Two Oklahoma attorneys agreed the UOSA Undergraduate Student Congress may have violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act Tuesday night.
Student Congress passed a bill 31-3-2 to put controversial constitutional amendments on the Spring 2010 General Election ballot, but the bill was not listed as an item on the group’s posted agenda in their offices.
The bill was introduced as emergency legislation under Student Congress bylaws and considered as new business at their regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday.
“We were going to consider this legislation through the normal committee process, but after I attended the Superior Court arguments [Monday] night [after Congress’ agenda was posted], I realized the urgency to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I expressed my concern to Chairman [John] Jennings and he agreed. Thus, I moved to consider this election date legislation as Emergency Legislation under our rules,” Matt Gress, vice chairman, stated in an e-mail.
However, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires all business be listed on the agenda and the act does allow for the consideration of new business under certain circumstances. It defines new business as “any matter not known about or which could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of posting.”
Because the bill could have been reasonably foreseen prior to the time of the agenda being posted, it was not new business, said Jim Milton, an attorney who specializes in the Open Meetings Act at Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson LLP in Tulsa.
“The fact that ‘Joe College’ thought of it just before the meeting does not mean it’s new business,” Milton said. “Assuming the Open Meetings Act applies [to student congress], it seems they violated it,”
John Jennings, UOSA Student Congress chairman, said UOSA is subject to the act, but he defended UOSA’s passage of the bill.
He said UOSA has acted on new business before and there hasn’t been a problem.
“It falls to opinion whether or not [the bill] was unforeseen, but the body voted almost unanimously that it qualified as new business,” Jennings said.
He said the bill was an attempt to show the court UOSA was trying to set a date for the amendments.
“I don’t want the court to have a constitutional dilemma ... there’s no way we could have passed the thing earlier,” Jennings said. “This is our way of showing that we did what we could to get [the amendments] on the ballot.”
Jennings said the bill was written after he received a subpoena from the UOSA Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon.
“If they had told me Monday that they were subpoenaing me than it could have been on the ‘items to be considered,’” Jennings said. “We’re trying to do the right thing here and set a date.”
Assistant Oklahoma Attorney General Debra Schwartz said she could not comment on specific cases but said it did not sound as if the bill qualified as new business.
Schwartz said new business is considered as an unforeseen emergency type situation that occurs between the time the agenda is posted to the beginning of the meeting.
“Under the Open Meetings Act, an emergency is considered to be things like tornadoes and other natural disasters and that is the only time I’ve seen it used,” Schwartz said.
Gress attended the UOSA Superior Court hearing Monday night. He said the judges rhetoric made clear the urgency of the bill.
“The court made clear Monday night that they were not too happy with the election not taking place,” Gress said.
Gress said he felt the bill he brought to the floor was an emergency because he thought the Superior Court was displeased with the legislature.
But the language of the bill passed in Student Congress states the group was aware of the Superior Court’s Nov. 10 ruling that demanded the controversial petitions be put to a student vote.
“The UOSA Constitution requires approved amendments to be voted “as soon as practicable.”
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
jrilesjr 2 years, 3 months ago
Could someone tell me why we care?
alaskaairborne 2 years, 3 months ago
A few points . . . .
(1) The attorneys who were interviewed don't really have to have anything to do with UOSA to interpret state law. The Oklahoma Open Meetings Act applies universally to all public bodies from state boards and commissions to city councils and planning commissions -- with only a few exceptions. It has been applied to UOSA as well. And, they are absolutely correct in their assessment of this action being a breach of state law.
(2) This legislation was not motivated out of altruism. Gress doesn't really care about complying with a new ruling or serving the student body in a more effective manner. And, although some of the students at the meeting may indeed give up their time and energy to make the campus better, they really need to pause and think about someone's motivations before they cast their votes. The legislation was a feeble effort to pre-empt from setting a special election date -- pure and simple.
(3) Before people start criticizing attorneys for not knowing what's going on and the Oklahoma Daily for needlessly stirring up controversy, they really need to take a look at the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act and maybe get a least Day One of real legal training at an ABA-accredited institution. The issue here isn't so simple as we're letting people vote on things themselves so it's alright. The issue here is when they will be given the chance to vote on it -- sooner rather than later. And, in that case, the public notice requirements go to the very heart of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act.
(4) There's a lot of garbage going around about low voter turnout and how it's so much better to hold a vote during the spring general election. That's nonsense. The last special election only had 20 votes because it involved what -- like two Student Congress districts? And, SDS has been wanting to get this issue up for a vote since September. And, the assertion is that it's "fair" to block an election on issues that students think are important for an entire year for an entire year because some people in UOSA don't like the proposed changes?
That's ridiculous. The initiative and referendum provisions of the UOSA Constitution are supposed to allow students to participate in student government -- proposing the changes they want and getting a vote on them during the year. It's not a system where the people in power get to say, "Oh, we don't like what you're proposing. So, we won't let you vote until the end of the year. And, then, maybe you can try them out next year -- after we've completed our term in office and graduated."
soonerboomers 2 years, 3 months ago
@moor4442, the open meetings act is a state law concerning such public bodies, making the attorney general a pretty good legal opinion.
