Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Improve Our Tulsa Lawsuit
Improve Our Tulsa Lawsuit
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Freeman Culver III, by and through attorneys ofrecord Ronald
E. Durbin, II, and Christina Vaughn of Viridian Legal Services, PLLC, and respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to grant leave to file the amended petition attached hereto as exhibit "A". In
1. The proposed Amended Petition contains additional facts and allegations that have become
2. The proposed Amended Petition is not intended to cause any undue delay or prejudice to
3. The Plaintiff notes that pursuant to the Oklahoma Code of Civil Procedure, Title 12,
Section 2015(8), "leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires."
4. The petitioner respectfully submits that justice requires that leave to amend be granted in
this case, as the proposed amendments will serve the interests of justice by clarifying the
0
claims and allegations in the original Petition, and by providing additional information that
5. The petitioner further submits that the proposed Amended Petition is not intended to unduly
delay the proceedings in this matter, and that any delay caused by the amendment will be
minimal and will not prejudice any party. The petitioner has acted in good faith throughout
this matter and seeks only to ensure that the interests of justice are served.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant leave to file
the Amended Petition, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
111
Ronald E. Durbin, II, OBA #2
Christina M. Vaughn, OBA#
Viridian Legal Services, PLLC
1602 South Main
Tulsa, OK 74119
918.533.9635
Durbin(c~viridianlegal.com
Christinar(~viridianlegal.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May, 2023, a true and correct copy of the forgoing
document was mailed via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Freeman Culver III, by and through attorneys ofrecord Ronald
E. Durbin, II, and Christina Vaughn of Viridian Legal Services, PLLC, and for his AMENDED
the City of Tulsa vests the City Council for the City of Tulsa with decision making authority
4. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Lori Deeter Wright ("Wright"), is a resident
5. Defendant Wright is a public official being a duly elected member of the City Council for
7. Defendant Harper is a public official being a duly elected member of the City Council for
8. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Laura Bellis ("Bellis"), is a resident of Tulsa
9. Defendant Bellis is a public official being a duly elected member of the City Council for
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wright is a state actor, employee of the City of
Tulsa, and an agent of Defendant, City of Tulsa, governed by the laws of the State of
Oklahoma, specifically 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq., and Wright, in the performance of her
official duties, engaged in prohibited conduct under 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq. in Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
11. Upon information and belief, Bellis is a state actor, employee of the City of Tulsa, and an
agent of Defendant, City of Tulsa, governed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma,
specifically 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq., and Bellis, in the performance of her official duties,
engaged in prohibited conduct under 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq. in Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
12. Upon information and belief, Hall-Harper is a state actor, employee of the City of Tulsa,
and an agent of Defendant, City of Tulsa, governed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma,
specifically 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq., and Hall-Harper, in the performance of her official
duties, engaged in prohibited conduct under 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq. in Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
13. The Tulsa City Council constitutes a public body under Oklahoma law. See 25 O.S. §
304(1) (defining Public Body to include, "all boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies,
14. As a "Public Body," the Tulsa City Council and its members must comply with the
15. The actions giving rise to this suit occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
16. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein and may properly
SERIAL MEETINGS
18. Defendants Mayor G.T. Bynum, Blake Ewing, Lori Deeter Wright, Vanessa Hall-Harper,
Laura Bellis Wright, Christian Bengel, Jeanie Cue, and Christian Bengel all regularly
constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act because the conversations are about City
of Tulsa business.
20. The Defendant discussed the Gilcrease funding by engaging in a series of text messages
and phone calls amongst and between themselves for purposes of corning to a decision on
21. The Defendants discussed above regularly discussed variances and other important city
22. Defendants used in person, phone call, and text messages to engage in the serial meetings
23. The Defendants discussed ARP A and other grant funding by engaging in a series of text
messages and phone calls amongst and between themselves for purposes of corning to a
24. The Defendants discussed low water damn and other City of Tulsa improvement projects
25. The Defendants discussed regularly discussed permit application, reviews, and other
26. Defendant Blake Ewing came to counsel's office and attempted to engage in a serial
27. Defendant G.T. Bynum sent Blake Ewing to speak to all Defendant Councilors regarding
meetings about City of Tulsa business with members of the Tulsa City Council in
29. That any act of importance undertaken since the election of Defendant Mayor G.T.
Bynum was done using serial meetings with Defendants in violation of the Open
Meetings Act.
