Attorneys ask State Supreme Court to rethink Open Meeting Act ruling | CPT PPP Coverage

Cryptopolytech (CPT) Public Press Pass (PPP)
News of the Day COVERAGE

200000048 – World Newser
•| #World |•| #Online |•| #Media |•| #Outlet |

View more Headlines & Breaking News here, as covered by cryptopolytech.com

Attorneys for more than 200 Norman residents are asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in the Open Meeting Act lawsuit, according to court records.

The residents sued the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority in May 2022, alleging the agency’s February 2022 meeting agenda violated state law because the projects were not specifically listed on the document.

The request filed Friday afternoon by attorneys Stan Ward and Richard Labarthe, cites several questionable aspects of the May 31 ruling by justices, who decided whether OTA insufficiently informed the public of its 15-year, $5 billion ACCESS plan to expand the toll road network in Norman.

Justices ruled 5-3, to overturn a December 2022 district court ruling that found the agency willfully violated the Open Meeting Act.

Five justices ruled that the January and February 2022 meeting agendas were lawful when it referred to “certain turnpike projects,” instead of details about the route locations or which turnpikes authorized by state law OTA would construct.

They also ruled that, despite more details that emerged during the “Director’s Report,” that report was not voted on by the OTA board and therefore was not subject to the law.

The district court previously ruled those agenda items were evidence OTA intentionally worded the agenda to mislead or obscure its business.

According to Friday’s filing, there are reasons for rehearing high courts rulings: when an error or overlooked omission occurs; to address unresolved jurisdictional issues; or to provide clarification on an aspect of the opinion that is unclear.

It appeared to the plaintiffs that justices “overlooked critical aspects” of their arguments, the petition for rehearing stated.

“…a rehearing is necessary to fully address the intentionality of the OTA’s actions,” the petition read. “The vague use of terms, coupled with the intent to obscure, easily brings the challenged agenda items within the ambit of an OMA violation.”

The petition pointed out that ACCESS was so obscured, deposition testimony established that not even OTA’s board knew about it, let alone the public.

“This lack of knowledge even on the part of the OTA’s board members makes it clear that there was no way the public could possibly have been properly informed of the business to be transacted,” the petition stated. “This lack of knowledge militates in favor of rehearing.”

Justices who overturned the district ruling noted that “certain turnpike projects” was sufficient as a legal definition. That language is present in the statute which authorized past and future projects, but rehearing petition said the wording “did not inherently provide clarity to a person of ordinary intelligence and education as to what specific turnpikes the OTA would be acting on or discussing.”

If such a finding stood, municipalities could now “agenda-ize” their business as “certain municipal affairs” or “certain county business,” Ward and Labarthe claim in the petition.

“The precedent set by the court’s decision is concerning as it allows for significant manipulation and obfuscation by public bodies,” the petition stated.

A third argument raised in the filing included scrutiny of the Director’s Report, which justices ruled did not require a vote by the board and therefore was not a violation.

Ward and Labarthe argued to the court that the Open Meeting Act does not distinguish between regular agenda items and items addressed in a director’s report.

The Act, they contend, “requires that the agenda of a public body board meeting ‘identify all items of business to be transacted at the meeting,’” their petition read.

In conclusion, Ward and Labarthe warned in their filing that such practices would allow public bodies to “conduct business with minimal transparency and oversight.”