A legal expert on the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act says even with a form of city government that can sometimes make its own rules, he would not be comfortable with a mayor meeting privately with more than one of four councilors at a time.
Tahlequah is a charter city with an aldermanic form of government, wherein the mayor can’t vote unless it’s to break a tie. However, he or she is allowed to take part in discussions.
Recently, some controversy erupted over whether the mayor can meet with councilors privately, since some may view that as a quorum – a situation that would violate the spirit of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. The charter does exclude the mayor from quorum determination, though. A “quorum” is defined as a majority of all members of the governing body, board, or commission.
The Open Meeting Act, however, uses the wording “a majority of the public body,” instead of “quorum.” According to the charter, the mayor can attend all meetings of the council, as well as take part in discussions.
Mayor Sue Catron said current and past mayors and councilors have determined that meeting for informal discussions is acceptable under the terms of the charter, as no business is conducted and no votes taken.
“In an abundance of caution, our mayor is meeting with councilors individually,” Catron stated in a Jan. 19 TDP column, referring to herself.
Doug Dodd, general counsel for the Oklahoma Press Association, said that although a “charter city” like Tahlequah can make many of its own rules, he nevertheless thinks having a majority of city officials present at an informal private meeting would be inappropriate.
“I would argue they would be much safer if the meetings were only one-on-one,” Dodd said. “The Oklahoma Meeting Act is not clear on circumstances like this – [when the mayor’s presence] doesn’t count toward a quorum. But she can still vote on a tie. Three of them meeting together could constitute a majority, so that still ought to make them follow the OMA. With the mayor and two councilors, they could have the tie-breaking vote in that meeting.”
Tahlequah voters will be going to the polls Feb. 14 to consider not just who will lead two of the wards, but eight proposed changes to the city charter. One of those is to increase the number of councilors in each ward from one to two.
Ward 3 Councilor Stephen Highers is running for reelection, while former Main Street Director Drew Haley is challenging him. Local attorney Ryan Cannonie and Josh Allen, director of the Tahlequah High School Orange Express band, will go head-to-head for the seat of Ward 4 councilor.
Should the proposal pass, the person in each ward with the most votes gets four years, while the runners-up gets two years.
If the proposed change passes, those interested in running for Wards 1 and 2 can campaign during the summer when that election is held. Anyone running for councilor is required to reside in the ward they are hoping to represent.
During a Jan. 21 Saturday Forum on Facebook, Tahlequah Daily Press readers were asked if a mayor should be able to meet privately with individual councilors, even two at a time, and even if a vote on any matter is taken. They were also asked if it creates conflict or goes against the OMA, and how they felt about two councilors per ward, totally eight.
Eric Swanson believes a mayor shouldn’t be meeting with councilors to discuss city business, even if a vote isn’t taken.
“Such discussions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Open Meetings Act and undermine people’s trust in government,” he said.
David Watts said it’s OK to have some discussions outside the room, as long as it’s kept to a minimum. He added he is interested in the proposal to have eight councilors.
“Will it dilute the little opposition that exists on popular issues or will [there] be more opposition making business harder to accomplish?” he asked.
What you said
The TDP asked readers on its website if a Tahlequah mayor should be able to meet privately or secretly with individual councilors, since the charter is nebulous about “open meeting” requirements and what constitutes a quorum. Forty-eight percent said definitely not, while 32 percent agreed probably not, due to the appearance of impropriety. Eleven percent said a mayor probably could, but only under certain circumstances, and 8 percent said a mayor should be able to meet with councilors, under all circumstances. Fewer than 2 percent were undecided or didn’t agree with none of the above options.
Kim Poindexter contributed to this report.
