Norman Transcript say Rosenthal soliciting commitments "an illegal act"

Norman Transcript Editorial
A giant step backward
Published July 12, 2008

During Mayor Cindy Rosenthal's 2007 campaign for her seat, she campaigned vigorously on open and transparent government and bringing the trust back to municipal government.

At the June 24 City Council meeting, outgoing Ward 2 councilmember Richard Stawicki used language indicating that he had "promised" Rosenthal he would vote a certain way. He also apologized to the mayor for breaking his "agreement" with her on a vote.

E-mails to several citizens also indicate Rosenthal worked to poll councilmembers beforehand.

Other councilmembers have indicated this may not have been an isolated incident.

It's become apparent that Rosenthal believes it's her mayoral duty to poll councilmembers before discussion in open session on certain issues.

The Oklahoma Open Meeting and Records Act clearly states that securing commitments to vote a certain way is a violation of the act.

Ending back-room arm twisting was the reason the Open Meeting Act came into being. And while we don't believe the mayor intended any skullduggery, we also believe that appearances of not being open and transparent don't inspire trust in our local government.

The Open Meeting Act indicates that any vote taken in violation of the act is invalid.

City Attorney Jeff Bryant asserts that considering the facts of the case that there was no violation of the Open Meeting Act.

Other attorneys believe that comments made in public meetings indicate there was more pressure behind the scenes than just getting "a sense of the opinions of other members," as Rosenthal said.

To our way of thinking, a promise is a commitment. And an agreement is a commitment.

The mayor indicates that the fact that some councilmembers changed their minds on the vote is an indication no commitments were made. We disagree. The two instances are separate actions and have to be judged separately. Whether promises were kept has no bearing on the allegation that soliciting commitments at the outset is, in our view, an illegal act.

In several Oklahoma Attorney General's opinions, it states, "The Open Meeting Act is enacted for the public's benefit and it is to be construed liberally in favor of the public."

We urge councilmembers to consider "owning" the problem and voluntarily revoting the issue in question.

We also highly recommend hosting a seminar or study session on the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Records Act in council chambers and broadcast on Cox Channel 20. There are officials with the Oklahoma Municipal League who do an excellent job of conveying the essence of the act. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson also does a very thorough job on the act in partnership with the Oklahoma Press Association.

It could potentially take what has been a giant step backward in the trust the community has in its leaders -- to a giant step forward.