Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett suggested again Tuesday he will not step down over the allegations he drunkenly groped a man at a national conference in Minnesota, prompting at least one speaker during the commission’s meeting to call him a “sexual predator” to his face. Another called him a “drunkard.”
The latest round of fiery accusations and discussion came as Commissioner Bob Anthony raised the issue of the agency moving forward with an independent investigation of the June incident that happened in Minneapolis where Hiett attended a convention.
Before Anthony started the discussion, Hiett fired off his own accusations against Commissioner Anthony.
“As someone who has dedicated his life to public service, I firmly believe that all investigations should be fair and follow the law – not be derailed by the raging manifestos of one commissioner with personal vendettas,” stated Hiett, adding, “Sadly, this is not the first time that Commissioner Anthony has placed himself above the proper process of this commission, engaged in frivolous appeals of decisions that don’t go his way, and sought to take down other elected officials when he disagrees with a legitimate outcome of an OCC proceeding.”
He accused Anthony of displaying a pattern of overzealously making wild accusations first, without regard for the facts and the reputation of the people affected.
“I regret that we have to consume the public’s time on this because of my alcohol dependency, but the commission should take into account Commissioner Anthony’s long record of bitter and vengeful dissatisfaction while charting its path forward.”
Following Hiett’s accusations, Commissioner Anthony presented the testimony and comments of four individuals who all called for Hiett to resign and accused him of being not only an alcoholic but a sexual predator.
Jess Eddy, a former aide to former University of Oklahoma President David Boren who accused Boren of sexual battery in 2019, spoke to the commissioners and recounted what happened to him and how it “wrecked” his life.
“We have witnessed the tip of the iceberg,” said Eddy in referring to the allegations that Hiett groped a man at a hotel bar, an incident witnessed by others.
He chastized Hiett for “digging in your heels” and refusing to resign.
“There should be consequences. You know it. Stepping down as chairman wasn’t enough.”
Eddy was followed by Christine Riley, a realtor from Eufaula who recounted how her friend was killed while riding on the back of a motorcycle driven by former legislator Dan Kirby. She said Kirby was a known alcoholic, much like Hiett.
“Things need to change—there has to be accountability. “Not all politicians are bad,” Riley concluded, “but they all become drunk with power, and they all think they’re above the law. And you know what, sometimes they are. And it’s not right.”
The Rev. Lori Walke of Oklahoma City stood only a few feet from Hiett as she spoke to the commission, repeating the call for him to resign. She turned Hiett’s own words against him, referring to his previous statement in which he said his resignation would be a detriment to cases before the commission.
“And it is true, it would be a detriment—for you! For your ego, and your pride and your personal power that you have accumulated during your many years in public office.”
The minister said it would be a detriment to the good and fair minded people of Oklahoma for Hiett to continue as a Corporation Commissioner. She questioned whether Hiett was attempting to “keep someone quiet?”
“For you to continue on this commission is a detriment to the good name of this state. Your behavior was and your avoidance of accountability now is dishonorable.”
Her comments and call for Hiett’s resignation were followed by attorney Cameron Spradling who has represented numerous well known victims and survivors of sexual assault cases throughout Oklahoma.
He told Hiett he “stands on the precipice of a scandal” and it will be known as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission scandal. Spradling said what he heard in Hiett’s statement was something he’s heard many times before—diversion.
Spradling called for an independent investigation and to “allow investigators to go where the truth takes them.”
“Mr. Hiett,, the number one defense mechanism of a predator is denial. The number one defense mechanism of a habitual drunkard is denial…..your value to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission was forfeited long ago.”
While Hiett sat motionless listening to the comments, Spradling told him, “You seem to be totally unaware you have exposed the state of Oklahoma to a federal civil rights case with what you did in Minnesota.”
“The alcohol led to your intervention—but it doesn’t explain why you would touch another man’s loins—this is the excuse of a predator!”
He told the meeting that Hiett holds the solution in his grasp and implored for him to resign. Spradling also cautioned against groups that engage in coverup because they’re afraid an independent investigation might lead to the discovery of other wrongdoing. “Coverups are really about money,” he stated.
Commissioner Anthony later explained he had never met any of the four citizens who made the call for Hiett’s resignation. The commissioner pushed for a truly independent investigation, rather than the employment of attorney Melvin Hall with the Oklahoma City law firm of Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison and Lewis, a firm chosen by agency staff.
Hall was previously an assistant prosecutor with the Cleveland County District Attorney’s office, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission, and a supervisor with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He has also been a partner in the Riggs, Abney law firm since 1988.
The hiring was reported to have been handled by Corporation Commission General Administrator Brandy Wreath but Anthony was critical of the move because commissioners had no input. They had not voted on the hiring of Hall, leading Anthony to object how the issue had been handled by Wreath who did so in his authority as General Administrator.
Anthony further charged there were people in the agency who had been aware of Hiett’s alcoholism and called the situation a “breeding ground of misconduct.”
“This agency has people who are aware of this misconduct—people in leadership,” criticized Anthony who also said he wanted to view the contract before it was signed.
