Ben Blackstock receives Marian Opala 1st Amendment award.

Ben Blackstock, who for 43 years was execu-tive director of the Oklahoma Press Association, was selected for his unending support of open meetings and open records in Oklahoma. Not only was Ben instrumental in the passage of the Open Meeting/Open Record Act, but he has served as a perpetual "watchdog" for efforts to by-pass the Act.

Ben is a firm believer in the importance of the "public's right to know". He currently serves as Treasurer of FOI Oklahoma, Inc.

Seven inducted into James Madison Society

Proceeds from the banquet will go to FOI Oklahoma's Education for Freedom program which provides curriculum materials and training workshops for K-12 teachers on the First Amendment.

Other contributors to this effort include the OK.Press Asso., Asso. Of Women in Communications, Bank of Oklahoma, Express Personnel Services, Jordan Associates, OK.Asso. of Broadcasters, Oklahoma Christian University, Society of Prof. Journalists and the law firms of Abel, Musser, Sokolosky, Mares & Kouri; Crowe & Dunlevy; Durbin, Larimore & Bialick; Gable & Gotwals; McAfee & Taft; McKinney & Stringer; and Norman, Edem, Meyer & Wallace.

Can America be a free society and a secure society

More than 100 entries were received for November's contest. 1st place winner received a Dell computer. The winners were as follows:
1st - Leon Fisher, Univ. of Oklahoma graduate student.
2nd - Amy Whitewater, Northwestern Oklahoma State University student.
3rd (tie): Evan Jensen, OU journalism student and Matt Wallis, Talihina High School.
Honorable mention - Stephanie R. Johnson, University of Central Oklahoma and Maria Bautista, Haworth Junior High.

The winning essay: A Free and Secure Society ?? by Leon Fisher, University of Oklahoma graduate student.

America has always been considered a nation of free people ever since the Revolutionary War. The American people have always felt they lived in one of the most secure nations in the world, if not the most secure. Presently, Americans are beginning to question whether or not it is less secure than it should be and whether or not these so called securities are taking too much away from our freedom.

In 1759 Benjamin Franklin stated, "those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty." Though it was said over two hundred years ago, the principle still applies today. People should not be willing to give up liberties for security. Liberty is what makes our country special. These liberties are what shaped this country into what it is today and what have drawn so many immigrants to it over the years. Americans are much too willing to give up freedoms for securities and also are all too willing to give up freedoms for convenience. Instead of giving up our liberties, we should be willing to sacrifice convenience and time for security. These are the main issues with people today. For example, people do not like to wait to get on airplanes. They like to arrive fifteen minutes before a flight and rush through the airport. Now they are having to arrive earlier, and they complain because it takes an hour or two from their time.

Benjamin Franklin also said, "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." We all are presented with inconveniences, and we usually make rash decisions that are only good for the short term, but in the long run are for the worse. We should take a look at our situations and instead of looking for the quick fix, we should think about what effects our decision could have in the future, but we are all in too much of a hurry to think ahead like we should.

In 1791 Thomas Jefferson told Archibald Stuart these words, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." This is a great example of how Americans should think. We should be willing to accept the inconveniences that come with liberty rather than experience the inconveniences of having a lack of liberty.

The question among Americans today being whether or not America can be a free society and a secure society is a question of much debate. Different people have different opinions. I say that America cannot be both a free society and a secure society because Americans are too set in their ways and only when they feel most threatened would they be willing to change.

