FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. CITY OF NORMAN, 489 P.3d 20

On June 9, 2020 Norman City Council continued consideration of the FYE 2021 operating and capital budgets and postponed final adoption to a special meeting on June 16.
The June 16 posted agenda stated only: “CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE FYE 2021 CITY OF NORMAN PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS…,” listed five attachments (including a June 12 “Budget Amendments” document), and provided action options to adopt or reject the budgets.
At the June 16 special meeting Council adopted the Convention & Visitors Bureau budget, considered listed amendments, then introduced and passed three additional, unlisted amendments reallocating $865,000 (including police budget reductions) and adopted the amended city budget.
Fraternal Order of Police sued under the Open Meeting Act (25 O.S. §§ 301–314), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; both parties moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, holding the June 16 agenda was deceptively worded and materially obscured the meeting’s purpose, constituting a willful Open Meeting Act violation; the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the June 16 agenda satisfied the Open Meeting Act’s notice requirements	Agenda failed to disclose that new budget reallocations/amendments (affecting police funding) would be considered	Agenda adequately notified the public because it listed the city budget, attachments (including a June 12 amendments list), and many members of public attended/sent emails	Held: Agenda was deceptively vague; a person of ordinary intelligence would not expect Council to introduce new amendments—notice insufficient under OMA
Whether the City could lawfully amend the budget at that meeting relying on 11 O.S. § 17-209(A) despite Open Meeting Act notice rules	Even if § 17-209(A) permits amendments, the Open Meeting Act’s notice requirements still apply when taking such action	§ 17-209(A) allows adding/deleting budget items and does not explicitly address Open Meeting Act notice for such amendments	Held: § 17-209(A) does not supersede OMA; amendments under § 17-209 must comply with Open Meeting Act notice provisions
Whether the violation was "willful" such that actions are invalid under the OMA	Omitting the amendments from the agenda was a deliberate disregard of OMA notice rules given prior discussion; thus willful	City argued broad public awareness and prior materials cured any notice defect; did not concede willfulness	Held: Violation was willful (conscious/disregard or likely-to-mislead notice); actions taken are invalid under OMA § 313

Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland Cty., 737 P.2d 929 (Okla. 1987) (agendas must be worded in plain language; notice must be sufficient to inform public of matters to be transacted)
Haworth Bd. of Educ. v. Havens, 637 P.2d 902 (Okla. Civ. App. 1981) (required notice is defeated if deceptively worded or materially obscures meeting purpose)
Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 701 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1984) (definition of "willful" violation under OMA includes conscious or deliberate disregard; deceptive notices can be willful)
Lafalier v. Lead-Impacted Cmtys. Relocation Assistance Tr., 237 P.3d 181 (Okla. 2010) (Open Meeting Act construed liberally in favor of public access)
Cole v. Josey, 457 P.3d 1007 (Okla. 2019) (statutory provisions should be harmonized where possible; avoid absurd results in construction)
Toch, LLC v. City of Tulsa, 474 P.3d 859 (Okla. 2020) (summary judgment and related legal questions reviewed de novo)