State House buries effort to weaken government transparency provisions

By Patrick B. McGuigan, www.capitolbeatok.com

Legislative allies of advocates for openness government operations turned back an attempt to weaken Oklahoma’s transparency provisions.

House Bill 1559, by Republican state Rep. Fred Jordan of Jenks, was buried this week when the state House rejected the conference committee report (CCR) 64-35. (Two members did not vote.)

Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association (OPA) said Jordan told him he was “through with the bill and would not be bringing it back up this session.” The bill would have expanded attorney-client privilege provisions for public bodies and, Thomas told CapitolBeatOK, would have devolved decisions over privilege decisions to attorneys rather than judges.

Thomas and other observers credited state Rep. Harold Wright, a Weatherford Republican, for passionate debate against the measure as “bad public policy.” Thomas was unstinting in his praise of Rep. Wright, telling members of the OPA, “As a former mayor, member of the news media [radio station owner] and as an elected representative, Rep. Wright clearly understood the impact of this legislation.”

When debate on the proposal began, state Rep. Don Armes of Faxon was presiding officer in the chair at the front of the House chamber – and thereby addressed throughout the joust as “Mr. Speaker.”

Just before questions and debate on the bill commenced, Rep. Armes said to Jordan, the sponsor, “A lot of people want to whack this piñata.”

As more than a dozen legislators lined up to pose questions, most of them clearly indicating opposition, Rep. Jordan good naturedly played along with the dynamic, saying to some questioners, “OK, representative, now you’ve got the stick.”

Many points against the bill were made seriously, including the comments of state Rep. Jason Nelson, an Oklahoma City Republican, that he was not inclined to give the Tulsa Public School administration more ability to claim attorney-client privilege. Nelson noted he had been seeking information from the district for months and was still not satisfied with the system’s responsiveness.

State Rep. Mike Reynolds, in floor discussion with Jordan, said that when debate began he was 95% against the proposal, but as it progressed, he was more inclined to be 95% in favor. As Reynolds finished that comment, an unknown speaker, his voice amplified on the House floor was overheard to mutter, “It’s going down.”

Others participating in debate and questioning included Republican Reps. Mike Ritze of Broken Arrow, John Bennett of Sallisaw, Randy Grau of Edmond, Pat Owenby of Ardmore, Aaron Stiles of Norman, and Mark McCullough of Sapulpa; and House Democratic Leader Scott Inman of Del City.

Most of the group that spoke up on the floor broke against the bill, voting may, but Reps. Stiles and Grau backed it. Despite his “95 percent” comments, Rep. Reynolds voted with the majority against the bill.

Thomas told CapitolBeatOK, “This legislation caused much confusion because the entire section of that statute is poorly worded. Supporters of the legislation have promised to try and simplify and clarify the entire section of law in future legislative sessions.”

He continued, “This vote makes it clear the House of Representatives does not want to expand attorney-client privilege for public bodies unless there is clear and convincing reasons to do so, and they do not want to pass a law where the practical application and implications of this bill are not clearly understood. We commend the House for taking this stand on behalf of the taxpayers.”

The bill was favored by the Oklahoma Municipal League and the Tulsa Public Schools, an alliance that presented a daunting challenge to prevent erosion of access to public records.

In a discussion with CapitolBeatOK, Thomas had previously explained, “Current law limits their privilege to pending litigation and investigations when the court has ruled they can keep those communications confidential.”

In the end, that legal status quo remained in place as a result of the House vote on Tuesday (May 17). Because the vote was actually on the conference report and not “fourth reading” (final passage), Rep. Jordan could bring the measure back in the 2012 legislative session, but he indicated to Thomas and others that is unlikely.

Speaker Steele Names Investigatory Committee Members

Speaker Kris Steele

House Speaker Kris Steele today announced the eight members of the special bipartisan committee that will investigate the allegations that led to state Rep. Randy Terrill being charged with felony bribery.

“The lawmakers who have agreed to serve on the committee are well-respected members of this body with the ability to undertake a task of this significance,” said Steele, R-Shawnee. “I am confident they will conduct a thorough review that complies with the rule of law, respects the rights of the accused, and fulfills our duty to the public, and then reach an appropriate conclusion based only on the facts of the case.”

The committee’s makeup is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

State Rep. Fred Jordan, R-Jenks, will chair the committee. Jordan is a former Marine Corps Judge Advocate and attorney who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

State Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Pryor and an attorney, will serve as vice-chair.

The other six members of the committee are:

• State Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City
• State Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove
• State Rep. Steve Kouplen, D-Beggs
• State Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa
• State Rep. Harold Wright, R-Weatherford
•State Rep. Purcy Walker, D-Elk City

The committee met briefly Monday morning to adopt the rules that will govern the investigatory process. The group is charged with gathering evidence and ultimately making a recommendation to the full House if the Committee finds sufficient evidence exists that the legislator in question “has engaged in conduct which impairs the ability of the member to perform the duties of his or her office, or substantially impairs public confidence in the Legislature.”

Under the rules adopted, the committee members cannot discuss the investigation while it is ongoing to protect the member under investigation and all witnesses, as well as to protect the integrity of the process.

However, all the group’s findings and recommendation will be released to the public.

The rules adopted call for a multi-part process.

In the first phase, the committee or its counsel will conduct an investigation and gather evidence. Upon completion of the gathering process, all information will be provided to members of the committee.

At that point, committee members will determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant additional proceedings. If so, a written report outlining the evidence will then be provided to the member under investigation, who will then have 14 days to respond in writing and to request an opportunity to present additional evidence.

At the conclusion of that process, the committee will vote on whether or not to recommend disciplinary action to the full body of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

Throughout the process, the committee will have subpoena power to compel witness testimony and production of documentary evidence.

“The committee process has been designed to maintain decorum and gather information in a forthright and orderly fashion,” Jordan said. “While this committee is not conducting a criminal investigation, the decisions reached could still have lifelong implications for one of our colleagues, and this task will be treated with the seriousness a decision of that magnitude deserves.”

Upon completion of its work, the committee will submit a report of its findings to the House, which will be filed in the chief clerk’s office. The report will be made available to the public.

“The public has a right to know how a decision was reached and why, and the report will provide those answers at the appropriate time,” Jordan said.

The final decision would then be left up to the full membership of the Oklahoma House of Representatives during a floor session.