Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of OPEA On Birthdate Privacy, Prevents Records Harvesting

The Oklahoma Supreme Court released a ruling Tuesday affirming the position of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association that state employee birth dates should remain confidential.

The issue came to the forefront when reporters made a batch request of all state employee names and birth dates from the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management in February of 2010. OPEA filed an injunction on behalf of state employees.

State Rep. Randy Terrill said today’s Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the personal privacy and safety of Oklahoma citizens who have state jobs.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that certain information related to public employees, particularly birth dates and personal identification numbers, should be released only in limited circumstances. The court ruled that a balancing test should be applied that weighs the public interest against the privacy and safety concerns of government employees.

Terrill said the decision clearly prevents the future blanket release of all state employees’ personal data.

In 2010, Terrill authored legislation that would have prevented the blanket release of state employees’ personal information. The bill was supported by the Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma State Troopers Association, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, Office of the Oklahoma State Fire Marshal, ABLE Commission, District Attorneys’ Council, CLEET, Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security, the Office of the Medical Examiner, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.

In addition to concerns about identity theft and fraud, supporters cited public safety concerns, warning that criminals could use employees’ personal data to identity the homes and family members of law enforcement officials.

The Court concluded:

Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy. The greatest threat to privacy comes from government in secret. In order to verify accountability, the public must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process. It gives private citizens the ability to monitor the manner in which public officers discharge their public duties and ensures that such actions are carried on in an honest, efficient, faithful, and competent manner.

The purpose of openness in government is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct. Rather, governmental agencies and the courts have a special obligation to protect the public's interest in individual privacy by acknowledging that public records are being harvested for personal information about individuals, contributing to a surge in identity theft, consumer profiling, and the development of a stratified society where individuals are pigeonholed according to the electronic trail they leave of transactions that disclose personal details.

[In enacting recent legislation], the Oklahoma legislature sought to construct an exemption which would require a balancing of an individual's right of privacy against the preservation of the basic purpose of Oklahoma's Open Records Act. The device adopted to achieve that balance was the limited exemption where privacy was threatened for the clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

We determine that the legislative language utilized in [the recently passed legislation] indicates the legislature intended to provide a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which may amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy and that where a claim is made that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the statute, application of a case-by-case balancing test is utilized to determine whether personal information is subject to release. We determine that when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” [under the recently enacted state law].

Speaker Steele Names Investigatory Committee Members

Speaker Kris Steele

House Speaker Kris Steele today announced the eight members of the special bipartisan committee that will investigate the allegations that led to state Rep. Randy Terrill being charged with felony bribery.

“The lawmakers who have agreed to serve on the committee are well-respected members of this body with the ability to undertake a task of this significance,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “I am confident they will conduct a thorough review that complies with the rule of law, respects the rights of the accused, and fulfills our duty to the public, and then reach an appropriate conclusion based only on the facts of the case.”

The committee’s makeup is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

State Rep. Fred Jordan, R-Jenks, will chair the committee. Jordan is a former Marine Corps Judge Advocate and attorney who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

State Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Pryor and an attorney, will serve as vice-chair.

The other six members of the committee are:

• State Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City
• State Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove
• State Rep. Steve Kouplen, D-Beggs
• State Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa
• State Rep. Harold Wright, R-Weatherford
•State Rep. Purcy Walker, D-Elk City

The committee met briefly Monday morning to adopt the rules that will govern the investigatory process. The group is charged with gathering evidence and ultimately making a recommendation to the full House if the Committee finds sufficient evidence exists that the legislator in question “has engaged in conduct which impairs the ability of the member to perform the duties of his or her office, or substantially impairs public confidence in the Legislature.”

Under the rules adopted, the committee members cannot discuss the investigation while it is ongoing to protect the member under investigation and all witnesses, as well as to protect the integrity of the process.

However, all the group’s findings and recommendation will be released to the public.

The rules adopted call for a multi-part process.

In the first phase, the committee or its counsel will conduct an investigation and gather evidence. Upon completion of the gathering process, all information will be provided to members of the committee.

At that point, committee members will determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant additional proceedings. If so, a written report outlining the evidence will then be provided to the member under investigation, who will then have 14 days to respond in writing and to request an opportunity to present additional evidence.

At the conclusion of that process, the committee will vote on whether or not to recommend disciplinary action to the full body of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

Throughout the process, the committee will have subpoena power to compel witness testimony and production of documentary evidence.

“The committee process has been designed to maintain decorum and gather information in a forthright and orderly fashion,” Jordan said. “While this committee is not conducting a criminal investigation, the decisions reached could still have lifelong implications for one of our colleagues, and this task will be treated with the seriousness a decision of that magnitude deserves.”

Upon completion of its work, the committee will submit a report of its findings to the House, which will be filed in the chief clerk’s office. The report will be made available to the public.

“The public has a right to know how a decision was reached and why, and the report will provide those answers at the appropriate time,” Jordan said.

The final decision would then be left up to the full membership of the Oklahoma House of Representatives during a floor session.

Speaker Steele Announces Formation of Investigatory Committee

House Speaker Kris Steele today announced that he will form a special bipartisan committee to investigate the allegations that led to state Rep. Randy Terrill being charged with felony bribery.

            

“The circumstances surrounding this situation are serious and merit inquiry to determine if misuse or abuse of office occurred. According to the Oklahoma Constitution Article 5 section 30, the House of Representatives is responsible to oversee the conduct of its members. After carefully reviewing our options and obligations, I believe it is appropriate for the House to conduct its own investigation of this matter,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “I am confident a bipartisan committee can conduct a thorough review and facilitate an investigatory process that complies with the rule of law, respects the rights of the accused, and fulfills our duty to the public.”