Right to Know, Need to Know, Want to Know
It seems as if I’ve been going back to these basics of journalism a lot lately.
Now here’s a scenario being fought about behind the scenes. For now we’ll keep the other players’ identities quiet in the interest of being fair. But if they stick to their guns, I might just out them and start a new policy of letting you the readers know when you’re being excluded from public policy discssions.
I’d like your feedback on the following:
A private organization whose existence depends on a publicly funded contract hosts a meeting with developers. A consultant hired by the city speaks to the developers at said meeting. The discussion involves future actions and policies related to downtown growth and development.
Should I as a reporter be barred from attending? Interestingly enough, several of the developers felt I should have been allowed. The other sides argue otherwise. The cited reason? The old “Some of the people may not feel free to express their true thoughts or ask questions if a reporter is in the room” bit.
I’ve heard this one before. A classic was when former ODOT head Neal McCaleb insisted the public didn’t need to hear deliberations on which route would be chosen for relocation of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway. (Jack Money and I crashed that meeting anyway, dared the ODOT folks to forcibly remove us and came out with one heck of a front-page story). And because we were there, we remain a reminder to all that the state as represented by McCaleb promised to build and pay for a boulevard to replace the current alignment.
So, do you the readers want me to attend such meetings and report back to you? Or would you rather these discussions be held in private?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Make that another vote for the attend and report column please! Also while you’re at it, let them know that any PUBLIC AGENCY or public meeting should be properly notified to the public. By that we mean when they actually do “notify the public” of said meeting, not a one liner buried in the Oklahoman the day of said meeting.
>>”A private organization whose existence depends on a publicly funded contract hosts a meeting with developers”
I’m not sure, but I think that this smells a lot like a public trust. Steve, if I were you, I’d report about this. This seems like an issue the A.G.’s office ought to look into. If a public body created a contract with these folks who would decide how to execute it, it seems as if they’re attempting to contract around the Open Meetings Act. This shouldn’t be happening.
Not a public trust. I only wish it were that easy. Let me amend… “a private organization whose existance LARGELY depends on a publicly funded contract …”
Details, man, DETAILS!
“A private organization…”
PRIVATE. I think that means we don’t get to listen in. And if this is something to do with city development, regardless of what some private group discusses or brainstorms any plans will go through the normal city planning development process.
Sounds like somebody is pouting for the scoop! 
I’m just teasing! 
The only reason I’m not naming names is because this meeting has already taken place so the decision can’t be reversed. In the future I may warn that denied access could be posted in this blog for all to see and judge for themselves. Again, it’s about being fair. Now that I know you the readers do care about this sort of thing, it gives me more reason to consider such an option.
I would say as a private organization they are allowed (entitled) to have private meetings no matter what they’re talking about, but it would be responsible for them to put together their own press release if they don’t want the media there.
I think you should attend and report. But I am confused as to how any private organization (no matter where funding comes from) can make a decision about “actions and policy” without every being heard in public. My understanding is that any construction would have to be approved by the city, and any policy change (rezoning, redefining, etc.) would have to be done in public. What am I missing?
When all else fails, the law can be your friend…
In the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, this group could be considered a public body for the purposes of the law:
“Public body means…supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds…”
I’m not a lawyer, and don’t know the specifics of your situation, but I’d use this portion of the law and force them to explain why they aren’t covered by it.
So Ryan, let’s play hypothetical here. The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber (which is not the body I’m talking about here) gets city money. Would you describe them as being subject to the open records and meetings acts?
You’re not talking about the Chamber, but I’m pretty sure you’re talking about an autonomous agency that reports to the Chamber that gets a portion of the hotel/motel tax. The CVB works on a lot of high-profile projects that are actually competitive bids (for conventions, tournaments, etc) against other cities, and a lot of the competitive nature means they have to be very discreet about what offer they’ll make on a bid.
Although personally I don’t see it as very different from all of the development that only Steve is privy to. Steve is pretty good at not blowing stories up until the involved parties are ready for public exposure.
I could go both ways on this. I see and understand the concern about reporters, but I also know that doesn’t necessarily mean a particular reporter that is respected by the community as an insider is the same as some green investigative journalist just looking for a big story to expose. That isn’t Steve..
If I was the CVB, I personally would welcome Steve to the meetings with the condition that nothing hits the press until we’re ready, even if that’s months away..because I know it wouldn’t be a big deal. If I was Steve though I would NOT open this can of worms..
It seems that if actual public policy is being decided, then a reporter should be available. The setting of public policy should always be open for “public” hearings and comments. This was the main impetus for the Open Meetings Act (how much of a public or quasi-public this entity is, makes a difference though). However, if only possibilities are being discussed or actions unrelated to the determination of public policy, it would make sense that a reporter can not have access, to encourage the free flow of ideas. As pro-OKC as you may be Steve, the mere fact that a “reporter” is sitting in on meetings can certainly have a squelching effect on discussions. Sometimes a crazy idea thrown out in these meetings could eventually result in good public policy, but this may not have come out if a reporter was there.
Additionally, if this entity would like a broad measure of public support for whatever outcome occurs, it should be as open as possible and encourage both reporters and the public at large to be a part of its decision-making process. We can see that whatever it going on in this entity is already beginning to negatively influence one Steve Lackmeyer and many of the responses posted here seem to be influenced already by the tone of the posting. Hopefully, we can get some more info on this organization and what matters of public policy are being decided in order to more accurately determine if their meetings should truely be open to the public.
Brent, I agree with 1005 of what you have said. I don’t see this as a Freedom of Information issue. There is a lot of gray area though.
Is Steve a mere reporter? What is Steve’s role in downtown? Is Steve a true insider, and does Steve have worthy insight to contribute to the pot? That’s what I think.
This town is small enough that it’s all about relationships, keep that in mind. I’ve watched development projects get shot down because of personal feuds (ie, everyone v. Bob Funk) and I’ve seen relationships formed that have worked well for this town. Ironically in OKC, downtown is the most community-oriented district there is. What is the role of someone like Steve in the overall community of downtown?
In the end, yes he reports to a boss (the Dark Tower), but at the same time, he can’t do anything without the relationships he must have formed covering downtown for decades. And then you get to the kind of special insight that must be involved when someone has covered downtown for decades. Who in their right mind wouldn’t want him in on closed door discussions?
UPDATE: I’ve had a follow-up discussion with the entity in question here. I doubt this is going to happen again. Ultimately, I’ll get the story I was going after to begin with. But I want the people in question to understand that while it might be possible to keep reporters out of such meetings, it won’t be without it being brought to readers’ attention in the future.
You have made it clear you want to be kept informed of what’s going on downtown. Thank you.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Attend & report, please.