Is Norman city council in violation of state open meeting laws?

By Joy Hampton
Senior Staff Writer, The Norman Transcript

In a violation of Oklahoma’s open meeting laws, the mayor and Norman City Council members may have colluded behind closed doors to plan a unanimous vote on a city resolution of historic significance.

An email was forwarded to The Transcript indicating planned details and a promised outcome on an item on Tuesday’s agenda.

“I talked to the mayor Friday and have what I think is very good news,” the email reads. “The vote Tuesday evening is going to be unanimous in favor of the resolution! That means the resolution will be on the consent docket and the meeting will not be an open meeting, which means the public will not be invited to comment.”

The meeting will be an open meeting under state law, and members of the public may pose questions on consent items by filling out a blue card and returning that card to the city clerk.

Consent items tend to be routine items, most of which have been through a council study session, which is also an open meeting. At council conference, items are discussed and council members pose questions, request changes and indicate whether the item is ready to move forward.

Because the consent docket is voted on in its entirety, there is a unanimous adoption of items on the consent docket. Therefore, any council member could request an item be pulled off consent, either to record an opposing vote or simply for further discussion and more public input than consent items are allowed.

Listed as No. 20 on the consent docket, the item is a resolution that, if approved, acknowledges “recent developments in federal law interpreting Title VII sex discrimination protection prohibiting sex-based considerations in employment.”

People in the LGBTQ community can now be protected from stereotypes stemming from sexual orientation or gender identity under the new federal guidelines. These decisions also affect Chapter 7 of the city code, though adopting an ordinance would have more teeth than passing a resolution.

Still, for many people, item No. 20 is of great historic significance, and contents of the email indicate that city leaders recognize that importance.

“The mayor stressed to me that she will make some comments about the importance and historical significance of the resolution, and Lynne Miller will do the same,” the email continues.

For many, the resolution is a major step forward and aligns city policy with recent interpretation of sex-based discrimination laws to protect LGBTQ persons. It is common for an item of such importance to be pulled off the consent docket, but Mayor Cindy Rosenthal and the council certainly remember a fractured Norman several years ago when the council planned to adopt a statement of inclusion.

Many believe comments that night may have contributed to the suicide of young man who felt marginalized and hated because of his sexual preference. Zach Harrington, 19, attended the Sept. 28, 2010, Norman City Council meeting where October was to be recognized as LGBT History Month in the city. The resolution was approved after a lengthy and intense debate.

Harrington’s loss spurred a movement for more understanding of LGBTQ issues and resulted in a documentary that has been seen nationwide.

It is understandable that city leaders would want to avoid the polarizing debate that occurred in the past. Understandable, but if open meetings laws have been violated, not legal.

While the email raises concerns about behind-the-scenes conversations, support for the mayor has come from unexpected quarters: the council member most likely to oppose this resolution.

Council member Jerry Lang said there was no walking quorum to his knowledge on this issue, but because the item had been vetted through a council conference session, there was a general idea of how the council might vote. Lang is arguably the most conservative member of the city council and a teacher at All Saints Catholic School.

At the time of the council conference, Lang was leaning toward voting against the item, which would have necessitated it being pulled off the consent docket. Lang said he talked with City Attorney Jeff Bryant and has decided not to stand in the way of the resolution, since federal law will apply the protections, anyway.

A resolution does not carry the same protection of law that a city ordinance carries. It is simply an affirmation of the recent federal decisions and a recent executive orders by President Barack Obama. However, executive orders can be reversed.

Lang said said he believes the email resulted from a misunderstanding on what it means for an item to be on the consent agenda. However, an anonymous source and an additional email indicate the mayor told supporters the item had at least five votes and would pass in the weeks leading up to the council conference.

“There were about 25 people present, I am guessing, including Cindy (Rosenthal) and Lynne Miller and Don Holiday,” reads an email exchanged in October. The email also says, “Cindy said she believes there are five votes for the ordinance and that we would at least have that.”

If any council member requests it, the item could be pulled off consent, opened to public comment and an individual vote taken. It is likely that this resolution will move forward as anticipated. With or without the resolution, federal law will prevail. The resolution is Norman’s opportunity to acknowledge support for people who have previously felt marginalized.

Copyright 2015, The Norman Transcript. Provided by AP Exchange.

The Gayly – December 21, 2016 @ 7 a.m.