Second Place Ensuring Freedom for Our Children Amy Whitewater, student - Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Looking into the trusting, blue eyes of my infant son, instinct is to protect him and shelter him from menace, to block him from the horrors of the world and to preserve his innocence. But as a mother, I have to ask if that's right for him. Is it fair to restrict and hold him back? Do I have any right to impede on his experiences, to deny him of his right to taste life, even if I have the best intentions? Of course, it's my urge to do these things, but he is an American and should be allowed to live with the freedoms of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The First Amendment has stood as the cornerstone of American democracy for more than 200 years. But its longevity shouldn't be mistaken for stability. Freedom of expression is under attack. It seems the public respects the First Amendment as an ideal but is ambivalent when it protects offensive ideas or troubling speech. Of course we are fearful, but can we sit idly by as our First Amendment rights are selectively censored? Or, do we stand up, hold our heads high and proclaim "No, we will not sacrifice the rights and privileges secured for us."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote "Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." We learn from his statement that we cannot live in fear, restricting activities, sheltering children and censoring public information. That would be un-American. Recently widowed, Lisa Beamer who lost her husband September 11th on United Flight 93 pronounced "We can't let ourselves be held captive by terrorism."

Our founding fathers intended to create a majestic groundwork for our nation, a guidebook for our country. They imagined freedom for future generations, unlike they had experienced, and implemented protection for those freedoms. Those documents are the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Thousands of veterans have given their lives to uphold our Constitution, ensuring that we live freely.

Although my instinct tells me to change the channel when portraits of a burning inferno that was the World Trade Center are flashed periodically across the T.V. screen, and even though I want to shield his face from the nightmarish images on the newsstand, I know it's not the right thing to do for my son. Instead, I will teach him the rights and freedoms Americans hold dear. I will relate stories told by my grandfather about battles in World War II that earned him a Silver Star. It's my job to make sure he understands how important our Bill of Rights and Constitution are and that his job as an American is to support those documents and everything they stand for, even if that means risk. Most of all, I will tell him to always respect and shed a tear for the past, but that it's just as important to keep a clear eye on the future.

Third Place (tie) A Free and Secure Society ?? Matt Wallis - Talihina High School

The underpinning of our society is that a social contract exists between our government and the people. John Locke's idea of the social contract influenced our Founding Fathers, and they viewed government's responsibility as bounded by personal liberties. Our liberties in the Bill of Rights were created to place limits on the government to prevent it from violating individual or collective rights. Nonetheless, citizens in the 21st century have a much different conception of government than our Founding Fathers. Citizens tend to view the government as the solution to our problems.

Life is full of uncertainty. Each day, the ordinary individual is confronted with a multitude of circumstances that might be harmful. In general, the uncertainty of life is met by an appropriate degree of caution, but most would view a retreat into a cocoon inside one's home to be both anti-social and unrealistic. The broader society is like that as well. We must expect our government to exercise due diligence in preventing terrorism and dealing with significant internal and external threats; however, if we give in to fear and react too harshly, the terrorists will have won. In the case of Schenck v the U. S., Chief Justice Holmes addressed the question of rights with the example of screaming fire in a crowded theater. Obviously, exercising the right of speech that results in harm to others cannot be easily defended. In that case, Chief Justice Holmes asserted that the context of our rights is circumstantial; each of our rights are exercised within the context of the circumstances.

As a nation, however, we must be careful in the limiting of rights. The foundation of our society is built upon the concept of a free, participative electorate with a real voice in the issues of society. When we limit rights, we may create an illusion of a more secure society, but it is rarely the case. Despite limits on personal liberties, the Nazis were routinely faced with resistance. The French resistance did not allow the occupying Germans to live in total security. Modern China sees resistance from religious sects to autocratic rule. It is likely impossible that one can create a free society in which the free marketplace of ideas is embraced and also find a perfectly secure society. Life, by its very nature, is uncertain, and man, by his very nature, seeks to be free. No great degree of security will be accomplished through limiting our personal freedoms. Such steps would only place us among other nations that strive for a successful, stable government while they control the creativity and expression of their own people. Stability is rarely found through dictatorship.

Ultimately, we must confront the events of September 11 through protection of our freedoms. While it is laudable that our government leaders seek to combat terrorism where it might exist and be proactive where knowledge exists, we are harmed by a response that ultimately does not solve the problem and perhaps creates other problems as a consequence.

