By Teddye Snell, Press Staff Writer

A spokeswoman for a group of 400 area poultry farmers is questioning the legality of a special meeting of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission scheduled for next Thursday evening.

According to the agenda distributed to media outlets, the purpose of the meeting is to enter into executive session to discuss pending litigation in the State of Oklahoma vs. Tyson Foods.

But Bev Saunders, a member of Poultry Partners, believes the meeting is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

“I’ve been advised by Deborah Schwartz of the attorney general’s office and others that this meeting is legal basically because the OSRC is a state agency, and therefore, they are a party to the lawsuit,” said Saunders. “Because the OSRC has never endorsed the lawsuit, nor are they named as a party to the lawsuit, I disagree. I think this is an abuse of the FOI laws. It’s a huge stretch, to say the least.”

Saunders said the OSRC has never been formally consulted about the lawsuit from the AG’s office, nor has it voted on or passed any resolutions to endorse the lawsuit.

“However, remember, it’s the AG’s office that does interpret the law, and its many attorneys may have found a loophole,” said Saunders.

The e-mail Saunders received from Schwartz indicated the meeting does not violate the state’s Open Meeting Act, according to provision 25 O.S., sec. 307 (B) (4), which provides for executive sessions within public bodies.

Ed Fite, OSRC administrator, said Friday evening that he received a letter about the meeting from Stephen Jantzen, an attorney with the Ryan, Whaley and Coldiron firm. Jantzen represents several poultry companies named in the suit the OSRC will discuss in executive session. The letter objects to the OSRC meeting in executive session to discuss the suit.

“The attorney general’s office requested this special meeting,” Fite said. “I’m sending them a copy of Mr. Jantzen’s letter and asking that they review it.”

Fite said the OSRC has not been updated on the suit since it was filed. He said the attorney general’s office will make a decision early next week, after reviewing Jantzen’s letter, on whether there’s a need to cancel the special meeting.

Jantzen’s letter states the OSRC agenda may ne “facially defective.”

“The agenda provides no justification for the proposed executive session,” the letter alleges.

Jantzen wrote the agenda refers to a section of the Open Meeting Act which authorized the Commission to meet in executive session for the purpose of “confidential communication” between the OSRC and its attorney “concerning a pending investigation, claim or action if the commission, on the advice of its attorney, determines the disclosure will seriously impair the commission’s ability to conduct a pending investigation, litigation or proceeding in the public interest.”

Jantzen’s primary point is mere recitation of the statutory provision doesn’t satisfy the Open Meeting Act requirements for lawfully entering an executive session. He also states in the letter that it doesn’t appear the commission is a named party in the suit.

He also states the letter is not meant to frustrate communication between government counsel and the commission. The intent is to assure the public receives complete disclosure as the law requires.

Jantzen also reminds the OSRC that minutes must be kept in an executive session, and any action taken in violation of the Open Meeting Act, will be invalidated. He states he hopes the OSRC will meet in open session rather than executive session. Jantzen or one or more of his colleagues intends to attend the meeting