Defendants regularly discussed Mayor Action Items presented to the City Council by
engaging in a series of text messages and phone calls amongst and between the
Defendants for purposes of coming to a decision on a funding request before the Tulsa
City Council.
30. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Petition as if fully set out
herein.
31. On March 22, 2023, Councilor Grant Miller ("Miller") of the Tulsa City Council called to
order the 10:30 A.M. Urban and Economic Development Committee meeting, a regularly
scheduled and posted public meeting of the Tulsa City Council. See Public Meeting Notice
33. The following Councilors were in attendance at the March 22, 2023 meeting: Vanessa Hall-
Harper, Lori Deeter Wright, Laura Bellis, Jayme Fowler, Phil Lakin, Jeannie Cue, Christa
35. Gligo spoke to the issue of homelessness within the report during the public meeting.
36. During open meetings of the Tulsa City Council, councilors ask questions in tum by raising
their hand to be placed on the list to speak on the agenda item and a list is kept by the
37. Councilor Miller asked a question of Gligo related to the above-mentioned report when the
38. As Miller asked his question, he observed Defendant Wright roll her eyes, smirk, and pick
up her phone.
39. Councilor Miller observed Defendant Wright typing on her phone keyboard during the
public meeting.
40. Miller observed Defendant Bellis, during the public meeting, pick up her phone, read
41. Councilor Miller then observed Defendant Bellis type something on her device's keyboard
42. Councilor Miller then observed Defendant Harper pick up her phone, during the public
44. Upon information and belief, Councilor Miller suspected Defendants were communicating
about his question about allocating ten (10) million dollars to homelessness during the
public meeting which was related to the topic being discussed as agenda item four (4). See
Id.
45. Immediately after the meeting, Councilor Miller submitted an Open Record Request
46. Councilor Miller submitted the request to Council Administrator Patrick Boulden
("Boulden").
47. Boulden is an employee of the City of Tulsa and more specifically is an attorney employed
by the City of Tulsa and/or the Tulsa City Council to provide legal advice to the Tulsa City
Council and members of the Tulsa City Council in their official capacity.
48. Boulden is available to any councilor for advice regarding compliance with Oklahoma law
including, but not limited to, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
49. Defendant Councilors possessed access to Boulden for legal advice, and as such, knew and
or should have known that the actions identified herein constitute a violation of the
50. The City of Tulsa fulfilled Councilor Miller's Open Record Request and provided
Councilor Miller a series of text messages between the Councilor Defendants. See Text
51. The Open Record production contained at least two text messages sent from Defendant
52. The Open Record production contained one text message sent from Defendant Bellis to
54. The Defendant Councilor messages were all contained within a group message between all
55. The time date stamps of the Defendants' text messages reflect that they were sent and
reviewed during the public meeting identified above and in Exhibit "A".
56. The first message from Defendant Wright stated "$1 OM Gilcrease $ for housing". See Id.
57. The second message from Defendant Wright stated "Miller is ridiculous". See Id.
58. The text message from Defendant Bellis stated "RIDICULOUS". See Id.
59. All messages were either sent, observed, or both by all three Defendants.
60. Plaintiff attempted to resolve these violations of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act with the
City of Tulsa, but they failed to respond as promised leaving Plaintiff no choice but to
61. Councilor Defendants, instead of admitting fault and working towards a resolution, sent a
threat letter to Councilor Miller. See Letter from Laurie Phillips, Counsel for Defendants
Hall-Harper, Wright, and Bellis to Councilor Miller attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
62. Councilor Defendants, instead of admitting fault and working towards a resolution, sent a
threat letter to the undersigned after their threat letter to Councilor Miller failed to have the
chilling effect they hoped on the inquiry into their wrongdoing. See Letter from Laurie
Phillips, Counsel for Defendants Hall-Harper, Wright, and Bellis attached hereto as Exhibit
"D".
