On November 1, 2005, a law requiring training for first-time elected or appointed municipal officers took effect. Since then the law has been amended three (3) times. Failure to comply with the mandated training results in the elected or appointed official ceasing to hold office beginning at the next scheduled meeting of the governing body following the first-year anniversary of the person taking office. 11 O.S. §8-114.A provides that:
Each person elected or appointed for the first time as an officer of a municipality as defined by paragraph 6 of Section 1-102 of this title, shall be required within one (1) year after taking the oath of office to attend an institute for municipal officials.
As a general rule, the Oklahoma Municipal League and other municipal organizations are very good about informing newly elected officials about this statutory requirement. However, a legal representative of a City or Town should be aware of this requirement and should remind elected and appointed officials of the city of town being represented of this statutory requirement.
Municipal Officer is defined in 11 O.S. §1-102. Subsection 6 provides in pertinent part:
“Officer or official” means any person who is elected to an office in municipal government or is appointed to fill an unexpired term of an elected office, and the clerk and the treasurer whether elected or appointed.
The newly-elected officials training was discussed briefly in the Court of Civil Appeals case of Riding In v. Cheatham, 2007 OK CIV APP 102. In Riding In, the Plaintiff/Appellant, was informed in writing by the Pawnee City Attorney that he would cease to hold office on Monday, May 1, 2006, at the Call to Order of the Council Meeting because he failed to attend and successfully complete the “Institute for Municipal Officers” within one year of taking the oath of office. ¶3 Cheatham, the Defendant/Appellee, took his oath of office for the position formerly held by Riding In on September 18, 2006. Riding In filing suit contesting the title to office on December 7, 2006. The action was filed pursuant to 12 O.S. §1531, a special statute providing a process with which to contest title to public office.
Cheatham’s Motion to Dismiss was granted. ¶1 The Court of Appeals held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this matter because it was filed more than 30 days after Cheatham was inducted into office. ¶7 Although the Court did not specifically apply the training requirement to its ultimate decision, it was the failure to timely satisfy the training requirement that initially resulted in a consideration of vacancy of the office that culminated in Cheatham being “inducted” into the position. The Riding In case serves as a reminder that the training provisions are important and both attorneys and Clerks for the City or Town should be vigilant in encouraging the affected official satisfy these statutory training requirements .