He didn't even defend the merits of whatever counsel he gave them.  He simply said he can't discuss matters between him and his client.  Which is the appropriate response. 

If the board is his client, he can not discuss matters that are not public without their consent.  Attorney-client privilege is not the attorneys to give away.  He would be in trouble with the Bar as well as personally liable for any damages that resulted.  Not to mention shamed by an ethical violation and probably lose additional clients.

I'm not defending whatever they did or did not do, but I don't really see a great need for outrage towards this attorney based on this article.

Chandler's way of side tracking the open meetings law. Yes, you may be missing something. We will not know for sure.  Sparty, "If the board is his client, he can not discuss matters that are not public without their consent" is lawyer speak for hiding behind his idea of "ethics" over quiting to up hold our laws which deals more with integrity.

[DowntownNow]

The most baffling and questionable part of this whole story is how does both an elected County Commissioner (Karen Keith) and Tulsa's Mayor Kathy Taylor either not know the requirements of the Open Meeting Records Act or ensure they are being followed throughout the process on a board they are voting members of? 

Both also know or should know the requirements for placing an item on a public agenda for discussion. 

But there's a more inherent problem I think amongst the numerous boards, authorities and commissions that this helps illustrate...appointed members that do not know the full context of the law governing their operation, the policies and by-laws of their oganization, adherence to the Open Meeting Records Act, and in some cases, how their actions are viewed not only at the state, but federal level (i.e. TDA/HUD).  Its one thing to say "oops, we should have known better but do now and here foward will work to ensure we do it this way" versus appointing someone and ensureing they are brought up to speed on all policies, laws and requirements.

Many of these boards, trusts and authorities have third party general counsel hired that they rely upon to help ensure they meet the established criteria for operation.  Many times, I think they are either not informed or poorly informed.  It is still the members responsibilty to ensure they are compliant, they are the decision makers at the end of the day, not the hired counsel.

I'd expect more out of an elected official though like the County Commissioner and Mayor.

[DowntownNow]

Im not so concerned about the statements made by the attorney for the board here, but I will fault him though for not telling the board that they needed to vote to return to public meeting and then vote for action. 

Im more concerned about the statements made by the board that are not supported by law to justify the executive session or their lack of maintaining minutes of those sessions. 

Oklahoma Open Meeting Act
http://www.foioklahoma.org/OpenMeeting.pdf

No where under Executive Session does it provide for the general discussion of "review the use of employee flexible time" or general operations of any nature. Topics of general discussion are reserved for public meetings, not executive sessions.  Executive Sessions may only be used when discussing 8 specified criteria, none of which allows for such a general discussion to take place. 

Any vote they took was invalid but could be re-addressed at another meeting to correct procedure.  If they fail to correct, then I assume they could be held laible for willful violation of the act. 

None of the excuses the thought they didnt have to keep minutes of executive sessions or the manner in which they use them to discuss matters that are relevant but feel best kept out of the public ear.

[RecycleMichael]

The mistake they made was not coming back out of executive session before taking action. The Mayor had already left before then. I know you just want to take shots at here, but this time she was not part of the mistake.

[DowntownNow]

That was but one mistake they made.  The other is in the way they posted the agenda item, and its vagueness.  The Mayor should have also realized that an executive session can not be used to discuss matters of such a general nature and as a board member, ensured that such a discussion did not take place in executive session, they entered that executive session when she was present. 

Beyond that, yes Michael, I will take a shot at a Mayor or any other elected official that can not and does not schedule themselves accordingly and make sure to attend every required meeting and stay throughout the entire thing so that she can be sure in the knoweldge that she has a firm understanding of the matters being discussed and the varying points of view from the other board members that can effect future decisions and votes.

I have witnessed on so many occassions her leaving out early from City Council meetings, Council Committee meetings, planned and invited events (only after giving a brief introduction).  You dont have the time to dedicate to performing the job of Mayor, then dont take on the responsiblity. 

I had the same problem with Councilor GT Bynum at the City Council meeting where the budget was approved.  When it was discussed to delay the vote so Councilors could study Martinson's amendments to the budget, Bynum lamented that the company he works for is gracious to 'allow' his participation as Councilor but that his duties as such should not impact his employment or its schedule...that was pathetic.  If you do not have the time to dedicate to the elected position, no matter what may be required to ensure the approriate level of representation for your district, then do not run.

Without studying the amended budget, looking at it from all angles, how can he or his constituents be assured he voted the right way?  Same in the Mayor's case, if you cant sit still long enough to engage in conversation, get all points of view, hear all the issues...how do you vote effectively on anything?