63. Upon information and belief, Defendant Councilors retained legal counsel for actions taken
in the course of their individual capacity indicating that their improper and illegal actions
extend into their personal lives as well as their role as members of the Tulsa City Council.
64. In her letter, Phillips falsely claimed Councilor Miller accused Defendant Councilors of
violations of the Open Meeting Act and Phillips threatened frivolous litigation if Miller
continued to engage in public discourse about the subject. See Exhibit "D".
65. Councilor Miller published the threat letter to his public Facebook page.
66. Upon information and belief, this was a strategic letter intended to limit public participation
67. Critically, in addition to the violations already known about, Phillips admitted in her letter
that Defendant Councilors regularly text during open meetings in violation of the
Oklahoma Open Meeting Act stating "The practice of text message use has been in effect,
68. Thus, Phillips freely admited her clients regularly and frequently violate the Act.
69. Defendant Councilors' Attorney, Laurie Phillips, made comments to media that her clients'
actions are no big deal and not a violation of the Open Meeting Act.
70. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Petition as if fully set out
herein.
71. Oklahoma codified the Open Meetings Act, as 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq.
72. The stated purpose of the Open Meeting Act is to facilitate and encourage an informed
authorities, councils, committees, public trusts or any entity created by a public trust. .. ",
is required to provide to the public specific times and places, which are convenient to the
public, such that citizens may attend said meetings and be informed of the activities of their
government.
74. To be "informed" under Section 301, the Act requires that citizens be aware of matters
75. In other words, the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires public bodies, like the Tulsa City
Council, to conduct meetings in the fresh air that only the sunshine of transparency brings
76. The language in 25 O.S. § 303 requires that meetings of public bodies be both convenient
77. To be "open" to the public, the public must be able to see and hear all the discourse of all
78. Pursuant to the Act, a meeting is not open if the public cannot see the members of the
79. Pursuant to the Act, a meeting is not open if the public cannot hear the members of the
public body while they discuss agenda items during the public meeting. See Id.
80. The Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, 25 O.S. § 303 specifically requires:
All meetings of such public bodies ... shall be preceded by advance public
notice specifying the time and place of each such meeting to be convened
as well as the subject matter or matters to be considered at such meeting, as
hereinafter provided.
81. Under the Open Meeting Act, "Meeting" means "[t]he conduct of business of a public
82. The Tulsa City Council is a public body under the Open Meetings Act.
83. The City of Tulsa attempted to conduct a meeting under the Act for purposes of conducting
84. A violation of the Open Meetings Act, "does not require a showing of bad faith, malice,
or deliberate disregard oflaw by those who know, or should know requirements of the Act
.... " Wilson v. City of Tecumseh, 2008 OK CIV APP 84, 1 13 (bold emphasis added).
85. The Open Meeting Act provides criminal sanctions for violation of its provisions by stating
as follows:
86. Aside from the criminal sanctions addressed above, the Open Meeting Act also authorizes
any person to bring a civil suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, or both. See 25
87. The Open Meeting Act provides for the recovery of Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs. See
88. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Petition as if fully set out
herein.
89. The City of Tulsa notified the public of its intention to consider the matters on the Agenda
90. The City of Tulsa made no provisions to stream, record, or otherwise broadcast electronic
and/or text message conversations of the Defendant members of the Tulsa City Council
91. Defendants made no effort to capture or broadcast the comments of Defendant Councilors
for public review and for future review by allowing such to be captured by the public.
