Keynote speakers

• Attorney General Drew Edmondson
• Union School Superintendent Cathy Burden
• Ronald D. Elving, Washington Editor at National Public Radio

Continuing education credits will be available for multiple disciplines.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES OPINION ON OPEN MEETINGS

The Attorney General was recently asked for an Opinion whether The State Textbook Committee had the authority to require the addition of a statement or pronouncement specified by the Committee to textbooks adopted for Oklahoma public schools.

The Attorney General was also asked whether the agenda for the State Textbook Committee meeting on November 5, 1999, provided sufficient notice to the public under the Open Meeting Act to allow the Committee to consider requiring a disclaimer concerning evolution to be placed in science textbooks.

On February 2, 2000, in Opinion No. 00-07, the Attorney General determined the notice was not, as a matter of law, sufficient, that any vote to require the disclaimer was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act and it was therefore invalid. Pertinent portions of the Opinion are reprinted here. The complete Opinion is available by e-mailing FOI at kbiccum@ionet.net or calling 405-341-3169.

II. Agenda Requirements Under the Open Meeting Act

Your second question asks that this office apply the law to a specific factual situation - a particular agenda used by the Committee for its November 5, 1999, meeting and whether it is sufficient under the Open Meeting Act as a matter of law to permit the Committee to lawfully consider requiring a disclaimer to be placed in certain textbooks. The items on that agenda are set forth as follows:

1. Roll Call

2. Approval of minutes

3. Discuss voting procedures

4. Vote to approve student materials bid for 2000-2001 State Textbook List, but materials to be held for concerns, will not be discussed until after approval of all other bids

5. Discussion then vote for materials held for concerns

6. Discuss and vote on 2000-2001 Committee "DRAFT" Calendar

7. Information to the committee

8. Adjourn

The agenda also reflects the date, time and place of the meeting.

The meetings of the Committee are governed by Oklahoma's Open Meeting Act, (the "Act"). 25 O.S. 1991 and Supp. 1999, §§301-314. That Act requires that public bodies, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to a meeting, display public notice of the Meeting which sets forth the "date, time, place and agenda for said meeting." 25 O.S. Supp. 1999, §311((A)(9) (emphasis added). All agendas required by the Act to be posted "shall identify all items of business to be transacted" by the public body at the meeting. 25 O.S. Supp. 1999, §311(B)(1).

It is the stated policy of the Act "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." 25 O.S. 1991, §302. An agenda shall be " 'worded in plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting ... [and] the language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence.' Andrews v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland County, 737 P.2d 929,931 (Okla. 1987) (quoting Haworth Bd of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 1-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902, 904 (Okla. Ct. App, 1981)).

The question then is whether the agenda set out above gives sufficient notice to the public under the Open Meeting Act to permit the Committee to lawfully vote on or even consider a disclaimer for textbooks. Of the items on the agenda, numbers 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are routine and self-explanatory. They cover what might be referred to as "housekeeping" items. Item 4 tells the public the Committee will vote on materials for the State Textbook List. Thus a vote to accept or reject textbooks would fit under this item. Item 4 makes reference to "materials held for concerns" to be discussed after approval of all other bids. The public is told that the Committee will address separately those materials about which it has concerns. Item 5 provides for "discussion then vote" on the materials held for concerns. Even though the public is not told the nature of the concerns, it is given notice that not all materials may be approved, and that the Committee will be discussing its concerns during the meeting. Given there are hundreds of textbooks to consider and public hearings on the textbooks have been held, these items are sufficient to allow the Committee members who had concerns after reviewing the books to present those concerns to the Committee for discussion and vote. Item 7, "information to the committee," is too vague to inform the public of the nature of any business to be transacted under that item and is therefore insufficient.

There is no item on the agenda which would inform the public that a disclaimer regarding evolution or any other topic was to be considered, much less voted on. Without such information, the public is deprived of its right to be present and to know when decisions affecting the public are being made. See Haworth, 637 P.2d at 904.

The Act says that [a]ny action taken in willful violation of this act shall be invalid." 25 O.S. 1991, §313. "Willfulness [sic] does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act. Notice of meetings of public bodies which are (sic] deceptively vague and likely to mislead constitute a willful [sic] violation." Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, 761 (Okla. 1984). "Willful" is defined "to include any act or omission which has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting. This also includes agency action which exceeds the scope of action defined by the notice." Haworth, 637 P.2d at 904.

