Incredible! The US Supreme Court has been fooled by what is called "The Boxer Amendment." That was nothing but a publicity stunt back in 1995 by US Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) purporting to protect persons privacy by closing most access to state drivers license records. The Senator said she introduced the slightly debated idea after the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer . Boxer claimed a stalker came to Schaeffer's apartment door and shot her several times because she had ignored his advances. She didn't even know him. It was another anonymous fan's insane crush on a movie star. He sought her in vain, couldn't get info from the California Motor Vehicle Commission due to the privacy act there. Undaunted he paid $25 to an Arizona private investigator who could get access to the license agency's records. He paid. He got her address. He rang her bell. He shot her dead. So Boxer gets a new (1995) federal law forcing all states to "close" their driver license records -- or be stiffed with a fine for the state as well as a fine for each clerk. So Oklahoma and some other states took the out of allowing licensees to check "no information" on applications. The phony and dangerous false assurance of privacy is that the states sell names and lists to nearly any firm with the bucks. Like insurance companies, credit bureaus, investigators of any description and who knows who else can get anyone's driver license info. In late 1995 I wrote Sen. Boxer pointing out the sham of her amendment. It was attached to the bill then in conference; still time to correct its flaws or kill it. It would mislead people into a false sense of security by allowing many non law enforcement persons access. She never replied. Some newspapers grumbled about the "closure" saying they needed to verify correct spelling, address, etc. of persons in the news. Only the Oklahoman said it did that. The World said "seldom to never" and none of the rest of the press took the Boxer "closure" seriously. Unneeded but now the law. On Jan. 10, 2000 The Court dignified this sick legislative joke by 5-4. For a court that has been chopping away on earlier court "liberalism" it is odd. Thus the Court zigged, undercutting its recent state rights support. Only the stalkers and the sickoes are laughing. The Court, the congress and USS Boxer has together pulled off a hoax that can only lead to another tragedy. -by B.B.

Amendment needed for clarification
by Bill Stemmons, Professional Registered Parliamentarian

The Open Meeting Act and its advance agenda requirements are intended to limit government officials, NOT members of the general public. (Note the Act's Public Policy statement: "...to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems.") A number of Oklahoma public bodies (e.g., boards, councils) are restricting members of the public from commenting on items NOT on the advance agenda, fearing such comments from the public would violate the Act. This proposed amendment would correct this problem by clarifying the Act. AMEND Title 25 O.S. §311 [Oklahoma Open Meeting Act], by adding as subsection 3, the following:
"1. Nothing in this Act shall prohibit the hearing of comments from the public during an open meeting, nor shall anything in this Act shall be construed as establishing a right of a member of the general public to be given time to speak before any public body. Comments from the public, when permitted during a meeting of a public body, may be concerning any subject(s) under the jurisdiction of the body holding such meeting and shall not be limited to items on the advance agenda. "2. No action or discussion shall be undertaken by members of a public body on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a public body or its staff may make brief comments in response to statements made or questions posed by members of the public. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a public body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a public body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the public body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda."

1. It would NOT establish a RIGHT of a member of the public to be given time to speak before a public body. This would remain at the discretion of the body. 2. It would allow public comments on ANY matter under the jurisdiction of the body, before those public bodies allowing time for public comments. 3. Public comments would NOT be restricted to items on advance agenda. 4. It would allow public officials to make brief comments in response to public comments (a provision patterned after California's Brown Act on open meetings). Currently some public officials are reluctant to make comments in response to the public for fear of violating the Act.

Who's the biggest, most powerful lobby?
by Ben Blackstock

When it comes to who has the most smack- who's most likely to prevail with the legislature- it's no contest. It's state employees assigned the duty of pushing or opposing bills for state agencies. They are potent. They don't even have to register as a lobbyist. They generally do little entertaining, though a few have been known to buy drinks and even dinner. They don't have to, to get the ear of a house or senate member. It's February and the fun has started at the capitol. But these wiley operatives ply their agenda year around. Over the years several state agencies have played powerful hands in FOI matters - Never to make records MORE open. Never to make meetings MORE open. Most, not all, legislators can't seem to do enough for these agency reps. It might be a handsome captain from the Highway Patrol. Or an attractive spokesperson for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Or someone from Health, Transportation, universities, prisons, the governor's office, the courts, etc. Not often will you find agency heads making the rounds of lawmaker offices early in the mornings. They assign some smart staffer skilled to quietly make the kind of deal the agency top staff wants. If the director is needed, he or she will show up at the agreed upon time. One has to admire the quiet effectiveness of these public servants. But then, that's what agencies are expected to do. Defend their turf. Get a little more turf when the opportunity arises. Create that opportunity. It doesn't hurt that most, not all, legislators fall all over themselves to do favors for state agencies. Some can't do enough. Some keep the little deals secret to the last minute to sneak them into conference committee reports or otherwise bury a slippery paragraph in some bulky bill. Even if it isn't germane as the constitution requires. Why this often fawning willingness to please? Well, they're one of us. It's us against "them." The "them" in this case refers to the pests in the press and the pesky public. What's worse, some of the powerful agencies occasionally team up with lower forms of government, say the sheriffs or the DAs or this or that group of county officials and a deal is made. And you may never know how it happened. Finger prints are wiped off. That's why we have sneaky secrecy tucked away in the law, in places where it can hurt. Like in secret deals universities can make on research. Any and many kinds of closed files on economic development. "Anything in the Holy Name of Economic Development is Okay." Even when it goes sour, the slick promoter skips with the funding, al la Chickasha and some other development authorities, just a few years ago.
Should you know the names of who guesses the expected yields of agricultural crops, it is secret. Who cares? But, maybe the Ag Department is just faking it, they have no experts out on the farms anyway. Or just friends of theirs if it pays any money. So have a little more respect for the hard-working, legitimate, check-picking-up lobbyist. If they ever bump up against one of the hundred or so public employees working the legislature, pity them.

