ROSS v. CITY OF OWASSO
389 P.3d 396
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Owasso hired private attorney Guy Fortney to investigate alleged misconduct by the City Manager; Fortney produced the "Fortney Report."
- The City Manager resigned under a settlement that provided severance; Council member Patrick Ross objected and requested the Fortney Report under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA).
- An assistant city clerk denied the ORA request as confidential; Ross sued alleging ORA and Open Meetings Act violations; parties dismissed all claims except the ORA nondisclosure dispute.
- At summary judgment the district court ruled the City properly withheld the Report; Ross appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals held the Fortney Report is a "personnel record" subject to discretionary nondisclosure under 51 O.S. § 24A.7(A), but found the City Council never formally exercised that discretion.
- Court affirmed that confidentiality/settlement agreements or private custody cannot override ORA; remanded for the City Council to make an official release/withhold decision so any abuse-of-discretion review is ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Fortney Report a "personnel record" under § 24A.7(A)? | Ross: Report investigates criminal acts and policy violations, so not a personnel record. | City: Report concerns internal personnel investigation and is covered by § 24A.7(A). | Held: Report is a personnel record subject to discretionary confidentiality under § 24A.7(A). |
| Can a confidentiality/settlement agreement bar ORA disclosure? | Ross: Settlement may require confidentiality, barring release. | City: Agreement prevents disclosure. | Held: Contracts cannot override ORA; nondisclosure agreements do not negate disclosure obligations. |
| Does lack of physical possession in City personnel file or private contractor custody defeat ORA coverage? | Ross: Not in City personnel file; thus must be released; or City lacked possession. | City: Regardless of storage or author, the report concerns personnel matters and falls under ORA. | Held: Physical location or private production does not exempt the report from ORA; City cannot avoid ORA by placing records outside files. |
| Has the City properly exercised discretion to withhold the report such that court can review for abuse? | Ross: City failed to vote; nondisclosure is invalid and record should be released. | City: The City (via Mayor/officials) decided to withhold. | Held: Undisputed record shows City Council never voted to release or withhold; failure to act is not automatic release. Remanded for Council to make an official decision, 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 described)
- 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 legal standard)
- Okla. Pub. Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 267 P.3d 838 (Okla. 2011) (purpose of Open Records Act discussed)
- Int'l Union of Police Ass'ns v. City of Lawton, 227 P.3d 164 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (discretionary standard for ORA review)