The Oklahoma Bar Journal November 2022

Any materials shared electron ically between members of the public body shall be immediately accessible to the public on the public body’s website. The public shall be allowed to participate and speak in the meeting to the same extent they would if the public body members were all physically present at one site. If a videocon ference feed stops working, the meeting must immediately cease until the connection is re-established. The public must be able to watch the meeting in real time via vid eoconference link. If a meeting notice states that a meeting will be held at least partially by vid eoconference, the public must be able to hear/watch the meeting electronically even if all members ultimately opt to attend in person. Keep in mind that the OMA in no way prevents staff or other non members of the public body from appearing electronically in meet ings and only governs the appear ance of elected officials. Public bodies are not allowed to conduct executive sessions by audioconference. Temporary legislation effective during the pandemic did allow executive sessions to be conducted by vid eoconferencing subject to several restrictions. However, the public health emergency compelling this change is no longer deemed to be an immediate and serious threat, and that is no longer permitted. CONCLUSION The OMA is designed to provide transparency and allow citizens to be informed about discussions and actions taken at meetings. Given that the purpose of the act is to create accountability and clarity regarding the actions and discus sions of public bodies, the act is quite likely to be liberally construed in favor of citizens and should be treated as such. A municipal

forced to endure a diagnosis of the citizen’s marital woes and claimed spousal deficiencies. None of this content is appropriate for a public meeting, and care should be taken to guide and limit citizen comment. A better alternative may be to elim inate the agenda item authorizing general citizen comment altogether. PENALTIES Actions taken in willful violation of the OMA are invalid, and any cit izen may bring a civil suit to enforce this provision. 18 Additionally, a will ful violation of the OMA is a misde meanor offense and is punishable by a fine up to $500 and/or up to one year incarceration in the county jail. 19 “Willful” does not require a showing of bad faith, malice or wan tonness but instead encompasses “conscious, purposeful violations of law or blatant or deliberate disre gard of the law by those who know or should know …” 20 VIDEOCONFERENCING Pursuant to §307.1 of the act, a public body may hold meetings by videoconference if each mem ber of the public body is visible and audible to each other and the public through a video monitor. If a public body wishes to con duct a videoconference, several requirements must be met. First, a quorum must be present at the meeting site, and the notice and agenda must both list each video site as well as the location, address and telephone number of each site. In addition, the notice and agenda must list the identity of each mem ber of the public body and the site where they will be physically present during the meeting. Each videoconferencing site shall be located within the munic ipality or other political subdi vision from which the member is elected, and each site shall be open and accessible to the public.

attorney, or another attorney for a public body, should always err on the side of transparency and open ness when advising a public body. Convenience for a public body and its staff is definitely not a limiting factor or consideration under the act, and the expectation that munic ipalities provide transparent and pellucid government through its council, commissions and boards should govern decision-making. Attorneys advising municipalities and other public bodies should understand and recognize both the unambiguous technical require ments within the OMA as well as its overarching intentions to create a clear and comprehensive govern ment in Oklahoma. Failure to do so may have draconian results for the municipality, public body and indi vidual members of the public body.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Julie Trout Lombardi was admitted to the bar in 1986 and has practiced in the areas of civil litigation, employment,

constitutional and municipal law. She has been the city attorney in Owasso since 2005.

ENDNOTES

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §302. 2. Matter of Order declaring Annexation, etc., 637 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Okla. App. 1981). 3. Andrews v. Ind. School District No. 29 of Cleveland Co., 737 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1987). 4. 1981 OK AG 69. 5. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §311(A)(12). 6. 19 OK AG 141. 10. Okla. Stat. tit 25 §311(A)(9). 11. Okla. Stat. tit. 74 3106.2. 12. Haworth Bd. of Ed. v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902 (Okla. Civ. App. 1981). 13. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §305. 14. Oldham v. Drummond Bd. Of Ed., 542 P.2d 1309 (Okla. 1975). 15. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §312. 16. Okla. Stat. tit. 11 §1-102. 17. 2002 OK AG 26. 18. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §313 and §314(B). 19. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §314. 20. Rogers v. Excise Bd. Of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1984). 7. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §304(5). 8. Okla. Stat. tit. 25 §311(A)(9). 9. 1997 OK AG 98.

NOVEMBER 2022 | 21

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL