OPEA members are urged to immediately contact the Office of Personnel Management and demand your private information be kept confidential. Members are also urged to phone the Executive Editor at The Oklahoman and let him know you are outraged at their attempt to publicize your date of birth or other private information.
Today OPEA learned of an Oklahoman request demanding state employees’ dates of birth. OPEA is working with legislators to keep your information private, and just recently the Senate voted 44-0 in favor of keeping your birth date sealed. In today’s world of identity theft and fraud, the OPEA believes this part of your information MUST remain private.
Members are asked to contact Oscar Jackson at the Office of Personnel Management, 405-521-2177 or oscar.jackson@opm.ok.gov and DEMAND your date of birth be kept confidential.
You are also asked to contact The Oklahoman’s Executive Editor Ed Kelley, 405-475-3311, ekelley@opubco.com and let him know you are outraged at this request.
The transcript of a letter The Oklahoman sent to OPM follows below, unedited, in its entirety:
FEB.19, 2010
STATE OF OKLAHOMAOFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
MARILYN CAPPS, Associate Administrator and Chief Financial Officer
DearMs. Capps:
Underthe Oklahoma Open Records Act, Title 51, Sections 24A.1-24A.22, I am requestingthat any and all records related to EMPLOYEE IDENTIFICATION be made availableto me for inspection. These records should include, but not be limited to, thefollowing:
FULLNAME, TITLE, EMPLOYEE ID NUMBER, EMPLOYEE AGENCY, EMPLOYEE JOB DESCRIPTION,EMPLOYEE START DATE AND EMPLOYEE DATE OF BIRTH OF EVERY EMPLOYEE CURRENTLYEMPLOYED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.
I acknowledge that not all government-held information is open to the public.However, the state Supreme Court in 2003 said that the party claimingnon-disclosure carries the burden to prove an exemption applies. If you claim anexemption to my request under the Open Records Act, please cite in writing thespecific statutory exemption.
I note that Oklahomans “are vested with the inherent right to know and be fullyinformed about their government” and that the purpose of the Oklahoma OpenRecords Act is “to ensure and facilitate the public’s right of access to andreview of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercisetheir inherent political power.”
Given the intent ofthe Open Records Act, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in 1986, governmentofficials must consider in ruling on records requests that “disclosure is to befavored over a finding of exemption.”
I further note that AttorneyGeneral Drew Edmondson recently issued an opinion stating that dates of birthare open records under the state Open Records Act and that agencies claiming aprivacy exception must weigh an individual employee’s privacy against thepublic interest. “This determination, since it involves determination of‘personal’ privacy must be individual in application” and therefore, “a generalpolicy prohibiting disclosure would constitute a legislative determinationbeyond the authority of a public body.”
Please deliver the requested information electronically in a text-based electronicfile. Acceptable file types include .xls, .csv, .txt, .rtf or other commontext-based file types. Please deliver the information in a usable,text-delimited format. Please DO NOT deliver the information in Excel 2007, or.xlsx, format, or in PDF, or .pdf, format.
The Oklahoma Open Records Act prohibits the charging of a search fee when the release of the “documents is in the public interest, including, but not limited to, release to the news media, scholars, authors and taxpayers seeking todetermine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government arehonestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as publicservants.” This information ispart of news media research. My request clearly warrants that no search fee becharged.
The Oklahoma Open Records Act requires that public bodies provide “prompt,reasonable access to its records,” which Attorney GeneralDrew Edmondson in 1999 defined as meaning “only the time required to locate andcompile the public records.” Please respond to thisrequest by no later than Feb. 25.
Sincerely,
JohnEstus
The Oklahoman
(405) 475-3481
jestus@opubco.com
PO Box 25125
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Citizens Against Taxpayer Abuse, Inc. v. City ofOklahoma City, 2003 OK 65, ¶ 12 (“The public body urging an exemption has theburden to establish the applicability of such exemption.”). See also TulsaTribune Co. v. Okla. Horse Racing Comm’n, 1986 OK 24, ¶ 23 n.15, 735 P.2d 548,555 n.15 (“In any proceeding the party urging the exemption of materials fromdisclosure will have the burden of proof to show the applicability of such anexemption.”); 1995 OK AG 97, ¶ 5 (“The burden to establish a privilege ofconfidentiality rests upon the person or entity that seeks to establish it.”).
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.2(OSCN 2001) (“As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, allpolitical power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is the public policy of theState of Oklahomathat the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fullyinformed about their government.”).
Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Okla. Horse Racing Comm’n, 1986OK 24, ¶ 22, 735 P.2d 548, 555 (“In ruling on a request for disclosure thepublic body and the reviewing court must consider that, pursuant to the intentof the Open Records Act, disclosure of information is to be favored over afinding of exemption.”). See also1995 OK AG 97, ¶ 5 (“The Act is construed “tofavor disclosure” over withholding information.”); 1988 OK AG 35, ¶ 3 (“It isclear from this definition that the Act is intended to be quite broad in itscoverage in the State. Similarly, the intent of the Act requires that questionsof doubt as to the accessibility of government records be resolved in favor ofaccess.”).
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3).See also 1999 OK AG 55, ¶ 15 (“[A] search fee cannot be charged when release ofpublic records is in the public interest, such as release to the news media,scholars, authors or taxpayers seeking to determine if government affairs arebeing properly performed.”); 1988 OK AG 35, ¶ 6 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §24A.5(3) (1987)) (“[A] public body subject to the Act’s requirements may notcharge a special ‘search fee’ to any member of the news media who is seekinginformation in the public interest, such as attempts by such persons todetermine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government arehonestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as publicservants.”).
“[T]here is no situation under which a member of the news mediamay be lawfully charged a search fee by a public body. 51 O.S. 24A.5(3) … isquite clear on that point when it decrees ‘in no case’ may such search fees beassessed in such circumstances,” id. ¶ 5.
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, §24A.5(5).
1999 OK AG 58, ¶ 15, ¶ 9 (relying upon Merrill v.Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 1992 OK 53, 831 P.2d 634) (“There is no provision in theOpen Records Act for a public body to ‘withhold’ records for any amount oftime, however small. The duty to provide prompt and reasonable access iscomplied with only when a public body properly attends to its duty to provide arecord.”).
2009OK AG 33, ¶ 11, ¶ 12, ¶ 31.
Posted on
Fri, March 5, 2010
by Mark Beutler