A Free and Secure Society ?? Evan Jensen, student - University of Oklahoma

Not long ago our definition of school violence consisted of a short-lived scuffle on the playground during recess or sometime after school. Two kids would try to settle their differences with some sharp words, a staring contest or modest fist-fight, before a teacher or school official intervened.

However, playground fist-fights are no longer the main concern for worried parents, students, teachers and school officials. Instead, they are haunted by media reports of unprecedented violence such as the school shootings in Littleton, Colorado and Jonesboro, Arkansas, and left to contemplate...Could it happen here?

As a consequence, security at public schools across the country has been redefined by "zero tolerance" policies designed to curb school violence and provide an element of relief that something is being done to keep kids safe. But at what expense are these new rules being enforced? What freedoms are shrinking when a "zero tolerance" policy is adopted? Consider the following two examples: David Mahan of Midwest City, Oklahoma, faced a one-year suspension from Midwest City High School after a security guard found two knives in the car Mahan drove to school. Mahan explained the knives were used to repair the speakers in his mother's car, but "zero tolerance" afforded the senior no opportunity for explanation. School officials gave Mahan their most generous offer; attend alternative school and lose his chances at a college wrestling scholarship.

Twelve-year-old, Alan Newsom was threatened with suspension by Albermarle School District in Virginia for wearing a t-shirt from a gun safety program he attended during the summer sponsored by the National Rifle Association. According to the district's "zero tolerance" policy, Newsom was violating the dress code prohibiting any clothing related to weapons and violence. School officials offered to retract the possible suspension if Newsom would wear the shirt inside out.

"Zero tolerance" has surpassed its noble purpose to protect schools from potential violence by denying students basic freedoms of self-expression and personal choice. Likewise, in the name of national security, America has increased safety measures at the airport, sporting events and shopping centers at the expense of personal freedom.

Heightened security and increased awareness has certainly curbed potential violence, but it has imposed on our First Amendment Rights. Today, schools can suspend or expel a student for the clothes they wear, hairstyle they prefer, conversation they may have in private, or for being remotely responsible for an item believed to be dangerous left unknowingly in a borrowed car.

We can also face severe penalties and punishments for carrying nail clippers beyond the airline security gate, be deemed suspect if we forget our briefcase at a phone booth, or face public outcry for someone overhearing you mention a football play called the 'long bomb' on your cell phone.

America cannot be a secure society without implementing laws that limit our First Amendment Rights.

As supporters of this great country, we should consider the minute pieces of freedom we are giving up in the name of "zero tolerance" to support safety and security. We should then contemplate the long-term restrictions such allowances may create.

The theme selected for the 2003 1st Amendment Congress essay contest is "Redefining Freedom- what will the world look like in five years.

FOI IN OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma State University's Student Government Association violated the state Open Meeting Act in October when it met in a closed session not specified on its agenda, SGA and university officials later conceded.

SGA's meeting on Oct.2 was closed at the request of an SGA senator who is also a member of the OSU fraternity criticized for a September party at which several members dressed in Ku Klux Klan, Confederate, skinhead and slave costumes. The senator asked for the closed session so he could talk to the SGA about the incident, said Cherish King, SGA Senate chairwoman.

"He didn't want to feel threatened or have his name in the paper," King said.

OSU's SGA and Residence Halls Association are public bodies subject to the Open Meeting Act, according to a 1979 attorney general opinion. Both organizations are "sub-entities of a board of higher education," and both have "actual or defacto decision-making authority."

"These two bodies have the authority to make decisions concerning the student population of the University from which no student may be exempted and also make decisions concerning the dispersement [sic] of funds collected," the attorney general's office reasoned.

Under the Open Meeting Act, no public body may go into a closed session without noting the proposed executive session on its agenda. The agenda item must 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 the specific statutory authorization for the executive session.

An executive session was not listed on the SGAšs agenda for Oct. 2. Near the end of their meeting, however, senators entertained a motion and voted to enter into a closed session. The motion did not explain the reason for the closed session.

The topic for a closed session must fall into one of eight categories outlined by the Open Meeting Act. Kent Sampson, SGA adviser and director of Campus Life, later said "he viewed the topic of the closed session as a personnel situation."

