Norman city attorneys completely clueless?

Last week, The Oklahoman did several stories about sunshine laws and open records law in Oklahoma and featured a big story on how reporter Ryan McNeill tried to get information from the City of Norman and was told they would have to pay $560 for copies of PUBLIC records. Well, in today's Oklahoman editorial, Norman's city attorneys get the smackdown. Check it out ...

Oklahoman Editorial
Posted: March 20, 2007

SEEMS one of our news reporters struck a nerve with the good folks in Norman, with a story about how officials there had placed a $560 price tag on public records The Oklahoman is seeking. That cost, we were told, was to cover the writing of a special computer program that would be needed to provide the data sought.
The day after the story appeared, the reporter, Ryan McNeill, got a phone call from the Norman city attorney's office during which McNeill asked whether anyone had changed their minds about the records, given that the attorney general's office had come down on the side of the newspaper. The short answer: No (although they did lower their price to $240).
But during the 20-minute conversation, it became clear that the attorneys involved in the conference call don't seem to have a firm grasp of the Oklahoma Open Records Act. Perhaps more to the point, they don't like looking bad in the newspaper.
Referring to a previous meeting involving McNeill and assistant city attorneys regarding the open records request (which was first made nearly a year ago, by the way), Assistant City Attorney Rick Knighton said, "At what point in time during that meeting did you say, ‘I want this information to do a statistical analysis of metro crime?' You never said that.”
McNeill, incredulous because reporters aren't required to disclose why they're requesting information, replied: "Am I supposed to?”
Knighton (Yelling): "If you want us to treat you like a professional, if you want us to believe that you're not just down here b.s.ing us, yeah, I think you do need to say that. I don't have time to screw around with playing games with regard to ‘We want this information and I'm going to come down and I'm going to tell you that it's for one reason' when in fact it's for some totally different reason that you're going to print in the newspaper.”
Oh.
Later on, another assistant city attorney, Susan Rogers, chimed in to McNeill that she was a journalism major in college and "I've been very disappointed with how you've reacted to this.” She accused McNeill, of making it a habit to bully people — "We checked around” — and said that if the relationship between him and the office were to be repaired, it would require a good-faith effort on his part. The former journalism major even had a suggestion.
(Get a load of this final quote. It's priceless!)
"What I want you to say is if we decide to do something of our own good will, not because we're required to or you bullied us, that you will write some sort of retraction or something that is positive.”
Sure hope she's not holding her breath.