Also, let's clear this up. As someone in the know in this situation, here is what Matt Gress is trying to do. He realized that court sentiment was against his refusal to put the amendments on the ballot and he was afraid that they would rule for the UOSA to run a special election (as the constitution requires). He tried to pre-empt this ruling and tried to put it on the spring general election (something he has been trying to do all along). Doing this allows the UOSA to suppress the rights of people to submit even more amendments after the special election and before the next general election (as the next general election will see another president elected which will change the number of signatures required). Unfortunately, in all of his zealousness to breach the constitution and prevent students from exercising their rights, he did something illegal, nothing to out of the usual for his machiavellian tendencies. But you see he had to rush the bill illegally because doing so was the only way to make sure it could get passed before the court had a chance to rule (if not this tuesday, he would had to have waited a week which would have given them ample time to rule in a way he didn't like).
jahrabizad 2 years, 3 months ago
Why would they submit an amendment again if it failed the first time? If it did not pass the first time, it probably will not pass the second time.
moor4442 2 years, 3 months ago
I don't see how this article really helps to explain the situation. Do the attorneys interviewed have anything to do with UOSA? It isn't made clear what there connection is, and without a clear connection we are only getting a legal opinion that is not necessarily versed in the particular situation occuring in UOSA. The term "emergency", if not defined specifically, must be interpreted liberally, as it is clear that the UOSA leaders are doing their best to comply with a new ruling and serve the student body in a timely and effective manner. Before seeing an article that seems to slam students who give up their time and energy to make campus better, I would love to see a little bit more research done as to what is going on, what the bill is concerning, and what has led up to the current actions.
soonerboomers 2 years, 3 months ago
@jahrabizad
Wrong. If they hold a special election, the amendments can be resubmitted for a second vote. This gives it two shots at passing which is what they are trying to avoid.
senatorfoss 2 years, 3 months ago
Several things... Schwartz obviously had no idea what was going on, because the "emergency" she is talking about is for an emergency meeting under the open meetings act...and the emergency in this case is emergency legislation under the USC bylaws. Different things entirely, so her comments have nothing to do with this situation.
Second, there is no requirements set forth of what does and doesn't constitute what could be "reasonably foreseen", and the reasonably foreseen clause refers to matters, not bills... While the act itself could have been reasonably foreseen as Jim Milton suggests, the urgency with which its passage was necessary was unforeseen. As such, the "matter" of immediate passage of the bill was unforeseen and therefore eligible to be heard under new business.
Finally, the spirit of the OOMA is to prevent legislative bodies from enacting things without the public’s ability to be there to watch it happen... and passing a bill that allows the public to vote for themselves on an issue will never violate the spirit of the law. Ever.
Perhaps the OU Daily should consider reporting on news around campus instead of trying to stir up controversy where there is none... but then again, it's reasonably foreseen that the quality of the Daily is crap, and has been for years.
soonerboomers 2 years, 3 months ago
"and passing a bill that allows the public to vote for themselves on an issue will never violate the spirit of the law. Ever."
This is simply not true in this case. The reason the bill was created was because they did not want the amendments (which affect their power) to be voted on quickly. They wanted to push them off as far as possible in order to ensure that the students could not utilize last year's low voter turnout to submit more amendments after the constitutionally mandated special election was run. The horror of the court that they are referring to which was unforeseen was the horror that the court looked poised to decide that a special election had to be run. By trying to pre-empt the court and putting it on a general election, they actually decrease the ability of students to submit amendments. This was their goal. We'll see if the court allows them to pull this. The UOSA congress has been a protectivist pit for years now; hopefully the court will wake them up a bit now that the UOSA has broken the law to try to circumvent their soon-to-come ruling on their unconstitutional delay in setting a special election date.
So it absolutely violates the spirit of the law. Had this been posted as an agenda item students could have voiced that they wanted it run as a special election as the constiution requires, not run in an election 3 months away.
jahrabizad 2 years, 3 months ago
@soonerboomers
"The reason the bill was created was because they did not want the amendments (which affect their power) to be voted on quickly. They wanted to push them off as far as possible in order to ensure that the students could not utilize last year's low voter turnout to submit more amendments after the constitutionally mandated special election was run."
That makes no sense. If you read the UOSA CA and Constitution you would know that the number of signatures required for a constitutional amendment to go on the ballot is set by the lat general election. Students can still continue to submit as many constitutional amendments as they want up until 3 weeks before the election and if they submit them after that deadline they will be part of the next election.
If Student Congress really wanted to kill the amendments it would be in their interest to have a special election because very few people vote in those elections, the last special election had less than 20 votes. In a presidential election more people vote so Student Congress and SDS will have to work to convince more people as to why their side is better. That seems like a more fair election to me.