Last week, a Cleveland County judge agreed not to make available to the public a videotape showing University of Oklahoma football player Joe Mixon striking a woman last summer. She suffered four broken bones in her face. Mixon reached a plea deal and was given a one-year deferred sentence. He also was suspended from the team for the season.
A recent change to the Open Records Act says facts concerning an arrest must be made public upon request, and also that copies should be allowed too. Norman's city attorney, police department and the district attorney all refused to make copies of the videotape public. The city argued that what was being sought "does not depict an arrest or the cause of the arrest." That a judge agreed is disappointing.
But far more distressing is a bill at the Legislature that has the potential to bring the Open Records Act to its knees. Language included in House Bill 1361 by Rep. Claudia Griffith, D-Cleveland, would let any public body determine whether an open records request would cause an "excessive disruption." That body could then deny the request in its entirety.
Approval of this bill would allow any agency to simply tell a member of the media or any citizen making an open records request, "Sorry, this request is asking a lot - you're out of luck."
This language is part of a bill that also deals with dashboard cameras and body cameras used by law enforcement. Some in law enforcement are concerned about costs associated with storing and reviewing the videos, and with the amount of lag time allowed between when a video is made and when it can be released. These are legitimate issues; some tweaking to the law may be needed.
But the other piece of this bill is a travesty. "That has to change," said Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, "or this will be one of the worst bills ever passed for transparency." He's right. Oklahomans should insist that this assault on the Open Records Act is repelled.
From the Oklahoman Editorial Board
A recent change to the Open Records Act says facts concerning an arrest must be made public upon request, and also that copies should be allowed too. Norman's city attorney, police department and the district attorney all refused to make copies of the videotape public. The city argued that what was being sought "does not depict an arrest or the cause of the arrest." That a judge agreed is disappointing.
But far more distressing is a bill at the Legislature that has the potential to bring the Open Records Act to its knees. Language included in House Bill 1361 by Rep. Claudia Griffith, D-Cleveland, would let any public body determine whether an open records request would cause an "excessive disruption." That body could then deny the request in its entirety.
Approval of this bill would allow any agency to simply tell a member of the media or any citizen making an open records request, "Sorry, this request is asking a lot - you're out of luck."
This language is part of a bill that also deals with dashboard cameras and body cameras used by law enforcement. Some in law enforcement are concerned about costs associated with storing and reviewing the videos, and with the amount of lag time allowed between when a video is made and when it can be released. These are legitimate issues; some tweaking to the law may be needed.
But the other piece of this bill is a travesty. "That has to change," said Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, "or this will be one of the worst bills ever passed for transparency." He's right. Oklahomans should insist that this assault on the Open Records Act is repelled.
From the Oklahoman Editorial Board