92. Defendant Councilors each contend, via a public statement from their attorney, that they
did nothing wrong by texting about public business during a public meeting in a secretive
and deceptive manner. See Interview with News 8 Tulsa on _ _ _ available at:
93. The position of Defendant Councilors is contrary to 25 O.S. § 306 which provides that,
majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any
94. Section 306 applies not just to matters directly being considered but "any action".
95. Without doubt the events of the meeting and the conversations of counselors constitute
96. The texts between the Defendant Councilors regarded a matter of City of Tulsa business
97. The text messages occurred during a meeting "among a majority of the members of a public
99. At 10:30 A.M. on Wednesday, November 17, 2021, Councilor Fowler called to order the
Tulsa City Council Urban and Economic Development Committee Meeting. See Agenda
of November 17, 2021 Tulsa City Council attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
100. Agenda Item No. 16 of that meeting states: "Resolution of the City of Tulsa,
Oklahoma, stating its intention to appropriate American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to
specific programs and projects; providing for additional procedures and conditions of
funding. (Emergency Clause) (Hall-Harper, Cue, Deeter Wright, Lakin). See Id.
101. Present at the meeting were Tulsa City Councilors: Lori Deeter Wright, Kara Joy
McKee, Conny Dodson, Jeannie Cue, Phil Lakin, Jayme Fowler, Mykey Arthrell-Kenezek,
103. During that meeting, and specifically during the discussion of ARP A funding,
Defendant Lori Deeter Wright communicated electronically, and it appears that such
104. The text message communications by Defendant Lori Deeter Wright and former
City Councilor Connie Dodson were caught on camera. See image of Defendant Wright
I 05. This was the first of many meetings of the City Council for the City of Tulsa to
consider ARP A allocations, and at each of those meetings, at least one (I) member of the
107. The actions of Defendants Hall-Harper, Wright and Bellis could, and due to their
willful nature likely will, invalidate years of work of the City Council for the City of Tulsa.
Every action taken at any meeting wherein these councilors violated the Open Meeting Act
108. The text messages by and amongst Defendant Councilors were not done pursuant
109. Section 307.1 of the Open Meetings Act deals with the issue of conducting
110. The videoconference exception to public meetings provides that a public body,
which the City Council constitutes, may conduct a videoconference if, "each member of
the public body is visible and audible to each other and the public through a video monitor
111. Thus, under Section 307 .1 there are two (2) requirements to meet the standards: 1.
There must be both video and audio, and 2. The video and audio must be visible and audible
112. Section 307.1 is not ambiguous, and without both audio and video available to both groups,
113. Defendants failed to meet both requirements of Section 307 .1 in order to engage in
video and audio of those text messages to all other members of the public body. The written
the same as the spoken word for purposes of the act, and the text messages were not
115. Further, the Defendant Councilors failed to meet Section 307.1 exceptions because
the text messages were not available during the meeting to the public as required by the
Act. Future availability is irrelevant under Section 307 .1, and the text messages are the
same as audible speech for purposes of the Act. As such, Defendants failure to provide
them to the public during the public meeting of the public body constitutes a failure to
116. 307.l(C)(S) also requires that, if a public body wants to communicate and meet
electronically, they must ensure that, "Any documents or other materials provided to
members of the public body or shared electronically between members of the public body
available to the public on the website of the public body, if the public body maintains a
118. The Defendants did not make the text messages of the Defendant Councilors
"immediately available," and providing them in response to an Open Record Request does
not constitute making them immediately available because Section 307.1 contemplates
which is the only manner in which electronic communication can take place outside the
direct observance of the public in a public forum during a public meeting, Plaintiff
definitively establishes that Defendants violated the Open Meeting Act by engaging in
communication about a matter of public business outside the only exception to the Act
120. The Open Meeting Act requires a public body maintain written minutes "which
shall be an official summary of the proceedings showing clearly those members present
121. By text messaging during meetings, even if those messages are about matters other
than those of public importance, Defendant Councilors are leaving the meeting, even if
restroom breaks, Section 312 of the Act requires that, when a member is not present during
a break from their attention to the meeting, their absence must be reflected in the minutes.
