A complaint has been filed with the Jackson County Sheriff's Office regarding a gathering that was held at City Council member Don Johnson's home on Sunday, Aug. 15.

Sheriff Roger Levick said he will ask for assistance from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) in the matter.

Attendees of Johnson's gathering were four of the eight City Council members and Mayor T.L. Gramling. This gathering was held two days before the Aug. 17 City Council meeting in which employment was being considered for the City Administrator Mike Nettles and Parks and Recreation Director Randy Marple.

Johnson confirmed the meeting took place and has "requested a clarification" from City Attorney, Catherine Coke regarding that meeting. In Johnson's opinion, "It takes five council members to make a quorum. In the case of five members present, it would be a legal meeting. If there were four members, no business could be conducted, even if the Mayor was present."

According to the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Open Records Book (14th Edition), the gathering may have been in violation of the Open Meeting Act. In an Oklahoma Supreme Court case, Berry v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists 1980 OK 45, 611 p.2d 628, it was decided that: "Informal gatherings among a majority of the members of any public body to decide on any course of action or to vote on any matter is prohibited by the Open Meetings Act. "

Since Altus has an Aldermanic form of government, the mayor is not allowed to vote, except in case of a tie. So is the mayor a member of the "public body" (City Council) or not?

Although the U.S. Constitution grants us our freedoms of speech, and assembly, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, in the matter of the Appeal of the Order Declaring Annexation Dated June 28, 1978 1981 OK CIV APP 57, 637 p.2d 1270, the last half of the decision states: "...The Open Meetings Act is to be liberally construed to further its goals and favor the public.

The Open Meeting Act is not 'obscure or incomprehensible.' Lack of familiarity with the Open Meeting Act is no excuse for violating its provisions.

The notice and agenda requirements are the 'very heart' of the Open Meeting Act.

Strict adherence to the letter of the law is required. "Substantial compliance" is insufficient.

Subsequent events, such as ratifying actions of decisions previously made in violation of the Open Meeting Act, will not cure violations nor breathe life into the prior illegal action."

The philosophy of the Open Meetings Act is, as it states, to be interpreted liberally to protect the public. If these City Council body members had been public citizens, not elected officials, the Open Meetings Act would be interpreted in their behalf. But such was not the case.

Council member David Brown said regarding the meeting, “It’s vitally important for council members to be able to share information from all sources in order to separate the facts from the hearsay. We as council members owe it to the citizens of Altus to get our information correct so our city, our constituents, and the individuals that are affected by our decisions, are given the best outcome possible. Sometimes it may seem like the lines get blurred during investigatory processes, but council members constantly make sure they are operating clearly in order to maintain the highest integrity possible for our city.”

Council member Jack Smiley remarked of the situation "I don't know that any state statute was broken. I'm no lawyer, but it certainly seems to me that the spirit of the Open Meeting Act was violated."

If the Tuesday, Aug. 17 meeting was influenced by any informal agreement made at the reported gathering at Johnson's home, then the votes, or others retaken later, "will not cure" the illegal action. Someone will have to make a determination as to whether the results of the votes taken on Aug. 17 were legal or not. For now, it looks like that someone may be the OSBI.