Apparent Open Meeting Act violations by Norman City Council

The Norman City Council came to a "consensus ... to move move forward with a compensation increase" for the city manager during an executive session last month but didn't vote on the action in open session, The Norman Transcript reported Saturday.
Norman Mayor Cindy Rosenthal committed another apparent violation of the Open Meeting Act when she asked in a Feb. 19 memo for each council member's "input" on new details of the recommended increase and to "let me know what direction you would like to move."
The Norman Transcript obtained a complete copy of the memo last week after City Attorney Jeff Bryant refused to release a redacted version, claiming it was an extension of the executive session, the newspaper also reported Saturday.
But the City Council's executive session discussion could not have continued after the meeting. The council had voted to adjourn its executive session and re-enter the regular session, according to minutes of the Feb. 12 meeting.
When the council re-entered the regular session, Rosenthal announced that no action and no votes had been taken in the executive session.
Under the Open Meeting Act, "any vote or action on any item of business considered in an executive session shall be taken in public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 307(E)(3))
But according to Rosenthal's memo, the council had reached a "consensus ... that the City Manager's compensation and benefits package be adjusted to track with AFSCME and NonUnion wage adjustments in FYE12 and FYE13."
"I asked the City Attorney to review these recommendations and advise if he thought there were additional issues that should be considered," Rosenthal wrote in the memo.
There was: The council cannot adjust base pay for previous fiscal years, so "the proposed pay adjustment" would leave the city manager about $5,400 short of comparable treatment of AFSCME and NonUnion pay raises, Rosenthal wrote.
"As a matter of equity, we may wish to add to the one time stipend to close that gap," Rosenthal wrote. "Attached to this memorandum are comparison calculations. I welcome your input.
"Please review this information and let me now which direction you would like to move," she wrote.
Rosenthal wrote that she would ask the city clerk to schedule a vote to set the compensation by ordinance as required by the city charter "once I make sure Council has reached consensus on the City Manager compensation adjustment...."
But for decades, the law has clearly prohibited the majority of a public body from discussing, much less reaching a consensus, on a matter of public business outside of a public meeting.
The Open Meeting Act states, "No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications ... among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter." (Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 305)
A 1981 attorney general opinion said: "The legislative intent is unmistakable. 25 O.S. 306 is an absolute prohibition upon any attempt to circumvent the Open Meeting Act and obtain a consensus upon an item of business by informal meetings outside a public meeting." (1981 OK AG 69, ¶ 17)
The statute prohibits a member from obtaining a consensus upon an item of business through a series of private one-on-one meetings, according to that attorney general opinion.
"Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed." (Id. ¶ 18)
Rosenthal's memo is the same as meeting one-on-one to obtain a consensus.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said that because the Open Meeting Act was "enacted for the public's benefit," the statute "is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." (Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, ¶ 7)
The principle is “very simple," the state Court of Civil Appeals said. "When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State." (Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc., 1981 OK CIV APP 57, ¶18)
Also troubling is that Rosenthal and fellow council members Robert Castleberry, Roger Gallagher, Tom Kovach and Linda Lockett have signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.
They promised to "comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws."
They broke that promise by coming to a consensus in an executive session and not voting publicly. They did so again if they were among a majority of the council that later discussed and came to a consensus on the pay proposal outside a public meeting. Kovach said he alerted the newspaper to Rosenthal's memo and advised his colleagues against responding to it because doing so seemed to be a violation of the Open Meeting Act.
These apparent violations of the Open Meeting Act should be investigated and prosecuted by Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn.
Because the remedy for Oklahomans "who have no concern but that their government is working in the dark ... is a criminal prosecution for any willful violations."

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.