Tulsa World: Tulsa library board violates state open meeting law

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Tulsa library board violates state open meeting law

Linda Saferite (left) and La Verne Ford Wimberly (right). Tulsa World File

By OMER GILLHAM and GINNIE GRAHAM World Staff Writers
Published: 7/2/2009 2:36 PM
Last Modified: 7/3/2009 11:12 AM

The Tulsa City-County Library Commission violated the state's open meeting law Wednesday by conducting business in a closed session.

Commission Chairwoman La Verne Ford Wimberly told the Tulsa World today a vote was taken in executive session to review the use of employee flexible time and no vote was taken to return to a public meeting.

"It was an error for not going back into open session, and we are trying to re-schedule a meeting on Tuesday to correct that," Wimberly said. "I didn't expect the meeting to last that long, and in my haste to leave, I made a mistake and now I am going back to clean it up."

The commission met for more than two hours at the downtown Central Library for an executive session item on "staff employment issues."

A Tulsa World reporter and two library staff members waiting for the public meeting to resume were never told the public portion of the meeting was resuming. Commissioners left the building immediately.

"Everyone just got up to leave, and I made a mistake by not voting us out of executive session," Wimberly said. "In our rush to get going, an oversight was made. We are going to go back and have a meeting to make sure we are in compliance."

Commission members were unclear whether a vote had been taken in the executive session.

County Commissioner Karen Keith, who is a member of the library commission, said the board appeared confused over procedures to properly discuss and handle business within an executive session.

"The commissioners are dedicated people and nothing was done willfully to keep the public out, but the procedures to conduct the business openly could have been better," Keith said.

During executive session, Keith said a motion was made and seconded but no action was taken because the commission became side tracked on other business.

"No one was willfully trying to do things but there was confusion," Keith said.

Keith said she will recommend that the commissioners have a refresher course on how meetings are conducted and the legal requirements for conducting open meetings.

Attorney Jay Chandler, who represents the library and the commission, attended the meeting and referred questions about the executive session to Wimberly.

"I was there as the counsel for Tulsa City-County Library and commission. I was invited to attend the executive session for the purpose to render legal advice which I did. These were discussions with me that I consider attorney-client privilege, I can't comment further."

The special meeting was called after a Tulsa World story reported criticisms of the library leadership restructuring and flexible time given to Chief Executive Officer Linda Saferite, who is given up to two days a week to work from home.

Wimberly said the meeting was not called in response to the story.

The state open meetings law requires that public boards return to open session for any vote or action, and the votes must be publicly recorded and cast. This includes the official adjournment.

Joey Senat, past president of FOI Oklahoma and associate professor of journalism at Oklahoma State University, said the commission also violated the law by having a vague agenda item.

An agenda item for an executive session to discuss personnel matters “must identify either the position or the individual salaried employee who is the subject of the discussion,” according to a 1997 Attorney General's opinion.

“The Act does not specify that a person must be identified by name; however, in light of case law, it is evident that identification by name is necessary unless the position held by the person is so unique as to allow adequate identification.”

Senat said the law states that a "willful violation" of the open meetings act would cause the actions to invalidate the meeting, cause any minutes or recordings of the session to be made public and subject each board member to criminal sanctions.

A 1984 Supreme Court opinion states: “Willfulness 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.”

The World has requested copies of the meeting minutes and any tape recordings that exist.

Register for Latest News Alerts: Every day at 4 p.m, get the day's top headlines sent directly to your inbox. It's free and easy to set up. Already a registered user? Click here to visit your profile to sign up. For new registration, click here.

By OMER GILLHAM and GINNIE GRAHAM World Staff Writers

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Reader comments for this story have been moved to the most updated version of the story, now under the headline "Board vote in closed session breaks law," which was published on 7/3/2009. So far, 39 comments have been made.