Mayor Cindy Rosenthal said Thursday that she had not violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Records Act by securing commitments before Tuesday's council meeting to vote a certain way on an issue on which she had tried to craft a compromise.

An e-mail to several citizens said she talked with councilmembers "to get a sense of the opinions."

"I think that the e-mail describes the process of trying to keep members informed and to gain feedback, not an attempt to garner commitments to vote a certain way. I think that's the clear language of that e-mail and that is in fact what the process was," Rosenthal said in a cell phone interview Thursday.

She said she had never asked any councilmember to "promise" their vote.

"I have never asked any member to promise to vote one way or the other. I've perceived my role on this and on other issues to keep members informed, to check the pulse of council ... that's what mayors do and that's pretty clearly reflective in that," Rosenthal said. "No, they did not use the term that they had promised their vote. Both of them used the term 'commitment to the mayor.' But obviously, I did not ask any member to promise to vote one way or another."

City council votes are required to be taken in public meetings, according to the act.

Retired attorney Lawrence Edmison, former general counsel to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, challenged the pre-meeting commitments as being a violation of the act. He cited a 1981 Oklahoma Attorney General's opinion.

"No informal gatherings or electronic or telephonic communications among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter," Edmison said, quoting the act.

The AG opinion read: "Permitting a single member of the governing body to obtain a consensus or vote of that body by privately meeting alone with each member, would be to condone decision making by public bodies in secret, which is the very evil against which the Open Meeting Act is directed."

"Promise" was the language that outgoing Ward 2 councilmember Richard Stawicki used at the June 24 council meeting in a discussion about whether council wanted to reduce reallocation of University North Park Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 funds by $8.75 million or split it in half and reduce it by $4.375 million.

In a review of a recording of the June 24 council meeting, Stawicki used the words "promise" and "agreement" in referring to his commitment to the mayor as he wrestled with going back on the word he had given.

Stawicki told the mayor that he would be happy to take the entire amount off the table.

"My preference is to take it all off the table, but even taking it half off the table is better than none, and so I tentatively agreed for purposes of going forward that we at least reduce it by $4.375 million." Stawicki said.

He turned to Ward 1 councilmember Bob Thompson who had offered an amendment to take the entire $8.75 million out of the UNP TIF, from the leftover proceeds from the City not purchasing the conference center for $16.5 million. Council already had voted to use $7.75 million of the funds for the City's portion of building a Rock Creek bridge over Interstate 35.

"Look Bob, I would really prefer to see all the money taken off the table," Stawicki said. "No I'm not going to vote for (Bob's) amendment tonight because I made a promise to the mayor that I would compromise on this half mark."

But as Stawicki anguished as he spoke from the council dais, he shifted away from his "promise" to the mayor.

He said that no matter how the vote went, he would go to the UNP TIF statutory committee and talk to them about taking the entire amount off the table.

"My saying that I was going to not vote for the amendment doesn't feel right. I'm sorry, mayor, but I have to renege on my agreement that half would be OK and vote for Bob's amendment. That's the only thing that feels right to me," Stawicki said.

Another councilmember said in an e-mail to one of his constituents that he had promised the mayor his vote on the compromise and therefore couldn't vote for Thompson's amendment.

City Attorney Jeff Bryant said he had considered the facts of the e-mails and comments and does not believe they represent a violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Records Act.

"We feel pretty comfortable that there was no violation of the Open Meeting Act under these facts," Bryant said. "That these are pretty fact specific is really kind of underscored by one of the pieces of authority that Mr. Edmison cited. That was that AG opinion that came out in the '80s and that was the circumstance where a mayor had gone around to each council member and asked them to sign commitments that they then brought to the council meeting and were going to use as a substitute for a public vote. That was an extreme example, which in our opinion from a factual perspective from what was presented to us regarding the Norman City Council was pretty vastly different."

Rosenthal said the 4-5 vote that defeated Thompson's amendment showed there were no commitments. Councilmembers Thompson, Stawicki, Carol Dillingham and Doug Cubberley voted for the amendment, with Rosenthal, Hal Ezzell, Rachel Butler, David Hopper and Dan Quinn voting to defeat it.

"The vote itself on June 24 indicates that the process of seeking input and feedback in conversation did not have a bearing on the ultimate vote. So that is not securing commitments, promises," she said.

Rosenthal said council had decided to make the process of what to do with the leftover funds transparent.

"I would just like to emphasize that this has been a very open, actually more open than we were advised by our own legal counsel and outside counsel process. The indication that we would go this whole TIF statutory route and have it reviewed, that was not required according to our attorney and three outside counsel," she said.

The statutory review committee met Tuesday afternoon and could not agree on what to do with the leftover funds. They did agree to support spending $7.75 million on the Rock Creek overpass.

"Statute requires two public hearings when it comes back. But we didn't have to do it this way," Rosenthal said.

Edmison requested a revote of the amendment, which is the legal remedy prescribed by the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. Willful violations can result in a fine or up to a year in prison.

Rosenthal said she doesn't believe a revote is necessary, since she doesn't believe there was any violation.

Edmison also requested council sponsor a study session by attorneys from the Oklahoma Municipal League in council chambers where it could be broadcast on Cox Cable Channel 20, the city access channel.

"If there is a sense of council that they would like to do that," Rosenthal said. "But we have an active study session agenda."

Carol Cole-Frowe 366-3538 ccole@normantranscript.com