122. The City of Tulsa and Defendant Councilors failed to document when they were
not present at meetings due to engaging in other business utilizing their cellular telephones
123. Importantly, the Defendants either knew and/or should have known that their
actions constitute a violation because this issue is not one of first impression. The
Oklahoma Attorney General reached a similar conclusion when faced with a question
,-i22 The teleconference exception to the Open Meeting Act also aids in
construing the meaning of presence and absence. "In the interpretation of
statutes, courts do not limit their consideration to a single word or phrase in
isolation to attempt to determine their meaning, but construe together the
various provisions of relevant legislative enactments to ascertain and give
effect to the legislature's intention and will." McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 953
P.2d 329,332 (Okla. 1998).
124. The AG then further analyzed the intention of the Open Meeting Act and found that
presence requires that, "each member of the public body is visible and audible to each other
125. Defendant Councilors during their text messaging were not "visible" to the public,
126. Defendant Councilors during their text messages were not "audible" to the other
members of the Council present which were excluded from the group communication.
127. Defendant Councilors during their text messages were not "audible" to the public
as their messages were secret, despite the fact they admittedly regarded public business.
128. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant Councilors were not "present" at the meeting
when they were text messaging and such communication was not done in accordance with
the Act.
129. As the AG noted, "A member is 'absent' when the member is no longer visible and
audible to the other members and the public. The absence must be reflected in the minutes.
Minutes that report only a commissioner's presence during roll call but do not indicate a
commissioner was absent for portions of the meeting, do not "show clearly those members
present and absent" in compliance with Section 312(A) of the Open Meeting Act. The
same is true in this matter. The Councilors were not Present when communicating via text
messaging during the meeting. Picking up their phones to engage in other matters or
discuss the matters in the room was the same as stepping away to go to the restroom, and
public meeting or whether members of the City Council were "present" or "not present"
because the minutes fail to reflect when councilors engaged in conversations not open to
131. Defendants failed to account for times Councilors were absent from meetings by
attending to other matters during public meetings, and such failure constitutes a failure to
132. Section 312 of the Act also requires that minutes must reflect "all matters
violated the Open Meeting Act because they failed to record and document "all matters
considered" during the public meeting as matters considered via those methods are shielded
from recordation and never make it into the official minutes required by the Act.
134. The Open Meeting Act further requires that, "C. Any person attending a public
meeting may record the proceeding of said meeting by videotape, audiotape or by any other
13 5. The clear purpose of allowing recordation via video and audio is to allow the public
to capture all that occurs at the public meeting and the events which transpired during said
meeting.
136. By communicating via text messaging, Defendants violated§ 312(C) because they
did not allow the public to record those communications as mandated by the Act.
communications of councilors during public meetings, the City of Tulsa and the Defendant
Councilors failed to disclose "all matters considered" as some matters were clearly
138. Defendant Councilors via Facebook and their attorney mock their violations of the
Open Meeting Act arguing that their actions were trivial and of no consequence. Because
139. Defendants mistakenly believe that willful intent is required to violate the Open
140. Even if willful intent was required, like it is when seeking to declare an action taken
in such a meeting invalid, text messaging amongst members of the Tulsa City Council,
during a public meeting, constitutes a "willful violation" of the Open Meeting Act.
141. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals addressed the issue of willfulness, and in
doing so, they provide this Court ample guidance to conclude that the Defendants' actions
Appellees, though, urge us to give no effect to the violations in the case at hand.
They argue that the Open Meeting Act, with its "fitfull and confused history," is
"inflexible" and "unfortunate," and that it was no wonder these school boards,
acting within the Act's first year, found it "unfamiliar and obscure." They argue that
the violations, which they call mere "irregularities," were not "significant" or
"material" and that they substantially complied with the Act. They argue that the
annexation should not be invalidated because, as it turned out, a bare majority of
the voters approved it. And, they argue that the violations were not willful because
they meant no harm and were simply trying, in good faith, to do the right thing for
the schoolchildren.