Notice and agenda requirements are the "very heart" of the Act. In re Appeal of the Order Declaring Annexation Dated June 28, 1978, 637 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Okla. Ct. App. 1981). Because the agenda for the Committee's meeting of November 5, 1999, gave no indication that a disclaimer or any other statement or pronouncement for textbooks would be considered by the Committee, the agenda had the effect of misleading the public. Thus, the vote of the Committee to require a disclaimer in certain textbooks was a willful violation of the Act, and the Committee's action is invalid.

III. CONCLUSION

The exercise of governmental power is a serious responsibility. It is established in law that a governmental body may not expand its powers by its own authority. It is also established in law that a governmental body must operate with such openness that the citizenry is informed of its activities. Any activities of a public officer /public body which do not fall within those parameters are void.

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that: The agenda for the November 5,1999, meeting of the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee failed to provide as a matter of law sufficient notice to the public as required under the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 1991 and Supp. 1999, §§301 through 314, to allow the Committee to lawfully consider or vote upon the requirement of a disclaimer to be added to or placed in textbooks by publishers. Any vote to require such a disclaimer under the November 5, 1999, agenda was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act and therefore invalid.

II. Agenda Requirements Under the Open Meeting Act

Your second question asks that this office apply the law to a specific factual situation - a particular agenda used by the Committee for its November 5, 1999, meeting and whether it is sufficient under the Open Meeting Act as a matter of law to permit the Committee to lawfully consider requiring a disclaimer to be placed in certain textbooks. The items on that agenda are set forth as follows:

1. Roll Call

2. Approval of minutes

3. Discuss voting procedures

4. Vote to approve student materials bid for 2000-2001 State Textbook List, but materials to be held for concerns, will not be discussed until after approval of all other bids

5. Discussion then vote for materials held for concerns

6. Discuss and vote on 2000-2001 Committee "DRAFT" Calendar

7. Information to the committee

8. Adjourn

The agenda also reflects the date, time and place of the meeting.

The meetings of the Committee are governed by Oklahoma's Open Meeting Act, (the "Act"). 25 O.S. 1991 and Supp. 1999, §§301-314. That Act requires that public bodies, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to a meeting, display public notice of the Meeting which sets forth the "date, time, place and agenda for said meeting." 25 O.S. Supp. 1999, §311((A)(9) (emphasis added). All agendas required by the Act to be posted "shall identify all items of business to be transacted" by the public body at the meeting. 25 O.S. Supp. 1999, §311(B)(1).

It is the stated policy of the Act "to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." 25 O.S. 1991, §302. An agenda shall be " 'worded in plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting ... [and] the language used should be simple, direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence.' Andrews v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland County, 737 P.2d 929,931 (Okla. 1987) (quoting Haworth Bd of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 1-6, McCurtain County v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902, 904 (Okla. Ct. App, 1981)).

The question then is whether the agenda set out above gives sufficient notice to the public under the Open Meeting Act to permit the Committee to lawfully vote on or even consider a disclaimer for textbooks. Of the items on the agenda, numbers 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are routine and self-explanatory. They cover what might be referred to as "housekeeping" items. Item 4 tells the public the Committee will vote on materials for the State Textbook List. Thus a vote to accept or reject textbooks would fit under this item. Item 4 makes reference to "materials held for concerns" to be discussed after approval of all other bids. The public is told that the Committee will address separately those materials about which it has concerns. Item 5 provides for "discussion then vote" on the materials held for concerns. Even though the public is not told the nature of the concerns, it is given notice that not all materials may be approved, and that the Committee will be discussing its concerns during the meeting. Given there are hundreds of textbooks to consider and public hearings on the textbooks have been held, these items are sufficient to allow the Committee members who had concerns after reviewing the books to present those concerns to the Committee for discussion and vote. Item 7, "information to the committee," is too vague to inform the public of the nature of any business to be transacted under that item and is therefore insufficient.

There is no item on the agenda which would inform the public that a disclaimer regarding evolution or any other topic was to be considered, much less voted on. Without such information, the public is deprived of its right to be present and to know when decisions affecting the public are being made. See Haworth, 637 P.2d at 904.

