By Bryan Dean
Staff Writer
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson considers it part of his job to make sure government stays open to the people.
Edmondson is a board member for Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc., an organization made up mostly of journalists, librarians and academics who support open government.
Edmondson's office holds seminars every two years to teach government officials about the state's laws in an effort to make sure people have access to their government.
But his personal beliefs about open government don't trump his responsibility to enforce the laws passed by the state Legislature.
Oklahoman Staff Writer Bryan Dean talked with
Edmondson about open government in honor of Sunshine Week, a national effort to promote open government.
Q: Why did you choose to be a part of FOI Oklahoma?
A: When I first was elected attorney general, I was approached by
FOI Inc. and they said that attorneys general had been offered the opportunity to be on the board and usually accepted unless they thought it might be a conflict. I saw no obvious conflict and thought it was a worthwhile organization and wanted to participate. I have been on the board since 1995 and have been a fairly regular attendee at meetings.
Q: Why should people care about Sunshine Week and open government in general?
A: The government is the people. The government belongs to each and every one of us whether we are talking about a school board or the city council or the county courthouse or the state Legislature or the
United States Capitol. It is our government, and we have the right to watch how it works and to make sure that our tax dollars are being spent wisely. The best way to get that information is by attending the meetings and having access to the documents. I can't think of anything besides voting that's more important to that process than openness.
Q: What do you do to try to encourage other state agencies to be as open as possible?
A: We provide seminars that we do every other year across the state. Those are for mostly local government officials, but we also make sure the invitations are extended to state boards and agencies. We also have through our general counsel division a liaison attorney for every state agency board and commission. We are available to answer questions or give advice to every aspect of state government.
Q: Does your role as an attorney for state agencies ever conflict with a personal desire for openness?
A: I try not to let my personal views get involved in the process. We start off every analysis, whether it's a conflict between agencies or between our office and another agency, with looking to see who our client is. Our client is the people of the state of Oklahoma. We don't look to see what is the best resolution in terms of a particular agency or a particular board member, but what is the best resolution for the state of Oklahoma and her people. It comes into play more often on our duty to defend statutes, laws that get challenged in court. Sometimes my own personal views may conflict. If I'd been in the legislature I might have voted no on a particular bill, but that's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we give it the best defense we can provide.
Q: What is the biggest complaint you get related to open government?
A: The executive session part of open meetings. There is a lot of suspicion when a board goes into executive session that either they are off topic or they are actually taking action rather than just discussing. The longer it lasts, the more suspicious people become. In the seminars we stress that most executive sessions, while permitted, are discretionary. We urge boards to think real carefully about whether they really need to go into executive session even if they are authorized to. They should think twice about doing it.
Q: What should people do if they believe their local government or a state agency is violating openness laws?
A: There are several remedies. The first would be to report it to law enforcement and the local district attorney because it is a violation of state law. There are also civil remedies. Anything done in violation of the open meeting act is void. If a citizen goes to court on an open record issue and prevails, the governmental entity has to pay the citizen's attorney's fees in addition to turning over the records. There are both civil and criminal remedies and citizens should not hesitate to use them.
Q: Are you troubled by the state Supreme Court's recent decision to take many court records off the Internet and limit identifying information in court documents?
A: I would tend to agree more with the dissent than the majority. I've read the rules that have been handed down. I think some of them are prudent in an effort to avoid identity theft. Some of them may have gone too far. The section which deals with Internet access says at the end that this may be subject to further review, and it doesn't go into effect until June. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Supreme Court didn't take a second look at that particular provision. It's hard to justify a record that is otherwise open that anyone can go down to the courthouse and see not being available on the Internet. I don't see the rationale for that and I think the court would be well-advised to take another look at it.
[5 hrs ago]
Open Government?
