Court Opinion

ID: 9530359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:17.384241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.246752
License: Public Domain

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting.
In discussing the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act in connection with the attorney-client confidentiality rule, the majority states:
“Although the municipal attorneys’ case (577 P.2d 1310) permits executive sessions on the advice of counsel in certain specified instances, it does not abrogate the statutory requirement that minutes be kept and recorded; . . . Even if an executive session is properly held and minutes are recorded which might be determined to qualify under the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality, the statute requires that any vote or action taken in an executive session must be in a public meeting with the vote of each member publicly cast and recorded.”
In my opinion, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act has no application whatsoever in those instances when an executive session is “properly held”1 for confidential communications between a public body and its attorney because the attorney-client privilege of *633confidentiality extends to all phases of such sessions. I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that OPALA, J., concurs in the views expressed herein.

. “Properly held” as used herein means within the limitation set forth in Oklahoma Ass’n of Municipal Attorneys v. State, Okl., 577 P.2d 1310 (1978).