The Act says that [a]ny action taken in willful violation of this act shall be invalid." 25 O.S. 1991, §313. "Willfulness [sic] does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act. Notice of meetings of public bodies which are (sic] deceptively vague and likely to mislead constitute a willful [sic] violation." Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, 761 (Okla. 1984). "Willful" is defined "to include any act or omission which has the effect of actually deceiving or misleading the public regarding the scope of matters to be taken up at the meeting. This also includes agency action which exceeds the scope of action defined by the notice." Haworth, 637 P.2d at 904.

Notice and agenda requirements are the "very heart" of the Act. In re Appeal of the Order Declaring Annexation Dated June 28, 1978, 637 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Okla. Ct. App. 1981). Because the agenda for the Committee's meeting of November 5, 1999, gave no indication that a disclaimer or any other statement or pronouncement for textbooks would be considered by the Committee, the agenda had the effect of misleading the public. Thus, the vote of the Committee to require a disclaimer in certain textbooks was a willful violation of the Act, and the Committee's action is invalid.

III. CONCLUSION

The exercise of governmental power is a serious responsibility. It is established in law that a governmental body may not expand its powers by its own authority. It is also established in law that a governmental body must operate with such openness that the citizenry is informed of its activities. Any activities of a public officer /public body which do not fall within those parameters are void.

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that: The agenda for the November 5,1999, meeting of the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee failed to provide as a matter of law sufficient notice to the public as required under the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 1991 and Supp. 1999, §§301 through 314, to allow the Committee to lawfully consider or vote upon the requirement of a disclaimer to be added to or placed in textbooks by publishers. Any vote to require such a disclaimer under the November 5, 1999, agenda was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act and therefore invalid.

Political Contributions - A Threat to Free Speech
By Carol Woodward Scott, League of Women Voters

Political contributions are a threat to a citizen's right to free speech.

Over the last decade the increase in political contributions to the campaigns of candidates through PAC's and Parties has been staggering.

Tracking the money has become a full-time job for many organizations who are concerned with the correlation between money received by legislators from issue organizations and the way those legislators vote on policy. There have been several attempts at Campaign Finance Reform at the national level, but all have failed at any real reform.

Many states are passing state reform, which could create pressure to finally enact federal reform. The public voice will be eliminated from policy decisions entirely unless campaign finance reform is passed to control the influence that special interest organizations have at the state and federal level. This is not a partisan issue. Its effect crosses party lines. It is a democracy issue and effects the very heart of our free society.

In an article in the National Voter, a publication of the League of Women Voters of the United States, titled Government for Sale, William H. Woodwell, Jr. reviews several examples of special interest influence on policymaking.

He stated, "Opponents of campaign finance reform at the national, state or local level regularly defend their position by saying it's not an issue that moves people much. Americans have more important things to worry about-like health care, the environment, the family budget, the community. What opponents of reform neglect to mention is that all of these things-the things Americans do worry about-are affected in a profound way by how political campaigns are paid for in this country. The big spending by special interests is drowning out the voice of the American public." He further states that our system is an open invitation to corruption and a slap in the face of democracy. It's no wonder so many Americans feel disconnected from their government.

Woodwell gives examples in the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia, and California. In Wisconsin, the real estate industry spent nearly a million dollars on campaign contributions, during a recent four -year period. A study of legislation enacted during that time showed a number of bills favored realtors and real estate developers at the expense of homebuyers and the environment.

In Illinois, gambling interests gave an estimated 1.7 million to Illinois legislators in 1997-98, compared to just $100,000 in 1991-92. State lawmakers granted ten riverboat gambling licenses in 1990, and it's been a free-for-all ever since. Multiple groups want a piece of the action, and they are willing to use contributions for influence. In Virginia, the need for campaign finance reform was brought to public attention when Virginians became aware of a contract to import as much as 2400 tons of New York City trash per day. The state's garbage imports had grown to three million tons per year with inaction from the state's lawmakers. Records showed that in just 1996-97, the trash industry contributed more than 250,000 to statewide candidates, political parties and individual candidates in state house and senate races. Again, the correlation between money and policy must be noted.

In California, there is a similar example involving The California Association of Health Facilities, which represents nearly 1500 nursing homes in the state. Their large amounts of political contributions and policy favoring owners of nursing homes once again pose concern.