142. The Court further importantly directed that, "Appellees' argument that the
follow the dictates of the majority. Rather, as stated in§ 302, it is meant to 'encourage and
143. Any action by the City of Tulsa and/or the City Council of the City of Tulsa to,
after the fact, "ratify" or otherwise approve prior decisions made in violation of the Act
will not cure the defects, and it most certainly will not "breathe life" into the prior bad acts
144. As further noted by Attorney General Opinion, "The goal of the Oklahoma
Legislature in enacting the Open Meeting Act was not simply to prevent or punish
deliberate violations, but to restore sadly sagging public confidence in government, a goal
noncompliance resulted from evil motives. Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, Etc.,
145. In that opinion, the Attorney General found that, "it is clear that, when members of
a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body,
regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the
discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act." Id.
146. Members of the City Council for the City of Tulsa, regularly, and as a matter of
habit and practice, communicate with one another via telephone calls, emails, and text
messages on a near daily basis for the purposes of informally discussing matters impacting
148. All matters discussed by any member of the City Council with any other member,
are subject to the Open Meeting Act if such issue impacted the public body.
149. Every conversation had by a member of the Tulsa City Council with another
member of the City Council outside a public meeting, which is about a matter of public
150. The actions of the Defendant Councilors were done in the course of their roles as
elected members of the City Council for the City of Tulsa and their employment with the
City of Tulsa and with the express direction and consent of the City of Tulsa. As such,
City of Tulsa is jointly and severally liable for all acts of their agents done under color of
151. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment in accordance with the Open Meetings Act and
(d) Violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act by failing to capture all
Councilors
153. Pursuant to the aforementioned facts and allegations, Plaintiffs are further entitled
(a) all actions at any City Council meeting of the City of Tulsa are invalid
if, during at any point of that public meeting, any member of the Tulsa
meeting, constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Act, and all actions
(c) all actions at any City Council meeting of the City of Tulsa are invalid
if, during at any point of that public meeting, any member of the Tulsa
154. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 141 of this Petition as if fully
155. Plaintiff seeks entry of a permanent injunction compelling the Defendants to refrain
from conducting any further public meetings or hearings until the violations of the
Oklahoma may enjoy the activities authorized by 25 O.S. §§ 301 et seq. In order to
facilitate the presence of Defendants at said hearing, Plaintiff requests that this Court set
158. No adequate remedy at law exists for Plaintiff to remedy the harm done by the
permanent and irreparable injury in the absence of the requested injunctive relief. Indeed,
the public has already been previously subjected to said harm by Defendants.
160. The interests of the public are served by the issuance of injunctive relief, as the
injunctions sought would prevent future actions taken by the named Defendants that exceed
their authority and violate the public's right to know and participate in the law-making
161. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction ordering the Defendants to: invalidate
all measures, resolutions, votes and other action taken by the City Council for the City of
Tulsa at any meeting or about any subject in which any member of the Tulsa City Council
violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, refrain from initiating any future public
meetings or hearings under the Open Meeting Act without prior approval of the Court,
provide training and staff to their agents and/or employees, specifically members of the
Tulsa City Council, about the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and Oklahoma Open Record
Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment against all Defendants in their
(c) Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney's fees incurred herein; and
(d) Such other relief as this Court deems proper under law and equity.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED
Respectfully submitted,
Persons who require o spedol oc:commodotlon to portldpote In this meeting should contoc:t
Sec:retory to the Tulsa Oty c:aunc/1 Lori Doring, 1.15 East Sec:ond Street, Fourth Floor, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 91.8-596-1.990 or via Emo/I: /[email protected], as for In advance os possible
ond preferably at least 48-hours before the date of the meeting. Persons using o TOO may contact
OKLAHOMA RELAY ot l-800-122-0353 ond volc:e coils should be mode to 1.-800-522-8506 to
communlc:ote vfo telephone with hearing telephone users ond vice verso.