Rattan, Oklahoma - January 26, 2000. Report released alleging violations of the state's Open Meeting Act by school superintendent and school board members. Parents had filed reports with the sheriff's office saying that the school board and superintendent were meeting in a locked building.
Edmond, Oklahoma - University of Central Oklahoma. Reporters for the student newspaper, "Vista", allege that the campus police were violating the Open Record Act by not keeping regular posted hours and not providing access to records of campus crime.
Tulsa World- College Campus Crime Reports. A reporter from the World is concerned about the way campus crime reports disguise the use of alcohol on campus including DUI and driving with open containers.
Senate Bill 376 signed into law effective January 1, 2000. This bill, the "Privatization of State Functions Act," spells out guidelines for the privatization of state services to ensure the best interest of the citizens of the state. BUT, if privatization of services means that state business can be handled by private companies who do not have to abide by the Open Record Law, is this in the best interest of the citizens of the state??
Intellectual Freedom Challenges continue to be a concern for Oklahoma Libraries. During the past year over 50 challenges have been made on library books.
Open records for juveniles? Jerry Regier, Office of Juvenile Affairs director believes if a juvenile is certified as an adult or as a youthful offender, the records are open. However, the Tulsa World was denied access in Delaware County to the record of a 17-year-old murder suspect.

A new year, a new century, a new millennium
By Terry Clark

Myriad lists of bests, most memorable, most influential are being produced. Time picks out its man of the year . What about the person of the century, of the millennium? That got me to thinking about giants in the fight for Freedom of Information over the ages. Indulge me a moment. Here are my picks, in chronological order. · The ancestor for all freedom of information goes back, it seems to me, to the early years of the first millennium--John the Apostle, who wrote: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." · In this millennium however, I think the first person on my list might also be the most influential man of the millennium-Johannes Gutenberg. He invented movable type in 1450 and thus eventually killed the dark ages, spawned the Reformation and the Renaissance, helped create the middle class and mass literacy. · William Caxton, who first translated and printed a book into English in the late 1400s. · Martin Luther, who turned the world upside down with freedom of information nailed to the door in 1517. · William Tyndale, who made the first English translation of the New Testament in 1525, and was burned at the stake for his troubles. · John Milton, who in 1644 in Aeropagitica, first enunciated the principle of "the free marketplace of ideas." · John Locke, English philosopher in the late 1600s who believed all men had rights, and inspired the U.S. Constitution. · Thomas Jefferson, who made the right to freedom of information a bedrock of a new country. · James Madison, father of the Constitution and the First Amendment, who insured that right for generations to come in The Bill of Rights. · John Stuart Mill, English philosopher who wrote On Liberty in the 1800s, eloquently setting forth the tenets of freedom of information · Abraham Lincoln, whose strength held the country and Constitution together from 1861-1865. · U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who applied the Bill of Rights to all citizens from 1937-1971. · Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby, co-inventors of the silicon microchip in 1959, ushering in the information age as modern-day Gutenbergs. · America's veterans, whose blood and courage have preserved and sanctified freedom of information..

Sunshine laws are riddled with exceptions to freedom of speech. There are at least hundreds, maybe thousands. But states are working to achieve more openness. Alabama - "Our records and meetings laws are one paragraph each. The simplicity is the major problem- there are no definitions. Attorney's fees are unheard of. There has never been a criminal prosecution." Arkansas Courts, and not its legislature, acted to stop abuse of attorney-client privilege as a reason for closing public meetings. Florida - More than 100 persons have been convicted of breaking the Openness law which was approved as a 1992 constitutional amendment. Louisiana - "Our strength is aggressiveness over time," said Linda Lightfoot, editor of the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate. "We do have attorney's fees. All applications for public office are public, not just the last three. The 'walking quorum' has been outlawed." Mississippi - "We've had very few cases, mostly attorney general's rulings. Our strengths are that we have good definitions of what's a meeting and what's a record." Public officials have 14 days to turn over records. North Carolina - The law has undergone wholesale review. The timing for producing records is 'As promptly as possible.' A very useful provision has been that if confidential items are mixed in, segregate them out and release. It is not an exception to say something is a draft. Attorney-client privilege is being abused a lot. South Carolina - The strong points in the law are good definitions and good backing by the attorney general. There is a good enforcement record - officials have 115 days to turn over records. Tennessee - may be the next state to incorporate a non-profit coalition to work on F.O.I. Issues. Tennessee sunshine law has about 125 exception. Texas - Texas has a 10-day rule for records. Virginia - Just completed a 1999 write-through of the sunshine laws, conducting seminars around the state to explain the new statutes. There are 97 open-government exceptions. #### .... & in Oklahoma - FOI is working on the education of citizens about their rights under the 1st Amendment. Copies of the Open Meeting/Open Record video are still available. This 14 minute video is perfect for civic club presentations. In coordination with the Oklahoma Library Associations, a 1st Amendment conference was held in 1999 and another is planned for Tulsa September 15-16, 2000. In 1999, the Tulsa World donated $2,600 to help establish a 1st Amendment center in the Tulsa City-County Library. Using grants from NFOIC and the OLA, FOI is establishing 1st Amendment centers in 8 additional libraries. For more information, call 405-341-3169.