Groups like Californians for Political Reform, a coalition that came together to study the need for state reform, are gearing up in many other states to bring information to citizens about the need for reform. Oklahoma Citizens for Campaign Finance Reform organized in 1999 with the same goal.

Current member organizations are: Oklahoma Conference of Churches, Interfaith Alliance, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Family Farm Alliance, and Sierra Club. This coalition of six charter organizations is inviting other Oklahoma groups to join with them to initiate a plan for education and reform.

For more information about OCCFR, please contact the president, O. Gail Poole at 321-7555. For information about political contributions in Oklahoma, use the web site of the Center for Responsive Politics at www.crp.org and click to Oklahoma and the Ethics Commission.

E-mail mistake leads to records debate....

Douglas County, Kansas.

He meant to pass along to the press the agenda for the commissioner's regular Monday morning meeting. Instead, he forwarded an internal correspondence between him and another commissioner..

The two-part email questioned certain county expenditures. "What does 'there are, in my opinion, obvious abuses of departmental budgets' mean? Any way to get on top of this before the press catches wind?"

In a P.S. to the email, addressing a completely different topic: "With regard to the new space and police budget, can we three commissioners discuss these issues in Executive Session under the rubric of personnel matters? I think we need to get our thoughts together, but don't think it would be wise - or serve any useful purpose - to discuss in open session."

This email accidentally released to the press normally would not be available to the press or public because it falls under the list of exempted items. In Kansas, there are 44 exemptions to the Open Records Act.

This is not perceived as a problem by officials in Kansas. According to a lawyer who specializes in public access laws, that sort of communication has never been a mandatory disclosure under the Open Records Act. He thinks the Kansas law gives some latitude for public officials to do their jobs." But he also believes there are few reasons to keep any government document secret.

Open records laws vary from state to state. "With all the exemptions, they are getting worse all over", according to the Kansas Press Assn. However, in Colorado, if a resident requests all correspondence between county commissioners and county staff regarding expenditures, officials would be compelled to release them, including email and internal memos. In fact, in the city of Boulder, residents may subscribe to all email correspondence between city council members and city staff. Whenever an email is sent, copies of it are broadcast to all who have requested the service.

FOI Board meets - elects officers.

The annual meeting of the FOI Board was held on February 3 in the conference of the OPUBCO building. Lindel Hutson of the Associated Press was elected to a one year term as president replacing Jennifer Gilliland from the Oklahoma Press Association. Terry Clark will serve as Secretary with Ben Blackstock as Treasurer.

New Board members include: Ben Blackstock, retired executive director of the OPA; Dr. Harry Hix, Professor of Journalism at the University of Oklahoma; Barbara Hobereck, capital reporter for the Tulsa World; Pat Reeder, editor of the Claremore Progress; and Jan Sanders, Director of the Bartlesville Library.

Summer Board Meeting scheduled

There will be a mid-year board meeting held on Sunday, August 6 at 1:30 p.m. at the OPUBCO conference room. All FOI members are welcome to attend.

NFOIC grant funds received

FOI Oklahoma, Inc. is continuing to benefit from grant funds from the Knight Foundation made available through NFOIC. These funds were used to produce and distribute a open meeting/open record video. This 14-minute video, appropriate for a civic club luncheon, is very useful to explain the Oklahoma law. Copies are still available for $12.00. Contact the FOI Oklahoma office to order yours.

Other grant funds are being used to establish 1st Amendment Centers in all of the state's libraries. This will enable citizens to have various books and study guides available throughout the state. Planning for the 2nd First Amendment Congress is well underway with the 2000 Congress to be held in Tulsa at the OSU campus. This year's Congress will offer continuing education credits for various disciplines.

At the Legislature...

The Board considered attempts to mandate the reading of all bills in full prior to voting and to eliminate conference committee bills.

The prevailing belief is that access to every bill is necessary; reading in the entirety is not.

The chief concern is that the process is open. Legislators need to know what their constituents think.

Website Update

During the next several months we will be working with Connect Oklahoma to update our website. Suggestions for additions and links are welcomed.

Brechner Center for Freedom of Information maintains resource page for NFOIC.

Florida's Brechner Center has collected the Open Meeting-Open Records laws from all of the states. They have all been inputted onto their website which will be up and running soon. In comparing Oklahoma with other states, our law is ranked 18th in coverage. However, this does not consider the many exceptions and exemptions that are found throughout the statues in Oklahoma. During 2000, FOI will be working with the OPA and the A.G.'s office to update this list

O U gotta be a maverick to love weekly newspapers... I guess I'm a maverick.

