The case cited below would indicate that a board of freeholders is not the appropriate way to amend a charter,
1927 OK 49254 P. 471 22 Okla. 234 MOORE, Com'r, et al. v. OKLAHOMA CITY et al.Case Number: 18128Supreme Court of OklahomaDecided: March 1, 1927
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.commailto:ddavislaw@live.com
From: Oama oama-bounces@lists.imla.org on behalf of Michael Beason mbeason@altusok.gov
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 9:02 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Proposed Charter Amendments
Greetings All and Happy New Year!
A Board of Freeholders has convened to propose changes to the Charter in my town. The BOF has most recently tasked me with drafting a proposed, all-inclusive amendment requiring all elected officials to follow all state and federal employment laws. I believe state and federal employment law supersedes municipal charter due to the state/federal sovereignty issues involved. Thoughts please? Thoughts as to the language of the amendment? I have drafted a very general, broad, all-inclusive amendment which I believe has no real legal effect.
Thank you.
The case cited below would indicate that a board of freeholders is not the appropriate way to amend a charter,
1927 OK 49254 P. 471 22 Okla. 234 MOORE, Com'r, et al. v. OKLAHOMA CITY et al.Case Number: 18128Supreme Court of OklahomaDecided: March 1, 1927
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
s/ David A. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS
4312 N. Classen Blvd.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118
405 840-6353
405 557-0777 (FAX)
ddavislaw@live.com<mailto:ddavislaw@live.com>
________________________________
From: Oama <oama-bounces@lists.imla.org> on behalf of Michael Beason <mbeason@altusok.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 9:02 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org <oama@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Oama] Proposed Charter Amendments
Greetings All and Happy New Year!
A Board of Freeholders has convened to propose changes to the Charter in my town. The BOF has most recently tasked me with drafting a proposed, all-inclusive amendment requiring all elected officials to follow all state and federal employment laws. I believe state and federal employment law supersedes municipal charter due to the state/federal sovereignty issues involved. Thoughts please? Thoughts as to the language of the amendment? I have drafted a very general, broad, all-inclusive amendment which I believe has no real legal effect.
Thank you.
