ROSS v. CITY OF OWASSO
2017 OK CIV APP 4
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- City of Owasso hired private attorney Guy Fortney to investigate alleged misconduct by the City Manager; Fortney produced the "Fortney Report."
- After several council meetings the City settled with the City Manager (resignation plus severance); Council member Patrick Ross objected and requested the Fortney Report under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA).
- An assistant city clerk denied Ross's ORA request, asserting the Report was confidential; Ross sued alleging ORA and Open Meetings Act violations; most claims later dismissed by the parties except the ORA disclosure issue.
- At summary judgment the district court held the Report was not subject to disclosure; Ross appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals found the Report is a "personnel record" under 51 O.S. § 24A.7(A) (discretionary confidentiality) but concluded the City Council had never formally exercised its discretion to release or withhold the Report.
- Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the City Council to make an official decision on release/withholding before judicial review of any alleged abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fortney Report is a "personnel record" under 51 O.S. § 24A.7(A) | Ross: Report documents alleged criminal/policy violations and thus is not exempt personnel material | City: Report concerns internal personnel investigation and may be withheld under § 24A.7(A) | Held: Report is a personnel record subject to discretionary confidentiality under § 24A.7(A) |
| Whether a confidentiality or settlement agreement can override ORA | Ross: Settlement/non-disparagement bars disclosure only if valid; ORA controls over private agreements | City: Confidentiality agreement prevents disclosure | Held: Agreements cannot override ORA; public body cannot contract around disclosure obligations |
| Whether the City can avoid ORA by keeping the Report outside personnel files or with a private contractor | Ross: Report is not in personnel file or is held by private attorney, so it must be disclosed | City: Report not in file and/or prepared by private contractor, so ORA doesn't apply | Held: Physical location or private production does not remove the Report from ORA coverage |
| Whether the City abused its discretion in withholding the Report without a council vote | Ross: Council failed to vote; non-decision means automatic release or invalid withholding | City: "The City" decided not to release | Held: No council vote occurred; failure to make a decision does not automatically release the record; remand for the City Council to exercise its discretion, then courts may review for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Jenks v. Stone, 321 P.3d 179 (Okla. 2014) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Okla. City, 336 P.3d 457 (Okla. 2014) (de novo review of legal questions on appeal)
- Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996) (summary judgment turns on legal determinations)
- Okla. Pub. Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 267 P.3d 838 (Okla. 2011) (purpose of ORA and public interest in disclosure)
- Int'l Union of Police Ass'ns v. City of Lawton, 227 P.3d 164 (Okla. Ct. Civ. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for ORA personnel-record decisions)