By Terry Clark

They're one of the last bastions against bigness, against the Walmarting of America. Excellent, good, mediocre or bad, they stand for a sense of community that is as important as local government in keeping America free for the individual citizen.

You ought to talk to people in small towns when the newspaper folds--researchers back up what us common folks know--the paper is an essential part of the community--along with banks, schools and a post office.

Each of those institutions provides essential, non-duplicating services. And newspapers fill several roles--they're cheerleaders for the town, for the school, for the merchants, for the people. They help bind a community together. People know. They act like it's "their" newspaper, and can be downright jealous of it.

The small newspaper is a bastion of individuality in a world of chains and plastic cookie-cutter sameness. They usually own the owner, rather than the owner owning them. They're hard, demanding work--not as hard as roofing or hauling hay; not as demanding as a grocery store or restaurant--but very close. Not as time-consuming as a dairy, but almost. The small ones don't make a lot of money--they're a labor of dedication and love and frustration at times. That's pretty haphazard for an institution so critical to the Republic.

There is another role weekly newspapers fill, when run properly. Actually they perform the function even when not run well, just by their existence. Just as a strong military serves as a deterrent to aggression by its very existence, so does the community press. But the aggression averted by a weekly newspaper is more subtle, although just as crucial to the individual citizen's freedom.

When governments, and the citizens who operate them, serve in a vacuum where there is no press, they serve in a darkness that sometimes excludes the needs of the ordinary citizens. Sometimes the corruption is overt; other times it is nothing more than just "good ole' boy politics"

that doesn't serve the best needs of all the citizens instead of a select few.

But when a newspaper shows up to cover meetings, or to report just the facts about organizations and events--light shines in that deters monkey business--or exposes it if it already exists. We're not talking about writing editorials full of crusading opinions--although that is important too.

Just by printing the news--by showing things the way they are-a newspaper helps protect the majority of citizens in a community--insuring their freedom from a government that exists to serve itself instead of them. Of course the process is not always noble or conflict-free. Bad and mediocre newspapers neglect their fundamental responsibility--to cover the news. And when newspapers try to do their job correctly, the authority of the press is often questioned--and protested--by those most affected, by those who find they can't obscure their activities from the public.

That's not to say that the press shouldn't be criticized. It should--and the press should carry criticism of itself. A newspaper that isn't criticized for its content probably isn't doing its job--instead it is dead, bland and boring, and deserves to die along with the community it represents. But beware those who gripe too much about a community newspaper's coverage--they probably didn't get their way, or had the light of publicity shone on something they wanted to keep secret from most of the people. A paper that draws criticism is invariably trying to do a good job for all of its readers.

I read a lot of weekly newspapers in Oklahoma, and this is invariably true. Most citified journalism professionals scoff that such a newspaper can even exist today. But I know--from comparison-that such gutsy, fair, and good newspapers--keep freedom of information alive in many Oklahoma communities.

First Amendment right of free speech or sexual harassment

A short letter in late February to the editor of The Oklahoma Daily, the OU campus newspaper, sparked a weeks-long debate that included a stream of letters to the editor, charges of sexual harassment-charges that have since been dismissed, though an appeal remains possible-and arguments that the real issue is a right of free speech.

At the heart of this public debate was a letter to the editor written by David Deming, associate professor of geology and geophysics. The letter was in response to a guest column in The Oklahoma Daily by Joni Kletter, a columnist for the Yale Daily News, Yale University, who, in advocating stronger gun control laws, wrote that "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country. . .to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want."

Deming responded: "I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. "Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. "Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs."

In the month following the printing of Deming's comments, letters to the editor came in rapid succession. Some from professors, some from students, and some from out-of-town residents. More than 20 complaints were filed with the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office.

In late March, OU's affirmative action officer ruled that he had not violated the university's sexual harassment/sexual assault policy. Deming expressed hope that the controversy would dwindle away, but the flame may still be smoldering. At least one student, according to a story in the campus daily , is planning to file an appeal. Parties on both sides of the issue told reporters that they were not satisfied with the way the matter was handled. Deming received a letter from John T. Snow, dean of the College of Geosciences, in which the dean says "it is my duty to call to your attention the costs and consequences to others of your electing to state your case in the manner that you chose to do so."

