Owasso Councilman Patrick Ross sued the town on Tuesday in an attempt to make public an investigative report that led to the resignation of the city manager. Ross' lawsuit, filed in Tulsa County, alleges a number of violations of the state's open government laws, including that the City Council did not vote publicly to keep that report secret, not pursue criminal prosecution of then-City Manager Rodney Ray, and whether to fire him.

The lawsuit asks Judge Daman Cantrell to declare invalid the city's resignation agreement with Ray and declare the investigative report to be a public record.

Chris Camp, Ross' attorney, argues that the City Council also violated the Open Meeting Act during meetings on May 24, June 18, June 21 and June 25 by conducting executive sessions "for the purpose of discussing personnel matters relating to the Office of the City Manager."

As noted by this blog on July 12, a state attorney general opinion requires that agenda items for an executive session under the personnel exemption include either the name of the person or the person's position if it "is so unique as to allow adequate identification." (1997 OK AG 61, ¶ 5)

The opinion agreed that placing the person's name or unique title on the agenda would lessen the confidentiality. Still, it added:

We note that for a public body to convene in executive session to discuss employment matters is not mandatory; it is simply 'permitted.' While on the other hand a public body's duty to specify on the agenda all matters to be undertaken in a meeting is absolute. (Id. ¶ 4)

As this blog did, Camp argues that listing "Office of the City Manager" isn't listing a name or unique title and is so broad that the council could have discussed any employee of that office. He notes that the title of city manager and the Office of the City Manager aren't synonymous, interchangeable terms under the city's charter and ordinances.

The executive sessions focused solely on Ray, the lawsuit states.

The council also violated the Open Meeting Act by not keeping minutes of its executive sessions on those dates, the lawsuit states.

Minutes of executive session discussions must be kept, the state Supreme Court said in 1980. (Berry v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists, 1980 OK 45, ¶ 12)

A 1996 state attorney general opinion (1996 OK AG 100, ¶ 5 ) came to the same conclusion. It noted that legislators had kept confidential the minutes of lawful executive sessions under the Open Records Act (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(1)(b)) and had mandated that a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act caused the executive session minutes to be made public (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 307(F)(2)).

Ross' lawsuit says council members were permitted to read the investigator's report only during the June 21 executive session. They weren't allowed to keep copies so the city "could respond 'truthfully' that no member of its staff or the City Council possessed a copy of the report," according to the lawsuit.

During the June 21 executive session, City Attorney Julie Lombardi told the council that the report was considered a confidential personnel record.

During that executive session, the council also discussed whether to seek criminal prosecution of Ray and a proposed resignation agreement was presented by Lombardi and discussed, according to the lawsuit.

It notes that neither topic was listed on the meeting agenda and the council didn't vote publicly to designate the report confidential.

The lawsuit points out that following that meeting, Lombardi told the Tulsa World that the investigator had presented his finding orally and that neither the city nor the council had received a written report from the investigator.

During the June 25 executive session, the lawsuit states, the council discussed a counter-proposal from Ray regarding his resignation agreement even though that topic was listed under a separate agenda item for public discussion.

Ross contends that only a vote of the council could deem the investigative report to be a confidential personnel record. Council member Jeri Moberly told the Owasso Reporter last month that the council had voted to do so on June 25 when it publicly voted to accept the resignation agreement. But the lawsuit notes that the resignation agreement didn't mention the investigative report and conceded that the agreement itself was a public record.

Ross' lawsuit also contends that the council violated the Open Meeting Act by conducting confidential communications with its attorney during the executive sessions even though that exemption wasn't listed on the agendas and the council didn't determine prior to going into the executive sessions that disclosure of its communication with the city attorney would "seriously impair the ability" of the council to conduct the investigation.

The lawsuit contends that the report is "an internal affairs investigation of a City office" and not an exempted personnel record. Placing the investigative report into Ray's personnel file did not exempt it from disclosure under the Open Records Act, the lawsuit argues. It also also notes that the report isn't actually in Ray's personnel file.

Even if the judge deems it a personnel record, the lawsuit argues, the report should be public as a "final action resulting in loss of pay ... or termination."

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.