489 P.3d 20
Okla.2021Background
- At a June 9, 2020 Norman City Council meeting Council postponed adoption of the FY2021 operating and capital budgets until a special meeting on June 16, 2020.
- The June 16 posted agenda listed only “consideration of adoption” of the city and CVB budgets, included an attachment labeled "FYE 2021 Budget Amendments 6-12-2020," and specified actions to adopt or reject the budgets.
- The June 16 special meeting adopted the CVB budget, then Council introduced and adopted three additional amendments not listed on the agenda or the June 12 attachment, reallocating $865,000 (including police funds).
- Fraternal Order of Police sued under the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act (OMA), alleging the agenda failed to give required notice of the amendments; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, finding the agenda was deceptively vague and willfully violated the OMA; the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed, holding the amendments and amended budget invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the June 16 agenda satisfy the OMA's notice requirement so Council could adopt new budget amendments at that special meeting? | Agenda did not notify public that new amendments reallocating funds would be considered; only adoption/rejection was listed. | Agenda, attachments, and prior discussions put the public on notice; listed attachments (budget amendments) sufficed. | Held: Agenda wording was deceptively vague and would not inform a person of ordinary intelligence that new amendments would be introduced; OMA notice was insufficient. |
| Did listing the June 12 amendment document on the agenda provide notice of the disputed amendments? | No — the June 12 document did not contain the disputed amendments, so it could not have provided notice. | The attachment listing gave constructive notice of potential amendments. | Held: Listing the June 12 document at most notified the public of its contents; it did not notify the public of new, unlisted amendments. |
| Can the City nevertheless amend the budget under 11 O.S. § 17-209(A) irrespective of the OMA notice rules? | OMA controls: amending a budget under §17-209 must still comply with OMA notice requirements. | §17-209(A) authorizes the governing body to add/delete items; that authority allows amendment at the meeting. | Held: §17-209(A) does not override the OMA; budget amendments must be done consistent with OMA notice and transparency. |
| Were the violations "willful" so that actions taken are invalid under 25 O.S. § 313? | Yes — omission of amendment notice after prior discussions/study session constituted conscious disregard likely to mislead. | Attendance and public comment showed the public was aware; lack of bad faith negates willfulness. | Held: Willful violation established (willfulness need not mean bad faith); actions taken are invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland Cty., 737 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1987) (agendas must be worded in plain language; Act construed for public benefit)
- Haworth Bd. of Educ. v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902 (Okla. Civ. App. 1981) (notice deceptively worded or materially obscuring meeting purpose defeats OMA)
- Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 701 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1984) (willfulness defined as conscious or deliberate disregard of OMA requirements)
- Lafalier v. Lead-Impacted Cmtys. Relocation Assistance Tr., 237 P.3d 181 (Okla. 2010) (OMA to be construed liberally in favor of the public)
- Cole v. Josey, 457 P.3d 1007 (Okla. 2019) (statutory provisions should be harmonized to give effect to both statutes when possible)
- Thurston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 478 P.3d 415 (Okla. 2020) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)