Deming is informed in the letter that the dean and provost have had "to deal with faculty, staff, and students who were upset, offended, or intimidated by the language" in Deming's letter. The dean's letter notes that the OU Faculty Handbook does not preclude faculty taking controversial positions or entering into pointed discussions, but it points out that the handbook says faculty should "show due respect for the opinions of others" and directs that faculty actions "not interfere with the rights of colleagues and students to study, research and teach."

The stream of letters that followed Deming's comments included both strong opposition and strong support. Those disagreeing with Deming interpreted his remarks as illogical and demeaning to women. These viewpoints were expressed by both students and faculty. "When women are objectified, the likelihood of sexual harassment and rape increases. Focusing on female sexuality has no place in debates over gun ownership. The issues are unrelated. "...to compare the potential dangers of consensual sex with potential dangers of random violence is simply illogical.

Others termed the newspaper's decision to print the letter as irresponsible, tasteless and insulting to all women. A professor emeritus, terming Deming's letter as "untenable," concluded: "Besides being in poor taste, I think that his letter may well serve as a reinforcement of the contention that the difference between wisdom and stupidity is that the latter has no limits."

But not all writers agreed with the detractors. A few agreed with his logic, but the major support was in support of Deming's First Amendment right of free speech, even if that speech is offensive to some.

Interestingly, most of the free speech support seemed to come in letters from writers off campus. An Arkansas resident, saying he was not a "big gun-rights freak" but is a free speech advocate, termed anyone calling for Deming's resignation or dismissal as being a "coward" and said that Deming should be "applauded for standing up for what he believes in and using his intellect and free speech rights to do so." One student writer termed it a "sad day for OU" that Deming was being charged "with the crime of political incorrectness, and now they are trying to enforce their semantic terrorism by convincing the university to reprimand Deming."

One professor wrote that "however abhorrent we may feel certain ideas are...we must always protect the right of those with divergent opinions to express their honestly held views without fear of retribution." He further stated that it saddened him to see people who think of themselves as liberal and enlightened "calling for the head of David Deming."

Deming's wife, Jerry, was one of the letter writers in defense of her husband, saying that he was not a hater of women but a hater of stupidity. "It's evident that the group attacking my husband is hostile to freedom of speech-their own speech excepted, of course," she wrote.

A writer from Arizona said Deming was suffering "a backlash worthy of the Salem witch trials" and termed it "illuminating to see that the radical left has as little respect for the First Amendment as it does the Second."

Not all the reaction came as letters to the editor. According to a story in The Oklahoma Daily, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Inc., a non-profit organization with headquarters in Philadelphia, has been monitoring the matter. Thor Halvorssen, executive director of the foundation, was quoted as saying that "being at a university does not guarantee you four years of an offensive-free environment." He said he was sure that feminists on campus say things that offend some men but that the "sky would fall" before OU would treat feminists in the way Deming's case was handled. He added that OU's failure immediately to dismiss the claims against Deming has reflected badly on the university and its administration.

Deeming Deming's comments as sexual harassment or exercise of free speech seems to be a matter of viewpoint with strong feelings on both

OPINION PAGE

Is this freedom of speech?

Human events are often filled with questions that require choices in trying to find answers: yes/no, pro/con, either/or, fundamental/progressive. Sometimes these choices are not clear cut but are dimmed with shades of gray. Does the following question have a clear-cut answer or is it of the non-white/non-black variety?

Does the media personality Laura Schlessinger have an absolute 1st Amendment freedom to write and say whatever she wants in her newspaper column, radio program, and possibly, television talk show?

The title of doctor which Ms. Schlessinger can properly use is in the field of human physiology, yet the opinions she publicizes in her media outlets are about psychology, personal counseling, and religion.

Earlier this year Ms. Schlessinger castigated a young teenage girl in Connecticut who had won first prize in a First Amendment essay contest. Schlessinger read parts of the winning essay to her radio audience and offered that if the girl had been her daughter, she would consider putting her up for adoption and further claimed that the writer needed to be sacrificed for the views expressed in her essay. The Attorney General of Connecticut defended the writer and made public a letter he wrote to Schlessinger severely chastising her for publicly using the girl as a vehicle for vehement rhetoric. Did Schlessinger use her media opportunities to promote a sincerely-held opinion or instead to make a public relations splash to attract a larger audience which results in higher ratings and increased advertising revenues?

