SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I'm not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it's saying that the "public body" shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the "public" shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that "as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body" which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.gov
In my opinion, the AG is not stating a legal requirement, but rather making a suggestion to create good will with the citizens. Public comment is not legally required, but most municipalities put an agenda item to permit comment, with the admonition that no action can be taken.
Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of John R. Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:06 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I'm not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it's saying that the "public body" shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the "public" shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that "as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body" which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.govmailto:andrejr@poncacityok.gov
I read the changes as meaning that if you have on your agenda a place for the public to make comments then you must allow them that opportunity during a videoconference or teleconference meeting. I do not read SB661 as requiring a city council to provide an opportunity for public comment if the council chooses not to have public comments on the agenda. At our first videoconference meeting, we did have an agenda item for public comment, and we allowed public comment during the videoconference (it was a zoning appeal).
Jonathan E. Miller
City Attorney
City of Mustang
P.O. Box 546
Piedmont, Oklahoma 73078
Telephone: (405) 938-9108
This message is sent by a lawyer and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) only, and may not be distributed to any other person without written consent of the sender.
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of John R. Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:06 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I'm not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it's saying that the "public body" shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the "public" shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that "as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body" which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.govmailto:andrejr@poncacityok.gov
I agree, if provided for it should be allowed. One of my cities did this successfully last week.
Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Jon Miller
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:50 AM
To: John R. Andrew andrejr@poncacityok.gov; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
I read the changes as meaning that if you have on your agenda a place for the public to make comments then you must allow them that opportunity during a videoconference or teleconference meeting. I do not read SB661 as requiring a city council to provide an opportunity for public comment if the council chooses not to have public comments on the agenda. At our first videoconference meeting, we did have an agenda item for public comment, and we allowed public comment during the videoconference (it was a zoning appeal).
Jonathan E. Miller
City Attorney
City of Mustang
P.O. Box 546
Piedmont, Oklahoma 73078
Telephone: (405) 938-9108
This message is sent by a lawyer and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) only, and may not be distributed to any other person without written consent of the sender.
From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of John R. Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:06 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I'm not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it's saying that the "public body" shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the "public" shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that "as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body" which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.govmailto:andrejr@poncacityok.gov
Jon Miller,
I agree with the way you have stated it. I did not see the Statute as pre-empting cities and town from exercising their discretion to allow general public comments at their business meetings. But if the city or town opts to have a general public comment agenda item, then that will need to be accommodated electronically if the meeting is held in an electronic format. We just recently posted a TIP of the Month on the OAMA website on the topic of general public comment agenda items.
https://okmunicipalattorneys.org/tip-of-the-month-1/are-public-comments-required-at-public-meetings
Jeff Bryant
OMAG's COVID-19 Info Page: https://www.omag.org/covid19-faq
Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org
[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma 73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
www.omag.orghttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.omag.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cksesock%40omag.org%7C7b0af7708d2145459d0008d5d005912d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C636643644718063768&sdata=O5U4CEM0kJLxSbEQIcdB%2BtRnRqcj9gWhJquY26D8F1o%3D&reserved=0
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Robert Thompson
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:53 AM
To: Jon Miller jonmiller@jem-pc.com; John R. Andrew andrejr@poncacityok.gov; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
I agree, if provided for it should be allowed. One of my cities did this successfully last week.
Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.commailto:rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheekfalcone.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjbryant%40omag.org%7Ccc45986721034e8819c508d7dfc2c69d%7Cb13aadd514d84b918cf485be9d556ad7%7C1%7C0%7C637223899972824428&sdata=rNOt5BMNYPS6TRNdS7XkMsEgElL5FaM8RBNIhbxh6MA%3D&reserved=0
From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Jon Miller
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:50 AM
To: John R. Andrew <andrejr@poncacityok.govmailto:andrejr@poncacityok.gov>; oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
I read the changes as meaning that if you have on your agenda a place for the public to make comments then you must allow them that opportunity during a videoconference or teleconference meeting. I do not read SB661 as requiring a city council to provide an opportunity for public comment if the council chooses not to have public comments on the agenda. At our first videoconference meeting, we did have an agenda item for public comment, and we allowed public comment during the videoconference (it was a zoning appeal).
Jonathan E. Miller
City Attorney
City of Mustang
P.O. Box 546
Piedmont, Oklahoma 73078
Telephone: (405) 938-9108
This message is sent by a lawyer and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments. This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) only, and may not be distributed to any other person without written consent of the sender.
From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of John R. Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:06 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.orgmailto:oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I'm not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it's saying that the "public body" shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the "public" shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that "as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body" which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.govmailto:andrejr@poncacityok.gov
Also, remember that the AG is not working for municipalities and in fact is legally prohibited from doing so. He is not our attorney and we cannot rely on his opinions. And we are not bound by them.
Mike Vanderburg
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Robert Thompson
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:11 AM
To: John R. Andrew; oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
In my opinion, the AG is not stating a legal requirement, but rather making a suggestion to create good will with the citizens. Public comment is not legally required, but most municipalities put an agenda item to permit comment, with the admonition that no action can be taken.
Robert C. Thompson
Cheek & Falcone, PLLC
6301 Waterford Blvd., Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73118
direct telephone:405-286-9560
direct fax: 405-286-9680
Firm telephone: 405-286-9191
rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Visit us at our website http://www.cheekfalcone.com/
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of John R. Andrew
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:06 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
All,
Can someone clarify why the AG is saying in their FAQ that we have to continue to allow public comment in a meeting utilizing teleconference or videoconference if we have traditionally allowed it? I’m not finding that anywhere in 661. As a charter municipality we set whether or not we will allow public comment.
The closest thing I see is:
- The public body shall be allowed to participate and speak, as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body, in a meeting which utilizes teleconference or videoconference in the same manner and to the same extent as the public is allowed to participate or speak during a meeting where all public body members are physically present together at the meeting site;
It's not saying the public shall be allowed to speak, it’s saying that the “public body” shall be allowed to speak, which is the governing body themselves.
If they mean to say the “public” shall be allowed to participate and speak, it still indicates that “as allowed by rule or policy set by the public body” which still gives our governing body control over whether or not we allow public comments.
We are removing public comment from our agenda because, frankly, our charter municipality gives us that control and this does not take that away, unless someone can explain it differently to me.
Thanks,
John R. Andrew, J.D., M.P.A.
Interim City Attorney
City of Ponca City
PO Box 1450
Ponca City, OK 74602-1450
T: (580) 767-0451
F: (580) 767-0344
andrejr@poncacityok.gov