"If evaluating employees, the actual discussion is held in private," Sampson said. "I kind of viewed that as analogous to a personnel, individual issue."

The Act states that public bodies may meet privately in executive session to discuss 'the employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any individual salaried public officer or employee."

Oklahomašs Supreme Court has held that because the Open Meeting Act was 'enacted for the publicšs benefit, [it] is to be construed liberally in favor of the public.'

King and Sampson said information on the Open Meeting Act would in some way be included in training for GA officials this spring. "The only thing to do now is apologize and let people know that I will answer any questions they have," said King. "Now we know, and all we can say is trust in us as a student body."

What's happening on our campuses? March 20, 2003 - Daily Oklahoman - letter to the editor fromCecil D. Maynard, Stillwater Universities once prided themselves on free speech, debateand exchange of ideas. They were a pillar of academic freedom. They nurtured, protected and enhanced freedom of speech. Now they try to tell a person what he can't say or wear. This is dictatorial.

A fraternity at the University of California- Riverside was suspended for alleged racist T- shirts worn by members. The matter was taken to court and the university dropped the charges. A student at Carnegie Mellon was relieved of his job as resident adviser because he refused to wear a pin ribbon triangle, which was to show support for gays and lesbians.

The court has ruled that the First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism or religious intolerance. This was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Many universities now hold hearings in closed sessions.

The student or organization under threat of expulsion must agree to write a letter of apology and admit guilt to the alleged charges and to agree to perform hours of community service and take sensitivity training. Being convicted without due process is un-American and violates a free society.

Fraternities are vulnerable to such threats because if the house is closed, mortgage payments can't be made. Many individuals are hurt and bewildered because they don't know how to defend themselves.

Education for Freedom: Lessons on the First Amendment -- K - 12
Beginning with two workshops at Southern Nazarene University -- one for elementary student teachers and the other for secondary student teachers, FOI Oklahoma will provide tools for educators to integrate "Education for Freedom" into their basic classes such as Social Studies, Government, and Civics. Additional workshops are tentatively planned for Oklahoma Christian University, UCO, OU, and secondary school districts throughout the state.

During this hands-on, participatory workshop, teachers are introduced to lessons that are designed to actively engage students in learning about the First Amendment. Each person receives a free set of lessons entitled, "Education for Freedom: Lessons on the First Amendment". These lessons use a participatory approach that encourages students to discuss, role-play, conduct surveys, create projects and other activities that help them learn about the First Amendment.

Rita Geiger, formerly the Director of Social Studies and Foreign Languages for the Norman Public Schools will direct the workshops. Rita has been a leader in social studies education for many years, teaching in the Little Rock and Tulsa Public Schools and serving as the Social Studies specialist at the Oklahoma Department of Education prior to moving to Norman. Among her many awards, she received the Oklahoma Bar Association's Liberty Bell Award. Rita serves on the Board of FOI Oklahoma.

Police Training Public Records Video completed Utilizing a grant from NFOIC and in conjunction with the UCO Broadcast Journalism Department and the Oklahoma Chiefs of Police Association, a thirty-minute police training video has been completed and distributed.

Jim Cox, director of the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police reports that the Public Records Video was introduced at a general membership meeting of the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police. Copies of the video are being distributed to police departments and sheriff's offices as the personnel are in attendance at training sessions. It is also being distributed to agencies as requested for internal viewing.

"The reception of the video has been excellent", according to Cox. "The advantage to the departments is the ability to use the video in small group sessions and for new personnel. Our organization has made 450 copies of the video and will continue distribution until our supply of videos is exhausted. We would like to take the opportunity to thank the FOI organization for its efforts in this undertaking."

