Public Access Counselor Complaint No. 2025-28

Via email

The City of Oklahoma City
c/o    Richard Mahoney, Assistant Municipal Counselor
         (richard.mahoney@okc.gov)

Re: Public Access Counselor Advisement – Complaint No. 2025-28

Dear Counsel,

This is an official advisement regarding the above-referenced complaint (“Complaint”) submitted to this office pursuant to 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40. The Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) received the Complaint on August 14, 2025 from Nick Tran, a private citizen. The Complaint alleges that the City of Oklahoma City (“City”) improperly withheld personal information (name, email, phone number and address) from its response to Mr. Tran’s request under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (“ORA”).

Per the terms of 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40(F), I conducted an initial review and determined the Complaint warranted a response from the City. In its response the City acknowledged Tran’s requests and released nonconfidential documents, but claimed that 51 O.S.2021, § 24A.14, along with supporting legal precedent, permits a public body to withhold public access to personal communications from a person exercising a constitutional right.

Upon review of the records provided by the City and consideration of the City’s response, I have determined the following:

1. Mr. Tran sought records regarding complaints to the City about compliance with municipal codes at a particular property. The City is a public body vested with the power to redress grievances through its statutory authority and municipal code enforcement. See generally OKLA. CONST. art. II, § 3 (acknowledging the right of the people “to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition, address, or remonstrance.”).
2. The ORA permits a public body to keep as confidential communications received “from a person exercising rights secured” by the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitutions. 51 O.S.2021, § 24A.14. The only information that must be released regarding such communications is (1) acknowledgment of receipt, and (2) whether the communication “is or is not a complaint.” Id. However, if the public body responded in writing to the communication, the response “may be kept confidential only to the extent necessary to protect the identity of the person exercising the right.” Id.
3. The communications sought by Mr. Tran involve communications with a public body seeking a redress of grievances. See 1988 OK AG 87, ¶ 14, 1988 OK AG 79, ¶¶ 8-24. See also Meyer v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 482 F.3d 1232, 1244 (10th Cir. 2007). As such, they are subject to the limitations set forth in 51 O.S.2021, § 24A.14.

Based on the information available to me at this time, I conclude that the City has a good-faith legal basis to deny access to the specific personal information identifiers referenced in the Complaint. Under 51 O.S.Supp.2025, § 24A.40(G), no further response is required. If you have any follow up questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (405) 522-2771 or by email at opengov@oag.ok.gov.

Sincerely,

Anthony Sykes
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Counselor

cc: Nick Tran (via email)