1. Call to Order.
I
I
. -
·. . RIDICULOUS
~ ( .' ,
11 :43 AM
OJ
11 :42 AM
11 :42 AM
11 :43 AM
19:58
Ir, Re: Vanessa Hol~Horper. Lori Deeter Wright. and Louro 3e!lis
I represent Vanessa HoU•Harper. Lori Deeter Wright end Louro 8e\lis. individuotly, nol in
rheir capacity as City Councilors. It hos come lo !heir attention that you hove been
threatening to sue them personally. If you file legal action, I om authorized to occapt
service on their beho!!.
My office Is locoteo o'. 1408 S. De1ver A-1e .. Turso. Ok!onomo. If I om net ovoiloble. the
process server may serve my ossistor.t. My assistant is in the of.ice Monday through Friday
from noon until 5:00 p.m.
CEASE & DESIST all communications (social media Or>d olherwiseJ stating that Holl-'iorcer.
Deeter Wright end/or SeI1is hove violated the Open Meelings and/or Open Records Act.
Further, remove oil references in oriy pubac postings of violations. The requested text
message was deilvered. !here hos been no finding of vl:ilotion of either Act. Your
assertions !hot there wos a vio:otion ~ not only ur.trvthfut. tt is also defomclory ond
libelous.
The practice of text message use hos beer. in effect. even during reg-itor City Courca
meeiings. This Is tne first t'me the issue of text messaging hos been brought forward and
apparently: this is the firs: time this hos been a point of contention. Since you ore a
member of the City C01mcu. r suggest that CouncU policies be modernized. Digi;ol
communication Is how tnings ore communicated. There ore many options to ovoid vcur
cor.cems over tcx1 messaging 11) the ru1ure. tor exomple. the Council coufd use Microsoft
Teams. There ore o number of other 1ex• oppticolio:'\S that wculd sollsfy the Open
Meetings and Open Records statutes so that individual members would not hove to tun
over the;, personal devices for scrutiny - even for insignificant communicotions
concerning lhei• opinion of anothe• member of the ovbllc body.
There is no violation of o statute until o CoJrt dete:mines there r:os been a violation. Your
posts on socicr media concerning my clients ore not only in orrect. defomolOfY and
7
libelous; you hove sought to Intimidate using threors of o lawsuit. r suggest tho! you l~k
at both the Open Meetings Act o~d the Open Records Act. _Any findi~gs of a vlolofion
of the act requires "wiUfutness" on the pcriy alleged to hove violated either Act.
tr. addition. You mlghr to<e note that 51 OS§ 24A.9 olows for o pubfic official to keep
oonfidenliol her or his personal notes and personally c,eoted motertols.
Should you bring suit, 1wiU reqvest oltorney fees. , charge $4-.."0 on hour for this type of
wort. 1suggest that you purer.me the OJsiohomo Qoeo Meerlng & Open Records Bool;
from the Oklahoma Pre,s Association.
If yOL hove on oitorr.ey, please odv.se so that I con commun,co•e directly wi!h her or
him.
s:ncere:y,
EXHIBIT
I l
cc: Vanessa rial:-.'icroer
Lori Deeter Wrig ..
'-··-- .
"_, _
Law Office of
JLAlU[ J~ ][ E ]Pl ]H[ ]( ]L ]L ]( JP>§ PC
Confirmation of Delivery
1408 S. Denver Receipt No.
Tulsa, OK 74 I 19
918.587.8800 Offi"cr
866.436.0304 fi'-~
Viridian [email protected]
Ronald Durbin, II [email protected]
1602 S. Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74119-4410
I represent Vanessa Hall-Harper, Lori Deeter Wright, and Laura Bellis, individually, not as
City Councilors. Ms. Harper did not admit to violating the Open Meetings Act. Your post
on Facebook yesterday that there was admission of violation is incorrect and
defamatory. Your other statements on social media concerning Deeter Wright and Bellis
are likewise incorrect.
CEASE & DESIST: All communications (social media and otherwise) stating that Hall-
Harper, Deeter Wright and/or Bellis have violated the Open Meetings and/or Open
Records Act. Further, remove all references in any public postings of violations. The
requested text message was delivered. There has been no finding of violation of either
Act. Your assertions that there was a violation is not on1y untruthful, it is also defamatory
and libelous.
