The growing controversy over proposed data centers across Oklahoma is exposing something local governments can no longer afford to ignore: Citizens are watching, questioning and demanding accountability like never before.
And that’s a good thing.
Residents are showing up at city council and county commission meetings, challenging decisions, demanding records and scrutinizing whether public officials are following Oklahoma’s Open Meeting and Open Records laws.
Some organized groups are going further, actively searching for procedural mistakes, questionable agendas and potential violations they can use to challenge government decisions.
Whether you agree with their tactics or their agendas is beside the point. The law is the law, and local governments have an obligation to follow it.
That means cities and counties need to up their game and go above and beyond to not only abide by the law, but also give the appearance they are abiding by the law.
Agendas must clearly identify the business being considered, giving citizens sufficient notice of what their elected officials intend to discuss and potentially decide. Vague or misleading descriptions are unacceptable.
Meeting notices must be properly posted. Minutes must accurately document proceedings and votes. Public records must be maintained and made available as required by law. Conflicts of interest must be identified and handled appropriately.
Executive sessions deserve particular scrutiny. Oklahoma law allows governing bodies to meet behind closed doors only for specifically authorized purposes, such as certain personnel matters, real estate transactions and qualifying confidential legal discussions.
Discussions must remain within the legally authorized subjects, executive-session minutes must be maintained, and votes on public business generally must occur in open session. Closed meetings cannot become a convenient way to conduct controversial public business away from public scrutiny.
Oklahoma law does not allow governing bodies to retreat behind closed doors simply by labeling a discussion “economic development,” “personnel” or “legal matters.” Agendas must identify the specific business to be discussed, explain the purpose of the executive session and cite the statutory provision authorizing it. Even when confidentiality is legally justified, discussions must remain within those boundaries.
With multimillion-dollar development projects under consideration, cities and counties should be especially careful that executive sessions are not used to shield controversial decisions from public scrutiny.
Also, public officials, particularly those serving on smaller governing bodies, need regular training on their legal responsibilities.
City managers, county officials, municipal attorneys and clerks should be reviewing their procedures now, not waiting until someone files a lawsuit or challenges a controversial vote.
Transparency also requires more than technical compliance. Although Oklahoma law does not generally require public comment at meetings, responsible governments should make information accessible, explain their decisions and welcome meaningful public participation.
Certainly, some activists are more interested in stopping projects than understanding the law. But their motivations do not relieve public officials of their responsibilities.
The best defense against accusations of secrecy or misconduct is a government that operates openly, documents its actions carefully and follows the law consistently.
Oklahoma communities are facing increasingly complicated decisions involving economic development, infrastructure and public resources. Their local governments must be prepared for greater scrutiny.
For better or worse, no longer is public trust something government can simply assume. Government must earn the public trust.
