The 1999 Oklahoma 1st Amendment Congress drew a diverse audience. Participants included librarians, reporters, students, public officials and public employees, attorneys, members of the League of Women Voters, and John Q. Public. The two half-day sessions included a Privacy Triangle workshop and four breakout sessions. All of the Saturday morning breakout sessions were well-attended including Hate Groups moderated by Martin H. Belsky, Dean of the University Tulsa College of Law and a session on how to create a 1st Amendment Center. Belsky led his audience to understand that no group originates for the purpose of "hating", but any group can become a Hate Group by excluding certain groups of people.

YEAR 2000 1ST AMENDMENT CONGRESS WILL BE HELD IN TULSA. The response to the 1999 program content was so positive that planning for the next conference has already begun. A committee will begin identifying topics this fall. Input from interested participants will be welcomed. Contact Sue Hale, Lee Brawner, or Kay Bickham.

This is the goal set by the coalition of FOI Oklahoma, INC., the Oklahoma Department of Libraries, the Oklahoma County Metropolitan Library System and the Tulsa City-County Library . A Center has been completed at the Tulsa City-County Library, the Bartlesville Library and the Oklahoma County Metropolitan Library. Funding for six additional 1st Amendment Centers has been approved and will be awarded this year. The coalition is accepting applications from other libraries and/or cities who are interested in creating centers. Contact Kay Bickham at 405-341-3169 for more information.

The Oklahoma Interscholastic Press Association's Annual Conference for high school students drew attendees from around the state to the sessions at the University of Oklahoma. FOI Oklahoma helped sponsor a major speaker.

Preparations will begin soon to develop a manual to facilitate the development of the 1st Amendment Centers. Funding for this manual is being provided by a grant from the Willis-Knight Foundation through NFOIC.

An estimated four years will be required to compile information about laws regarding public access and freedom of information in all 50 states. Thereafter, information on every state will be updated each year. This project will be conducted by the BrechnerCenter for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida. As a result of the project, information comparing stats on a variety of access issues will be disseminated to communication media and legislators in every state, with the data also posted on a permanent web site. Until now, information has been gatherd about individual state access laws but no comprehensive overview of all the laws together has been undertaken on a consistent basis. Legislators will be able to examine the best and worst laws of the 50 states in several categories, including access to electronic records, fees, enforcement provisions and privacy protections.

Eighty-one supporters of the rights afforded by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution gathered in Atlanta in May for the NFOIC Annual Conference. Victories and challenges to Sunshine Laws around the country were cussed and discussed by presenters and participants at the conference. Of Concern Around the Nation... Privatization is becoming more and more popular for financial reasons. It is profit motivated, as many believe that the private sector can function more efficiently. Connecticut, where freedom of information is very important to the citizens considering the $1,000,000 budget allocated to this special state agency, is exploring the possibility of privatizing all computer records with an outside agency. Privatization should be looked at and compared, but when a private company provides public provides public functions, it's subject to open meeting laws. The principal is that the public owns the information. The public are stockholders in state agencies. Fear for Privacy: There is a move around the nation to close more records because of a desire/concern for privacy. There is a fear that access to information means access to money. 86% of a group of people polled think privacy is more important than people's right to know. This could be a dangerous compromise to the freedoms granted under the 1st amendment.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court order barring enforcement of a federal law that prohibits states from disclosing personal information contained in motor vehicle records. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson challenged the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) as an unconstitutional infringement upon state sovereignty. The DPPA prohibits a state motor vehicle department from knowingly disclosing "personal information" about any individual obtained "in connection with a motor vehicle record." A civil penalty of up to $5,000 a day against a state agency could be levied for a policy of non-compliance. The Oklahoma Open Records Act [51 O.S., § 24A.5] and the Oklahoma Highway Safety Code [47 O.S. § 6-117(h)] require that information about an individual identified in the records of Oklahoma's motor vehicle department be made available for public inspection. Oklahoma contended the DPPA impaired the state's ability to manage its motor vehicle records by directing the state to regulate the disclosure of motor vehicle information in a specific manner and that the DPPA unconstitutionally "commandeers" the functioning of its motor vehicle department by requiring the state to regulate a federal program. District Judge David Russell enjoined the United States from enforcing the DPPA in Oklahoma because it constituted an unconstitutional "command to state governments to implement legislation enacted by Congress." Russell said the DPPA unlawfully required the state to create a system to enforce an unfunded federal mandate, noting that the law "would require Oklahoma to train * * * employee in approximately 270 tag agencies across the State on when and how records may be released." The Tenth Circuit three-member panel reversed Judge Russell's order holding that the DPPA constituted a "valid exercise of congressional power." Congress passed the law in reaction to a stalking case in California and as an effort to regulate the bulk sale of information from motor vehicle records. The law prohibits disclosure of names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other personal information. Companies, marketers, private investigators and others are exempted from the ban on access to such information. "In enacting the DPPA, Congress obviously curtailed state's prerogative to make choices respecting the release of motor vehicle information," the Tenth Circuit stated. "No one claims that Congress exceeded the scope of its power under the Commerce Clause in so doing. Nor has the Supreme Court ever suggested that Congress impermissibly invades areas reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment because it exercises its preemptive authority under the Commerce Clause in a manner that displaces state law and policy to some extent. The DPPA simply requires states to make a choice, i.e. stop releasing personal information from state motor vehicle records to the public, or release such information consistent with the dictates of the DPPA." The Tenth Circuit is the second circuit court to rule on the constitutionality of the DPPA. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals came to a different conclusion holding that because the DPPA was not a "generally applicable law,""Congress did not have authority under our system of dual sovereignty to enact it."Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453, 463 (4th Cir. 1998). Because of the conflict among the circuit courts, review by the Supreme Court is probable. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety v. U. S., 994 F.Supp. 1358 (W.D. Okl. 1997), rev'd, --- F.3d - (10th Cir. 1998) (No. 97-6389).

