Out of Order Between Meetings? Meeker's New Decorum Rules Get an Early Test

By Market Meeker · August 18, 2026 · Community

Editor's note: This article examines the Aug. 17 incident through Meeker's recently adopted meeting-decorum rules and general open-government and First Amendment principles. Market Meeker is not a law firm, and this is not legal advice.

Less than a month after Meeker adopted new rules governing conduct at public meetings, an exchange at City Hall raised a practical question:

Can someone be “out of order” when no meeting is actually in session?

There were two confrontations Monday night, but the one in which Town Administrator Jeff Wilbourn appeared to flex his authority occurred between meetings. The confrontation followed the Board's decision to discipline Police Chief Trent Norton, but take no disciplinary action against Officer Walters, over the June 24 incident involving a service firearm left inside the Meeker Public Library.

Meeker's New Decorum Ordinance

On July 20, trustees approved Ordinance 26-27-01.

The posted agenda described the ordinance as prohibiting “disruptive, threatening, abusive, or disorderly conduct during public meetings and while conducting business with the Town.” It also authorized removal of people who “substantially disrupt official proceedings.”

Those words became relevant Monday night.

A Dispute Over Executive Session

The Aug. 17 agenda authorized trustees to consider an executive session under 25 O.S. §307(B)(1) concerning possible discipline of Officer Walters and Chief Norton over the June 24 firearm incident.

Trustees initially voted against executive session, then reconsidered and voted to enter one.

After the vote, Mayor Donna Weber invited Town Administrator Jeff Wilbourn, Town Attorney James Hodgens and Town Clerk Kimberly Haynes into the closed session.

Durbin immediately objected:

“Wait. Do we have people join executive session? I'd like to file a police report about violation of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act...”

He continued:

“If you have anybody back there that's not on that agenda, I'm going to file charges.”

The three were not identified as participants on the agenda. Their presence alone does not establish an Open Meeting Act violation; non-board personnel may participate in an executive session under appropriate circumstances. The unanswered question is what role each played and whether that participation was connected to the personnel matter authorized for closed discussion.

The recording cannot answer what happened behind the closed door.

Norton Disciplined; No Action Against Walters

The Board returned to open session at approximately 7:25 p.m.

After considerable discussion over wording, trustees approved placing a written disciplinary warning in Norton's file concerning a “safety incident.” The word “serious” was proposed and then removed.

Trustees then voted separately to take no action against Walters.

The stated reasoning:

“No action on Officer Walters. He's in training.”

The Board meeting then adjourned at approximately 7:31 p.m.

The Public Works Authority meeting had not yet begun.

That was when Durbin spoke.

“That's Absurd.”

Durbin criticized the Board's decision:

“A trainee making a mistake is not something you punish a chief for. That makes no sense. You admitted he's in training.”

He argued that additional training would have been a more appropriate response:

“What you should have done is directed retraining or advanced training on that particular issue... That's absurd.”

Durbin was speaking loudly, but his comments were directed at the decision. His initial criticism contained no profanity or personal attacks.

Then Town Administrator Jeff Wilbourn left his chair, approached Mayor Weber and told her to declare Durbin out of order.

Weber did so.

Durbin responded:

“I can talk all I want to, Donna. We're not in a session.”

The Exchange Escalates

During the exchange, Weber gestured toward Assistant Chief Scott Wilson and then pointed toward Durbin.

Durbin challenged what he understood as an effort to involve Wilson:

“He's not going to take your order. He doesn't work for you... You can't direct your police officer.”

Then:

“You're on a break. You're on a break. She can't direct him to do a damn thing.”

It was at this point that Durbin's language became profane and more confrontational.

He dared officials to remove him and referenced a potential federal civil-rights case.

But he also repeatedly returned to the same argument:

“I'm not interrupting your meeting. I waited till your meeting was over.”

Police Chief Trent Norton, who was present in full uniform and had been participating in the evening in his capacity as police chief, attempted to de-escalate the exchange.

Durbin responded:

“When they come back into a meeting, I'll stop talking.”

And then:

“The minute that they gavel it back in, I shut up.”

The PWA meeting began shortly afterward.

Durbin stopped.

The Timing Is the Question

Despite references in the room to a “break” or “recess,” the agendas and recording show two separate proceedings.

The Board of Trustees meeting had adjourned.

The PWA meeting had not begun.

Meeker's newly adopted ordinance authorizes removal of people who “substantially disrupt official proceedings.”

At the moment Durbin was first declared out of order, what official proceeding was he disrupting?

That doesn't mean anything goes inside City Hall between meetings. Generally applicable laws and lawful facility rules still apply.

But the chronology shouldn't be reversed.

Durbin did not begin by shouting profanity or personally attacking officials. He began by criticizing the Board's decision after the meeting had adjourned.

He was then declared out of order.

Weber gestured toward Wilson and pointed toward Durbin.

Durbin challenged her authority, and the confrontation escalated.

When the next meeting began, he stopped.

Government may regulate actual disruption of its proceedings. Criticism of government, even loud or uncomfortable criticism, is a different matter.

Meeker adopted its new decorum rules to establish boundaries for public conduct.

Monday night's exchange raises the other half of that equation:

Where does the Town's meeting-decorum authority end when the meeting does?

If we have any attorneys in our audience who want to weigh in on the legal questions raised here, we’d welcome your analysis.