Court Opinion

ID: 9764018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:07:45.097749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:52.666647
License: Public Domain

WINCHESTER, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
1 1 I respectfully dissent to section VII of the majority opinion, regarding the Open Meetings Act. J.D. Strong, in his capacity as Secretary of the Environment for the State of Oklahoma, was responsible for the oversight of the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust. The district court determined it was within the sound discretion of the members of the Trust to allow Mr. Strong's presence at an executive session. The court cited 1976 OK AG 834 to support the court's decision. The court quoted a portion of the Attorney General's opinion as it made this observation:
"[The opinion offers good advice to any entity seeking to allow someone into an executive session for whatever purpose where it states ... 'and the decision as to who should be present is within the sound discretion of the board exercised in a reasonable manner based on the facts and ctrewmstamnces in each instance"" [Emphasis added by district court.]
4 2 The district court used the same analysis as that quoted above to find that it was within the sound discretion of the Trustees to invite Cinnabar and Van Tuyl and Associates to attend executive sessions. The representatives of the appraisal companies contracted with the Trust to provide services on behalf *198of the Trust in furtherance of the Trust's duties and may be considered staff, The court found that the presence of these people did not violate the prohibitions found in 25 0.8. § 307(D) 1
13 The Attorney General opinion quoted by the district court has been relied on since 1976, and while the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is not bound by the Attorney General's opinion on questions of law, the Attorney General serves as legal advisor to state agencies. In Globe Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 1992 OK 65, 18, 831 P.2d 649, 650, the Court observed:
"This Court decided the issue of whether an agency was bound by the opinion of the Attorney General in Branch In Branch, this Court stated: 'The Attorney General is the "chief law officer" of Oklahoma. Since 1919, the Attorney General's opinions have been binding on state officials unless the opinion is inconsistent with a final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction." [Branch Trucking Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1990 OK 41, ¶ 10, 801 P.2d 686, 690]
14 Given well-established law that A.G. opinions are binding on state officials, I conclude that the general statement in a 1976 A.G. opinion, quoted above by the district court, regarding using sound discretion concerning who may be admitted to an executive session was binding on the Trust officials. Distinguishing that opinion by noting it regarded the rehiring of school personnel does nothing to limit the generalization made by the Attorney General. Is there some reason a school board can use sound discretion in an executive session, but the Trust cannot? I conclude the Trust properly relied on that A.G. opinion. Where the appellate courts have not spoken, relying on the Attorney General's office, who serves as the attorney for state officials, is reasonable.
T5 If this Court now wishes to find differently, it should not retroactively apply its opinion. - Certainly the legislature would have acted to change the law if state officials subject to the Open Meetings Act had been abusing the law by relying on this A.G. opinion. But this Court now finds a violation. The penalty for willful violation of the Open Meetings Act is criminal in nature, a misdemeanor, carrying a penalty of a fine not exceeding $500.00, and/or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year. 25 0.9$.2001, § 314. This Court has previously held: "Wilfulness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act." Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 1984 OK. 95, 1 14, 701 P.2d 754, 761. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held regarding the misdemeanor penalty:
"The third allegation is that there was no proof of eriminal intent. However, the record discloses that the failure to comply with the Open Meeting Act was a willful violation. Beyond that, the criminal intent needs not be proven since this was a crime classified as in malum prohibitum."
Hilliary v. State, 1981 OK CR 78, ¶ 5, 630 P.2d 791, 798.
T6 The opinion of this Court puts the Trust in an impossible position. Previous opinions of the Court entitle the Trust to rely on opinions of the Attorney General; in fact, they must follow those opinions unless this Court has effectively overruled them. Now, the majority opinion orders the district court to determine the Trust's willfulness in what the Court has found to be a violation. A determination of a willful violation subjects the members of the Trust to possible criminal prosecution. Public officials should not face this type of dilemma in trying to perform their duties for the citizens of Oklahoma.
I 7 Accordingly, I dissent to this section of the majority opinion.

. 2006 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 1, § 11.