Re: [Oama] SB 661 Public Comment
I question whether the AG's FAQs are even considered AG opinions. He hasn't
published them as though they are meant to be formal opinions interpreting
State law. 74 OS 20(A) says he does so annually, so in theory he could
publish them. It's not clear that they were created under the conditions
whereby the AG can even issue a formal opinion - 74 O.S. 18b(5) (request
from legislature, or a State officer/board/commission/department) or (18)
(individual State legislator). So I'm not convinced his FAQ's would be
considered legally binding on the State at this point.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:39 PM Michael R. Vanderburg <
mike.vanderburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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 https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for
Windows 10
*From: *Robert Thompson rthompson@cheekfalcone.com
*Sent: *Monday, April 13, 2020 10:11 AM
*To: *John R. Andrew andrejr@poncacityok.gov; 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
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:
4. 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
--
Oama mailing list
Oama@lists.imla.org
http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/oama_lists.imla.org