LAWTON – Unhappy with the way she had been treated at City Hall, a resident of the southeastern Oklahoma town of Hartshorne complained to her friends.
The woman and her friends attended the next Hartshorne City Council meeting, where city officials treated the woman rudely and refused to address her questions.
That incident prompted the group of women to take a closer look at what city officials were doing, and they discovered problems with their water bills. That discovery prompted the woman to ask the state auditor and inspector’s office to investigate Hartshorne’s finances.
An investigative audit found that some Hartshorne officials had stolen about $1.8 million in utility payments from city coffers, said State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd. The audit also revealed that former City Clerk Dawn Dunkin had racked up $80,000 worth of personal expenses on a municipal credit card, then submitted false, handwritten credit card statements to the city council for approval and payment.
When people suspect that city officials are hiding something, they will ask the state auditor’s office for help, Byrd said.
“When citizens can’t get the information they want, the first place they’re going to come is to my office,” she said.
The Hartshorne story illustrated the importance of transparency in state government and reminded local officials to ask questions if something doesn’t look right.
Byrd recently teamed up with municipal attorney Amanda Mullins for a training session on the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Open Records Acts, which are designed to make local government as transparent as possible. Hilliary Media Group, Hilliary Communications and The Lawton Constitution sponsored the event, which took place in the Apache Casino ballroom.
Open meetings
Mullins provided an overview of the Open Meeting Act, which generally requires governing bodies to open their business meetings to the public. Examples of governing bodies include:
- City councils.
- Boards, agencies or commissions that are partially or entirely supported by public funds.
- Boards, agencies and commissions that are authorized to spend taxpayer dollars or administer public property.
Government bodies that aren’t sure whether they are required to comply with the Open Meetings Act should err on the side of caution, Mullins said.
“It is the safest, safest course of action,” she said.
Citizens have a legal right to attend public meetings and watch governing bodies make decisions, but they are not entitled to comment on issues facing the body, Mullins said. She said governing bodies may allow public participation if they wish, but that fact should be noted on the agenda.
A governing body is free to set limits on how long people may speak, but it cannot respond to people making comments because the body is limited to discussing items on the agenda.
The Open Meetings Act recognizes that governing bodies may need to discuss some topics behind closed doors, but the law lists only seven reasons for going into a closed session. Those reasons include:
- Discussing personnel matters involving individual salaried public officials or employees.
- Discussing the purchase or appraisal of real property.
- Discussing confidential communications between the city and its attorney concerning a pending investigation if disclosure would harm the city’s ability to conduct the probe.
If a governing body plans to discuss an item behind closed doors, the body must list that item on the agenda and cite the legal authority for an executive session. While in closed session, the body cannot stray from the stated purpose.
Any action resulting from the closed session must be taken in an open meeting.
A willful violation of the Open Meeting Act could result in a misdemeanor conviction, which carries a penalty of a year in jail and a $500 fine. A violation could also lead to a civil lawsuit.
A violation can be cured if the governing body fully reconsiders the action that was previously taken in a meeting that complied with the Open Meeting Act, Mullins said.
“That is where we discuss that we made a mistake,” she said. “We’re going to put it on our next agenda. We are going to put it as a discussion item, and we are actually going to fully discuss it again.”
Open records
The discussion later turned to the Open Records Act of 1985, which ensures people’s right to inspect public records.
Anyone – even if they do not live in Oklahoma – may request public records. The person making the request does not need to give a reason for seeking the records.
Cities may set fees for copying public records or providing electronic versions, but those fees are limited to the reasonable, direct cost of producing the records.
However, Byrd urged cities to refrain from charging fees for open-records requests if they don’t have to.
“It helps you have a better relationship with the citizens, lets them know that you’re being transparent,” she said. “Now, obviously, printer supplies cost a lot of money, and paper is costing. You want to be able to recoup your costs if you’re a very small entity, but keep that to a minimum.”