The current gathering storm concerns her characterizing of gay men as biological errors and sexual predators. The American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association, have published research stating that there is no scientific basis that same-sex affinities are indicative of disease, physically or psychologically.

Being largely unprotected legally, gay men and women are subjected to unwarranted social, religious, and employment discrimination, as well as criminal violence, shown by rising United States Department of Justice statistics. If Schlessinger's inflammatory and misleading public opinions increase the anti-social behavior toward a minority, is she protected by the First Amendment?

If Schlessinger began referring to African-Americans, a minority that has received opprobrium in the past and now enjoys legal protection, as being of low moral character and sexual licentiousness, would her media sponsors and audience support remain? If her widely proliferated thoughts led to an increase in racial violence, would she still be protected by the First Amendment?

By using media outlets to disperse her vehement and unsubstantiated opinions is Schlessinger doing the electronic equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

The First Amendment has been called a great shield in the marketplace of ideas, protecting the flow of thought and information. Is Schlessinger using her freely-chosen public position in a reputable way or is she gun-running with Saturday-night specials of disproved information for quick profit and notoriety gained at the expense of minorities?

As children we have many privileges which go unbalanced by responsibilities. With increasing maturity our responsibilities unite with privileges as growth rings add to the strength of trees, and we make our individual stand in the forest of good citizenship. Is it not incumbent on each of us to contribute to the strength of this forest by refuting the destructive erosion of responsibility provoked by Ms. Schlessinger?

I have heard and now believe that the best rebuff to malicious speech is ever more responsible speech. This is clearly the situation regarding Ms. Schlessinger and her attempt at dehumanizing citizens of this country for her personal enrichment.

The 1st Amendment is a PEOPLE AMENDMENT.

Although commonly referred to as a press amendment, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is actually a "people amendment" that provides all Americans with their basic freedoms. Without the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition one's government for redress of grievances - all provided for in the First Amendment -- "there would basically be no individual freedom."

Journalists have no special rights or privileges beyond that of any other citizen. The First Amendment empowers me the same as it does any citizen."

Oklahoma's Open Records and Open Meetings laws are important and vital for coverage of local and state governments. "Information is power" and the press plays a key role in a democracy "empowering citizens" by reporting important information about government officials, expenditures, and public policy.

A story which I reported several years ago which found 172 employees caring for only 13 children at a state children's home. The disclosure of this gross overstaffing led to reforms. When I approached this facility, there was a tall chain-link fence with a large sign stating that no visitors, no cameras, and no tape recorders were allowed. The explanation given by officials was that the restrictions were to protect the children. In reality, I think, they were protecting an overblown bureaucracy.

Hopefully, citizens are drawing distinctions between "the press -- newspapers" -- and "the media," which includes television, radio and other electronic media. Television has blurred the lines between news and entertainment in its quest for ratings and has hurt its credibility. An example was the recent broadcast of a prison interview with convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on "60 Minutes" . They lost me at the start when they announced that they had made a deal not to ask McVeigh certain questions. Why would you want to interview McVeigh if you could not ask him if he was the bomber and why he did it? I think "60 minutes" did their viewers a disservice.
By Daily Oklahoman Associate Editor Robby Trammell

President's Message

By Lindel Hutson

It doesn't take much searching to turn up scary stories about public access to information under attack.. Here's one example: Illinois prosecutors are sending letters to local police with some simple advice for dealing with the media: Clam up.

The Illinois Supreme Court implemented new rules in March that limit what lawyers, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials can say about pending cases. That has prompted police in some areas to block the release of even the most basic blotter information.

Says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: ``What you're doing is telling the people with the most accurate information that they can't talk. That means the media is going to have to rely on leaks and rumors and innuendo.''

Freedom of information is not just a media issue. It is the public's right to know that is a concern, and stories such as this one are frightening. Which makes organizations such as FOI/Oklahoma all the more important. We hope that FOI/Oklahoma can progress this year with more involvement from everywhere, but especially from the existing membership and the public at large.

Get involved. Plan to attend the mid-year board meeting August 6 at OPUBCO.

And if you're a committee chair, get your group together. Above all else, let's please don't clam up.