The O’Collegian

When the agenda for an OSU regents meeting is posted, it might as well be the minutes.

Members of the Oklahoma A&M Board of Regents have unanimously approved all agenda items since at least January 2006.

That unity results from regents discussing proposals among themselves and with university officials before the public meetings. When regents object to proposals, university leaders withdraw them from consideration before the agenda is made public 24 hours in advance of the meeting, board Chairwoman Lou Watkins said.

Advocates for open government say such practices hide important discussions from the public and seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting Act.

“Either this is Shangri-La and nothing is ever wrong, or there’s something taking place behind the scenes here,” said Charles Davis, the executive director of a national government watchdog organization.

Regents concede that research and, more importantly, discussion take place outside of public meetings. Public discussion, they say, occurs in committee meetings, the agendas for which are not posted online as state law requires.

Regents say they make decisions regarding their $1 billion annual operation this way because most of their matters are “routine in nature” and it saves time at the formal meetings.

“Otherwise, we’d be there for three or four days,” Watkins said.

The nine regents, who govern five colleges and universities including OSU, are scheduled to meet again June 20 at OSU-Oklahoma City.

Based on interviews with regents and their staff and inspection of meeting agendas and minutes, The Daily O’Collegian found that in the week leading up to a meeting, the regents likely will:

• Consult with one another, with university officials and with board staff before the public meeting; and

• Conduct in open committee meetings most of what little public discussion that occurs.

Unanimous approval

OSU President Burns Hargis, who served on the board from 2001 until he resigned in June to seek the presidency, said he recalls few “no” votes in his tenure.

No regent has cast a “no” vote in at least two years, meeting minutes show. Only “yes” votes and five abstentions have been recorded since January 2006.

Watkins said regents are not likely to object to proposals because regents trust university leadership.

“We try not to micromanage,” she said. “If you hire good people, they should do their job.”

In the week before the formal meeting, university administrators submit to the board various proposals, including personnel actions and purchases of more than $150,000, the board’s executive secretary said.

Doug Wilson said many of the issues that require board action are “relatively routine in nature.”

“The board delegates 90 percent of its authority to the executives of the universities and colleges,” he said. “By the time the item has made it to the meeting, it is refined, well-understood and ready for board action.”

Davis of the National Freedom of Information Coalition said the board’s track record of repeated unanimous approval sounds suspect.

A First Amendment lawyer in Oklahoma came to the same conclusion after learning of the board’s voting record.

“It suggests that there are conversations occurring … in violation of the Open Meeting Act,” attorney Bob Nelon said.

OSU attorney Charles Drake called Davis and Nelon’s rationale “baloney.”

“To conclude that because there’s no ‘no’ votes, they’re in violation of the law is ridiculous,” Drake said.

But regents concede they talk with one another, university administrators and board staff in advance of public meetings.

Vice Chairman Doug Burns said a “great deal of correspondence through mail and e-mail” between individual regents and administrators at various campuses takes place in the week before a formal regent meeting.

“It’s the tip of the iceberg at that formal meeting,” said Burns, who has served on the board for 12 years.

Discussions also take place among regents, he said.

“Sometimes a total of three regents, then separately another three regents, will discuss something,” Burns said.

Regents “are always careful” not to violate Oklahoma’s Open Meeting Act by discussing business with a quorum, or five regents, he said.

The Open Meeting Act defines a meeting as “the conducting of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together.”

However, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled in 1981 that the act “reaches, not just ‘formal’ meetings, but the ‘entire decision-making process.’” A year later, then-Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the Open Meeting Act to cover the “discussion stage.”

“Public access to a mere ‘rubber stamp’ vote is all but useless,” Cartwright emphasized.

Watkins said she regularly consults with other regents before meetings.

“That helps us in our own decision,” Watkins said.

Watkins said she often turns to other board members for their expertise. For instance, she said she consults Burns when she has a legal question or Regent Joe Hall when she has a question about construction or contracting.

“Things would not go as smoothly if you didn’t get some of your (questions answered before the meeting),” she said.

Davis said efficiency should not preclude democracy.

“If the end-all, be-all is mere efficiency, why not just have a czar run the place?” Davis said. “Why have an illusion of democracy?”

Davis said the regents would be more effective if they allowed for public participation.

“The public ought to participate in and have a seat at the table during deliberatory processes,” he said.

Nelon said if too much discussion takes place outside of a public meeting, the regents “run a risk that they’re circumventing the letter and intent of the Open Meeting Act.”

“If the practical effect is to reduce or eliminate the discussion, then I think the phone calls (between regents) serve to violate the Open Meeting Act,” Nelon said.

In addition to talking with one another, the board’s executive secretary said regents consult with him.

“I talk to all board members,” Wilson said. “If a regent has a question, it’s not unusual for them to ask me about it.”

The Open Meeting Act prohibits a regent from obtaining consensus on a particular agenda item by meeting informally with other board members in advance of the public meeting, Cartwright wrote in 1981.

He said allowing such action “would be to condone decision-making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed.”

In 2005, the Oklahoma County district attorney said the same prohibition extended to obtaining a consensus through staff members of a public body.

Wilson said he does not know before the meeting how regents plan to vote.

Public discussion in committee

Regents point to the committee meetings as the public’s opportunity to witness discussion. Hargis said he recalls many issues being vetted in committee meetings.

“Often, there is a lot of discussion in the committees,” he said.

Each regent serves on one of the three standing committees.

Wilson said the committee meetings are open to the public and usually take place the morning of the formal meeting.

Each committee has only three regent members but all the regents typically attend all the meetings, Wilson said.

Most of the public discussion occurs during the committee meetings, not the full board meetings, he said.

For example, OSU administrators apparently had not done their homework in October when they sought approval from the board to increase student fees to pay for renovations to the Student Union.

The vice president for business and finance said he submitted a proposal to add a $4.35 per credit hour student fee. Regents told David Bosserman during the committee meeting the board wanted more information.

Rather than risk regents voting down or tabling the proposal during the public meeting, he pulled the item from the agenda.

In January, Bosserman said, he presented the proposal again with more information and this time won unanimous approval from the board.

Although most discussion occurs in committee meetings, only agendas for the full board meetings, not the committee meetings, are available on the board’s Web site.

Committee meeting agendas are posted in only two places: the regents’ offices in Oklahoma City and in the Student Union on the Stillwater campus.

Wilson said that is because the committee meeting “is just discussion.”

“But what matters is the binding action at the general meeting,” he said.

Drake said the board puts agendas for regularly scheduled meetings online for the public’s convenience.

“There’s nothing in the law that requires it to be online,” Drake said. “That’s an accommodation.”

However, state law requires public bodies to make available the date, time, place and agenda of each regularly scheduled meeting. The statute applies to the committees of public bodies.