Happy Monday, all: I have a couple of Open Records questions to poll the group about. My Town Clerk-Treasurer has received a records request going back three years for: 1. All ordinances passed in that time; and 2. The proofs of publication for those ordinances. On the ordinances, we did a supplement to our code containing everything through 2021 in early 2022. So, Question 1: Do you think we can just give the requestor a copy of the codebook, and then copies of the ordinances we passed in 2022 and to date? This as opposed to copies of everything going back to 2020. Unfortunately, our code is not currently digitized. On the proofs of publication, Question 2: Do you think we have to turn over proofs of publication? I'm leaning towards "yes" because I think they're covered by the definition of "record" in 51 O.S. 24A.3(1) as something received by a public body in connection with the transaction of public business. But I'd love to hear any arguments to the contrary. Thanks in advance! Wil M. Crawford Indian & Environmental Law Group, PLLC 117 S. Ash Street Ada, OK 74820 Wil@iaelaw.com<mailto:Wil@iaelaw.com> (580) 453-7051 (918) 948-6190 (fax) [cid:image001.png@01D97C23.494D69D0] NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.

1. All ordinances passed in that time; and
2. The proofs of publication for those ordinances.

I can't come up with an argument against production on the proofs of publication - so someone else will have to pick that fight (if they can). As to the first question, if they asked for copies of each ordinance adopted by the Council, then technically they get each of those ordinances. You could certainly offer them the full codification as a way to satisfy most of their request. Now, if you are going to charge them for the full copy cost of the codification, that would probably exceed the cost of just getting copies of the ordinances themselves (since the codification will include everything, not just what was adopted over the last 3 years). But if you were to offer a copy of the codification for free (e.g. if you had that digitized but you don't have the prior, individual ordinances digitized), then they may take you up on that offer to save money. But asking for each ordinance adopted isn't necessarily the same thing as asking for the current ordinances - after all, you could have adopted ordinances more recently that altered or repealed ordinances adopted previously (but during the last 3 years). So if, say, they are trying to track the changes in a given ordinance over time, the codification wouldn't let them do that but each ordinance would. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:18 PM Wil Crawford <wil@iaelaw.com> wrote: > Happy Monday, all: > > > > I have a couple of Open Records questions to poll the group about. My > Town Clerk-Treasurer has received a records request going back three years > for: > > > > 1. All ordinances passed in that time; and > 2. The proofs of publication for those ordinances. > > > > On the ordinances, we did a supplement to our code containing everything > through 2021 in early 2022. So, *Question 1:* *Do you think we can just > give the requestor a copy of the codebook, and then copies of the > ordinances we passed in 2022 and to date?* This as opposed to copies of > everything going back to 2020. Unfortunately, our code is not currently > digitized. > > > > On the proofs of publication, *Question 2: Do you think we have to turn > over proofs of publication? *I’m leaning towards “yes” because I think > they’re covered by the definition of “record” in 51 O.S. 24A.3(1) as > something received by a public body in connection with the transaction of > public business. But I’d love to hear any arguments to the contrary. > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > *Wil M. Crawford* > > Indian & Environmental Law Group, PLLC > > 117 S. Ash Street > > Ada, OK 74820 > > Wil@iaelaw.com > > (580) 453-7051 > > (918) 948-6190 (fax) > > > > NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential > and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the > sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. > > > > > -- > Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org >