Open meetings ruling could have big impact

[Pete]

http://newsok.com/article/5577871

"The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association is subject to state openness laws because it is "supported in part by public funds," Attorney General Mike Hunter wrote in an opinion requested by a state legislator."

I believe the same would apply to the non-profits that run the State Fairgrounds and the Alliance for Economic Development and perhaps even the Convention and Visitors Bureau, although the latter does publish it's meeting minutes.

All those organizations receive a large percentage of their funds through tax dollars.

I've made the point elsewhere that it is strange for these organizations to operate without public accountability. Perhaps this ruling will signal a change in that regard, but I'm sure the issue would have to be pressed for each organization.

[Rover]

This is some progress.
Because you are now aligned with K-Four, can't you guys be the ones to press each of the other organizations of concern?

[Pete]

I may need the help of a politician to force the issue.

BTW, since the Chamber of Commerce gets funding from public bodies as well, I believe they would also have to comply with open meetings and records laws.

[BoulderSooner]

Keep in mind that this is an opinion from the ag office. It doesn’t change the law and doesn’t require any org to change how they operate If anything will change it will be with a court ruling

[onthestrip]

I may need the help of a politician to force the issue.

BTW, since the Chamber of Commerce gets funding from public bodies as well, I believe they would also have to comply with open meetings and records laws.

They do? And are you talking state chamber?

[Pete]

OKC Chamber.

They take money from the Oklahoma Industry Authority and others.

[BoulderSooner]

The chamber is a city contractor and is paid to run the cvb. Which I don’t think this opinion would effect at all

[Pete]

The chamber is a city contractor and is paid to run the cvb. Which I don’t think this opinion would effect at all

Actually, if they are paid by the City that means they are receiving public funds which is what the ruling specifically addresses.

[BoulderSooner]

Again it wasn’t a ruling. But using that logic every city contractor would have to follow open record laws? Of course not

[Pete]

But they aren't just a contractor... They receive public funding directly from the OIA and other public bodies.