Letters to the Editor...

To the Editor:

Thank you for providing this forum so that we can all express our opinions, no matter how different they may be, on the various topics surrounding this wonderful community. I know at times it must seem like a very tiring and thankless job. I have quietly listened to the criticism about the Blue Ribbon Committee over the last months and felt it was finally time to respond. I would like to begin by saying that this committee is working very hard and we honestly want only what is best for the greatest number of citizens of Grove.

We have looked at numerous plans for various types and sizes of swimming facilities. Ideally, we want something that has a zero-depth entry for toddlers, a slide or an amusement of that type for pre-teens, and a large concrete sunbathing area which can be a gathering place for teens. The other component we are desperately trying to include is a small covered pool for adult swimming and water exercising. It’s not easy to include all of these things that will benefit all of the age groups in a budget that the people of Grove can afford. It has been rumored that we are considering $8-12 million pools and this offends me. We would NEVER propose such a hardship be imposed on the citizens of Grove. I realize that I’m a newcomer to Grove and maybe it’s felt that I can’t be trusted, but I would think the people of Grove would realized that the others on my committee can and should be trusted to do the right thing. We are meeting today and hopefully can report to the City Council what we have learned very soon.

I also want to shed some light on the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. I spoke with Debra Schwartz, the Assistant Attorney General, and she referred me to a publication that she wrote found at http://www.oag.state.ok.us/oagweb.nsf/60481ab7872c67a186256c0900
56d097502cbb5dd498868d86256c0900570943$FILE/Open Meeting .pdf.

WHEN THE ACT IS TRIGGERED: PUBLIC BODIES AND MEETINGS

As a general rule, the Open Meeting Act applies to public bodies holding meetings. Both the term “public body” and the term “meeting” are specifically defined in the Act, and an analysis of these definitions is essential to determining when the Act is triggered.

A. PUBLIC BODIES
Under Section 304(1) of the Act, the following constitute public bodies to
which the requirements of the Act apply:
1. Governing bodies of all municipalities;
2. Boards of county commissioners;
3. Boards of public and higher education;
Oklahoma’s Open Meeting Act 3

4. All boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies, trusteeships, authorities,
councils, committees, public trusts or any entity created by a public
trust, task forces or study groups that are:
a. supported in whole or in part by public funds;
b. entrusted with the expending of public funds; or
c. administering public property;

I don’t believe my committee is supported by public funds, can spend public funds, or can administer public property.

Assistant Attorney General Schwartz further adds:

For instance, although Section 304 specifically states that the Act applies to committees and subcommittees, case law has established that such committees and subcommittees will be considered public bodies only if they exercise actual or de facto decision-making authority on behalf of the public body itself. Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29, 737 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1987); Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. Thorpe, 632 P.2d 408 (Okla. 1981); Sanders v. Benton, 579 P.2d 815 (1978). If the committee or subcommittee does not exercise such authority but, instead, is “purely fact finding, informational, recommendatory, or advisory,” then the committee or subcommittee does not constitute a public body and is not required to comply with the requirements of the Act. Andrews, 737 P.2d at 931. This “decision-making” test for committees and subcommittees has been applied by courts and the Attorney General in several contexts. A committee established by a school board to prepare guidelines for participation in extracurricular activities has been held not to exercise decision-making authority since it only presented recommendations that the school
board remained free to accept or reject. Andrews, 737 P.2d at 931. For the same
reason, a citizens’ advisory committee recommending a site for a community
treatment center to the Board of Corrections has been held not to exercise decision-
making authority and thus to be exempt from the Act’s requirements. Sanders,
579 P.2d at 819-21.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree with you – I don’t like Executive Sessions either. On the other hand, if I tell someone that our committee with keep their proposal confidential, then according to Ben Loring, the Assistant District Attorney who called me several weeks ago regarding the Open Meeting Act, this is how it is to be handled.

By the way, I have no personal agenda in where this aquatic center is located. It has been said that my only interest is that it be built near 13th & Shundi. A swimming pool for children has nothing to do with professional buildings. Let’s just all get together and develop something fun and entertaining for our children, our grandchildren, and ourselves. I saw a billboard the other day that read, “If our generation plants a tree, the next generation will sit in the shade”. I think this applies here as well. Please call me or come by my office if you have comments or suggestions. Thank you!

Connie Brewer
Blue Ribbon Committee