So some problematic Attorney General opinions exist for the city here. Many are distinguishable, but they don't tend to favor some of the practices of the city.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...2+851+686+685+
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...9+718+559+558+Therefore, it is the official opinion of the Attorney General that the Open Meeting Act applies to meetings of the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation, where such corporation has contracted with a city and a public trust for the operation, maintenance and improvement of public property, and where the city makes annual appropriations to the public trust to pay to the corporation as an operating fee, where such meetings are held for the purpose of discussing business concerning such matters.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...3+60+59+20+19+¶20 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Absent a contractual provision to the contrary, private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) which contract to provide goods or services to the public on behalf of a governmental agency and receive payment from public funds merely as reimbursement for goods provided or services rendered, are not "supported" by public funds and therefore are not subject to the requirements of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314.
2. Private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) are subject to the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314, if:
A. they do not submit itemized invoices or claims for goods provided or services rendered to receive public funds, but instead receive a direct allocation of public funds from tax or other revenues; and
B. there is no quid pro quo or direct relationship to the amount of goods provided or services performed by the private organizations and the funds they are allocated; i.e., the organizations receive funds regardless of whether they provide goods or perform services. Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208, 210 n.2, 213-14 (Ind. 1991).
3. Whether any particular private organization is "supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property," (25 O.S. 2001, § 304(1)), making it a public body under the Act, is a question of fact which cannot be answered in an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S. 2001, § 18b(A)(5).
4. Attorney General Opinion 80-215 is hereby modified to the extent it applied the "decision-making authority" test to private organizations which were not "subordinate entities" as defined in Sanders v. Benton, 579 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1978).
http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...0+749+485+484+¶11 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. The Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 (1977) et seq., applies to meetings of the officers of a nonprofit corporation operating public property under contract with a municipality, where matters to be discussed or taken up concern the administration of the contract or the operation, improvement or maintenance of such public property;
2. A municipality may not lawfully delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to make improvements to or contract for improvements to public property, unless a charter provision expressly permits such delegation;
3. In the event a municipal charter provision permits a municipality to delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to contract for improvements to public property, the provisions of the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 O.S. 101 (1974) et seq., must be followed by the nonprofit corporation in contracting for such improvements, provided the municipality has no charter provisions dealing with the advertisement, bidding and awarding of contracts for public improvements. If such charter provisions exist and conflict in any way with requirements of state competitive bidding laws, the applicability of the state laws will depend upon a determination of whether the conflicting charter provisions concern purely municipal affairs or affect a wider state interest. Such an inquiry presents a question of fact.
4. Where a municipality has contracted with a nonprofit corporation to operate public property, records pertaining to the operation, maintenance or improvement of such property or the administration or performance of the contract are public records open for public inspection, even though such records may be kept and maintained in the custody of the nonprofit corporation. Title 51 O.S. 24 (1971).
And I swear I have seen the AG opinion on this subject, but here's a similar law and a result I'd expect which happened in Mississippi:¶15 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Public trusts organized under 60 O.S. 176 et seq. (1980) are "public bodies" within the meaning of the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 et seq. (1977).
2. Such public trusts must comply with and are subject to the Open Meeting Act.
3. Cameras and tape recorders may not be barred from the meetings of trustees of such public trusts.
4. The above findings apply equally to any and all public bodies subject to the Open Meeting Act.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...n-small-groups
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a ruling that a government can't set up meetings of less than a majority of public officials to evade the state's Open Meetings Act.
The court ruled 9-0 that the city of Columbus was wrong to set up pairs of meetings with the mayor and three city council members apiece in 2014, avoiding the city council's quorum of four members. Those meetings were to discuss an agreement between the city and an economic development agency and maintenance of public buildings.
I think this lawsuit might surprise some folks.
Bookmarks