"[5]A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both
in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal
affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate
purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should
demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it,
including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's
duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also
a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process. [emphasis added]
[6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access
to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service
rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a
lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients.
employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal
education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public's understanding
of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal
institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation
and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of
deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor,
and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal
assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time or
resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of
justice for all those who because of ecoromic or social barriers cannot
afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal
profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate
itself in the public interest."
There is no violation of a statute until a Court determines there has been a violation. Your
posts on social media concerning my clients are not only incorrect, defamatory and
libelous; you have sought to intimidate using threats of a lawsuit. I suggest that you look
at both the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. Any findings of a violation
of the act requires "willfulness" on the party alleged to have violated either Act.
In addition, you might toke note that 51 OS § 24A.9 allows for a public official to keep
confidential her or his personal notes and personally created materials.
Should you bring suit, I will accept service on behalf of Hall-Harper, Deeter Wright and
Bellis. If I am not in the office, my assistant is authorized to accept service. My assistant is
in the office from noon until 5:00 p.m. You should be aware. that if you do file suite. I will
request attorney fees. I charge $450 an hour for this type of work. I suggest that you
purchase the Oklahoma Open Meeting & Open Records Book from the Oklahoma Press
Association.
Sincerely,
~?~
Laurie Phillips
3 of 3 ance amandina the llscal year 2021-2022 bud&et ta make 111pplemental -,iprfations of
htlnmd ei&hty-seven thOIISlnd, ~ dollar,, ($387,099.IIO) fnlm die US
Oepanment of Justice ta be ncelved wllhln the JAG Reimbursement Granis Subfund. [UED
11/17/21; CC 11/17/21; CC lZ/1/21)
U. Ordinance amendln1 the fiscal year 2021•2022 budgot ta make 111pplemental approprialfons of
forty lhousand doGzr,, ($40,000.00) from ll"'nt reven•os to be IK<lfved within the Non-Grant
Miscellaneous Spedzl Ra..n.. Fund. [UED 11/17/21; CC 11/17/21;CC lZ/1/21)
14. Rosollltlon requostln& that the lndwi Nations Collna1 of Governments (INCOGJ proeram the
p•rcl,ase of ten (101 electrfc vehicles and ISSOdated ch•'lfna llatlons ta n,place f,ve (SI
psollne-fuelednhiclos ror die Qty otT•lsa AsNc "'"-ment0eparlm81Und live ISi
psollne-f.eled vehicles lorlhe Qty of T•lsa Information ToduloJoay Deportment Into the
Transportatlonl-entPr.,.,amfottheTulsaTl'IIISPOrtltfonMlnqementArea;
requesting that the Oklahoma Transportatfon Commission OIHl<Ul' In the -rammlna. [UEO
11/17/21; CC ll/1/211
15. Resolution n,quostJna that the Indian Nations Ccundl of Gowmments (INCOGI PfOllram the
p•rchaso of twelve (121 electric: vehicles and associated chltllnl stadons to n,place IWelve (121
psollne-lveled vehkles for lhe City of Tulsa Enalnearfnc 5eNlces Department Into the
Transportation lmp,ovement Proeram fat the Twa Transpomtfon M&nqement Area;
requesting that the Oklahoma Transportallon CommlUlon concur In the pt0ttlfflmln11, (UEO
11/17/21; CC ll/1/211
16 R....,luttnn nf t"'-' Oty ol Tulsa. Oklahoma, Slating Its Intention to appropriate Amencan Rescue
Plan Act CARPAi funds to spedflc pqramund profecn; pro.kl'a,1 for additional procedwres and
condillons ol fundlnc- lEmersency Clause) (HaU-Harpar, Cue, Deeter Wrfgh~ uklnl (UED
11/17/21; CC 11/17/211
18. Adjournment.
EXHIBIT
Q cityoftulsa.org - Private
I f