The following police and county departments have received the Open Records video tapes: Alex, Altus, Anadarko, Arcadia, Ardmore, Blackwell, Bokoshe, Bixby,Broken Arrow, Caney, Chickasha, Choctaw, Claremore, Cleveland, Carter County, Creek County, Del city, Dibble, Duncan, Enid, El Reno, Garvin County,Grady County, Haworth, Hollis, Logan County, Maud, Madill, McLoud, Midwest City, Moore, Nash, Norman, Osage County, OSU, Owasso, Pauls Valley, Perkins, Piedmont, Pond Creek,Pottawatomie County, Pawnee County, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Seminole County, Skiatook, Sperry, Stillwater, Tahlequah, Tecumseh, Tulsa county, Tulsa, Walters, Warr Acres.

Terror Threats Prompt States to Shrink Access to Security-related Records

Researchers found state lawmakers have enacted dozens of changes since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, that limit access to government-held information about building plans, evacuation procedures, medical supplies and a number of other issues related to security.

"A lot of us worry about how much information is now being kept from state citizens," said Bill Chamberlin, director of the Brechner Citizen Access Project. "It is one thing to keep sensitive information out of the hands of the terrorists, but quite another to use terrorism as an excuse to shield government officials from being accountable for their actions." Chamberlin will present the findings during the 2003 National Freedom of Information Day Conference at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Va.

The project rated the access to public records under state laws discussing security, public safety and terrorism by assigning individual laws sunshine ratings on a scale from "sunny," for the most open, to "dark," for the most closed, in eight subcategories. Researchers averaged the subcategories to get an overall ranking for information related to security, safety and terrorism.

Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee and the District of Columbia received "nearly dark" ratings because they limit access to many records assessing preparedness and security risks. For example, Ohio public records law changes enacted in 2002 exempt the security records of any public body, and defines "security record" as any information used to "prevent, mitigate or respond to acts of terrorism."

Colorado, Pennsylvania and Tennessee also received "nearly dark," or mostly closed, ratings for access to records that include security-involved personal information. For example, changes made to the Tennessee Open Records Act in 2001 exempt all records created to respond to or prepare for "any violent incident," such as a "terrorist incident."

Generally, the Citizen Access Project advisory board gave the highest sunshine ratings to states without specific terrorism or security-related public records exemptions. About 30 states received "sunny with clouds" rankings for categories such as security-related investigations, security assessments and facility security. No state received the highest access rating in any of the eight security-related state law categories researchers reviewed. (Oklahoma received a 4.7 ranking on the scale of 1-7)

"Just a few states had terrorism terms in laws before 9/11," said Chamberlin, who also is the Joseph L. Brechner Eminent Scholar in the College of Journalism and Communication at U.F. "The underlying assumption of advisory board members seems to be that states without specific terrorism-related statutes allow more public access."

Some states had very broad security and safety language ," Chamberlin said. Those states were rated as allowing the least amount of access, receiving a "somewhat closed" rating. In other cases, multiple changes in the law have decreased access in states such as Florida that have had a reputation for government openness.

"Most people think in terms of the Bush administration closing off access," Chamberlin said. "We found that many of the individual states are doing the same thing."

Chamberlin said that governments historically tend to withhold information, and punish those who complain about government actions during times of war and other national crises. He said it was important for U.S. citizens to demand continued accountability from their leaders. "This is a time when it is particularly important to monitor what our elected representatives, and the people they appoint, are doing," he said.

The comparisons for several categories across the 50 states have been made available on line including the following:
--the availability of records in governors' offices (statutes and constitutional provisions)
--the availability of records of legislative records (statutes, cases, and constitutional provisions)
--the availability of email records (statutes and cases)
--the definition of records (statutes only) this last one is a bit tricky, and you will see the ratings overall are not very high. That is because we rated all states on several aspects of definitions, and few states had language for all categories. The overall rating for definition is the average of all of the component parts.

Last November we rated sex offender laws requiring identification information be put on the Internet (statutes and cases). http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/terrorrecords.htm For a complete list of state rankings visit www.citizenaccess.org. Or freedominfo.org update - Bill Chamberlin Director, Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project, Joseph L. Brechner Eminent Scholar of Mass Communications - U. of Florida.