-30-
Below are statements, first, the comments of Commissioner Hiett about Bob Anthony and secondly, a statement from Commissioner Anthony after the meeting.
Hiett’s statement:
Statement of Commissioner Todd Hiett
I would like to make a statement regarding Agenda items 9-12 submitted by Commissioner Anthony. As I stated at last week’s meeting, I have apologized for my abuse of alcohol, begun treatment, stepped aside as Chairman of this Commission, and will continue to cooperate fully with any ongoing personnel investigation being conducted by the appropriate body.
As someone who has dedicated his life to public service, I firmly believe that all investigations should be fair and follow the law – not be derailed by the raging manifestos of one commissioner with personal vendettas.
Sadly, this is not the first time that Commissioner Anthony has placed himself above the proper process of this commission, engaged in frivolous appeals of decisions that don’t go his way, and sought to take down other elected officials when he disagrees with a legitimate outcome of an OCC proceeding.
For example:
- In 2002, former Commissioner Ed Apple issued a formal opinion stating that Commissioner Anthony had been “flagrant in the misuse of his official powers” and “has bullied, impugned and abused members of the OCC staff.” Further, “his goals have been to punish a regulated company in order to further his personal agenda.”
- In 2010, former Commissioner J.C. Watts was moved to submit comments for the record to the commission because he was so flabbergasted that Commissioner Anthony was attempting to resuscitate a 20-year-old case – a case that Commissioner Anthony had lost despite using his usual tactics of intimidation, unethical research, and attempts to sully Commissioner Watts’s good name.
- History also shows that Commissioner Anthony has a history of not accepting proceeding results when they do not go his way. In 2011, former Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt determined that Commissioner Anthony was wrong in requesting that the Attorney General reopen a bribery case against former Commissioner Robert Hopkins, saying it would be improper for the commission to expend public funds to hire an expert to reopen said case.
- Commissioner Anthony has also been told before that his requests to conduct his own investigations of issues for this commission are not legal. As far back as 2003, former Oklahoma Attorney General W. A. Drew Edmondson, warned Commissioner Anthony when he attempted to begin a unilateral investigation related to PUD200300260 that it would be a violation of the law. Edmondson also warned that “any funds spent, supplies used, employee time devoted or other public resources devoted to that exercise may well constitute misappropriation of public funds.”
- Commissioner Anthony also has displayed a pattern of overzealously making wild accusations first – without regard for the facts and the reputation of the people affected – instead of allowing an orderly legal process of investigation to continue. As recently as last year, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond requested that Commissioner Anthony “resist making further inflammatory comments about any unsubstantiated theory of collusion between the utility companies and state employees.” Drummond also requested that Commissioner Anthony retract his misstatements, since he viewed them as detrimental to the attorney general’s attempts to recover damages for ratepayers from bad actors of Winter Storm Uri.
This commission has the tools it needs to construct and carry out proper, transparent legal investigations. I regret that we have to consume the public’s time on this because of my alcohol dependency, but the commission should take into account Commissioner Anthony’s long record of bitter and vengeful dissatisfaction while charting its path forward.
Statement of Commissioner Anthony:
Anthony issued the following statement after Tuesday’s OCC meeting:
Some people are trying to make this about politics. This is not about politics. The lives of real people – some of them our fellow Oklahomans – will be impacted by the decisions we make about how to investigate the serious allegation that have been made. Sincere thanks is due to the victims and their advocates who have spoken to today for their willingness to come and remind us of that.
I think the comments from today’s presenters were powerful, and the takeaways were clear. Crimes and misconduct are still crimes and misconduct, even if the victims are too scared or intimidated to report them. If those crimes and misconduct are not investigated, especially when abuse of power is involved, such inaction only enables the abuser, leading to more and worse crimes and misconduct.
It has also been made clear that when the alleged perpetrator is a person with significant power and authority, like an elected official who cannot be disciplined or fired, only a professionally-led, independent investigation whose results are made public can overcome that power differential between the abuser and the victim and allow for true accountability.
Shamefully, it appears the OCC is continuing down the path of organized obstruction and coverup instead.
To let the commissioners or employees of this agency be involved with choosing the investigators is like letting one team hire the referee. The league chooses the referees – in this case, that should be unconflicted leaders of the law enforcement community.
The OCC does not need this investigation to determine how much Commissioner Hiett drank, with whom, how many people he groped, to whom he exposed himself, or where he passed out.
The OCC needs this investigation to ascertain the impact of commissioner misconduct on the credibility and legitimacy of this agency, its employees, the conduct of its business and the integrity of its operations – operations that have a multi-billion-dollar impact on this state every single year.
To the extent that every incident of commissioner misconduct has its own consequences, then we need to know the details of each one. That said, they are individual pieces of a larger puzzle that must be assembled to be solved.
If this agency attempts to limit this investigation to formal “complaints,” or to exclude the alleged criminal conduct, and does not approach the investigation wholistically, the Corporation Commission will continue to be a breeding ground for misconduct, abuse of power and public corruption that advantages the few and victimizes the many. As we have learned too well in recent years, the consequences of that can be long-lasting and very expensive for everyday Oklahomans.