"Although open meetings might allow for less candor, I think it is in the best interest of all involved. We should make this entire process open to public scrutiny." As reported in the June 24 and June 25 issues of the Daily Oklahoman, Governor Frank Keating did a 24 hour turn around in his recommendation against and then for an open hearing for the Southwestern Bell rate talks. He expressed his belief that openness is the best policy for a task force created top consider ways to partially deregulate Southwestern Bell. His earlier desire for closed meetings was a concern for advocates of the state's Open Meeting Law including the Attorney General's office, The Society of Professional Journalists, FOI Oklahoma, and Common Cause.. The Open Meeting Act states that its purpose is to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the government process and governmental problems. Its definition of a public body includes task forces or study groups ... supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property. FOI Oklahoma applauds the Governor's decision. The Oklahoma Court of Civil of Appeals held that a home rule charter city may conduct executive sessions authorized by state law but not authorized by the charter. The ruling overturns a 1980 Oklahoma Attorney General's opinion that a municipality could not go into an executive session when its charter required that all meetings be held in public. The City of Kingfisher filed a petition for declaratory judgment after it received a complaint that its executive sessions were in violation of its home rule charter. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city, holding executive sessions might be held under the Open Meetings Act even if the city charter states that all meetings are to be public. The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Attorney General appealed. In upholding the trial court, Division No. 4 of the Court of Appeals focused solely on whether the city charter provision was exclusively within municipal concern or whether it had broader implications. The appeals court found a broad interest in non-public discussion regarding matters of employment and information protected by confidentiality laws that might be affected by public discussion and comment. "The permissible executive session provisions promulgated by the legislature in section 307 reflect legislative protection of private and public interests that go well beyond matters of purely municipal concern," the appeals court said. "A much wider public interest is involved. Therefore, the conflicting municipal law must yield." Kingfisher v. Oklahoma, 1998 OK CIV APP 39, 958 P.2d 170.

Department of Corrections Must Provide Access to Records on Inmates The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections was required under the Oklahoma Open Records Act to provide information on all individuals incarcerated in Oklahoma prisons in the past seven years to an Oklahoma company who sought the information to provide background checks on potential employees. Transportation Information Services, Inc. (TISI) provided background information on potential employees of trucking companies. TISI made a records request to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for information maintained by DOC on all inmates in the state system. TISI requested the information in magnetic tape format and offered to pay all expenses in providing the information. At trial, DOC presented testimony that the initial cost to provide the information to TISI would be $964.69 and annual updated reports would cost $89.10. In 1995, an Oklahoma County District Court Judge issued a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering DOC to release the records to TISI. DOC appealed this ruling. On April 29, 1997, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari. DOC's principal argument on appeal was that 74 O.S. §150.9 required that all criminal history records must be obtained from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation at a cost of $15.00 per report. The cost to TISI for the individual records would have been approximately $700,000. "DOC admits that it maintains the records requested and that TISI would be entitled to the information from it if the request were submitted on an inmate-by-inmate basis," the Supreme Court said. "There is no legal authority for DOC's claim that requests to it must be made on an individual basis." The Supreme Court also rejected DOC's argument that providing the information to a commercial enterprise would constitute a gift to the commercial enterprise in violation of state law. "There is no legal foundation for DOC's assertion that the state is losing the value of the difference between what the OSBI could charge and what it will cost DOC to provide the information." Transportation Information Services, Inc., d/b/a DAC Services v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1998 WL 761703, 1998 OK 108.