While Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett faces calls to resign over the allegations he drunkenly groped a man, Hiett contends he is undergoing treatment for his alcoholism.
It’s what he first maintained in late July when the story came to light involving his alleged groping of a man at a hotel bar in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hiett stated at the time, “I have no memory of this incident.”
But he went on to claim he had fallen into the trap of using alcohol to combat stress and he was appalled and ashamed by “what I have been told about my behavior while drinking in a social situation at a recent conference.”
“I acknowledge the seriousness of this situation and upon learning of this event, I immediately sought treatment. I am currently under the care of expert physicians and counselors to treat this affliction,” he stated.
Even this week, Hiett repeated he is undergoing treatment and made the claim amidst calls by citizens for him to leave the Corporation Commission. Those same citizens stood before him and called him a “drunkard” and a “predator.”
“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.”
Hiett has not discussed nor revealed what kind of treatment he is receiving for what he initially called an “affliction.”
But it raises the question of whether he could take a long-term suspension of his day-to-day business activities at the Corporation Commission to undergo intense treatment and avoid a resignation?
Yes and no.
Based on a 2008 ruling by then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson, it apparently remains an unanswered question.
“Whether a statewide elected official’s conduct constitutes abandonment of office is a question of fact dependent on the conduct and intent of that elected official. See Hurd, 442 P.2d at 347 (“Abandonment of office is a matter of intent or acquiescence.”). Therefore, whether a statewide official abandons his or her office by “stepping aside” or “suspending” himself or herself from office is not a question which can be answered as a matter of law in an Attorney General’s Opinion,” stated Edmondson in responding to a legal request by a state legislator.
Commissioner Hiett has given no indication or mention of temporarily becoming absent from his duties. If anything, he has made it clear he has no intention of resigning, but he has given up his chairmanship and turned over leadership to Corporation Commissioner Kim David. Or as one citizen told Hiett this week, he has “dug in his heels” about any possibility of leaving the commission amidst the scandal.
The 2008 legal request of AG Edmondson was made at the time by then-Rep. Mike Reynolds and Edmondson responded with his opinion.
“¶15 We can state, however, that even if a statewide elected official commits conduct which may constitute abandonment, that in and of itself does not amount to forfeiture of office. A determination of neglect of duty must be made under the proper procedures before there is a vacancy in office. Young, 150 P. at 686. With regard to statewide elected officials, the proper method for removal is impeachment in accordance with Okla. Const. art, VIII, § 1 and 51 O.S.2001, §§ 51 – 71.”
Edmondson wasn’t finished
Ҧ5 To answer your first question, there are no constitutional, statutory or common law methods by which a statewide elected official may be formally suspended from office, either voluntarily or involuntarily, prior to actual conviction of a crime.
¶6 You next ask whether, if the answer to your first question is “yes,” a statewide elected officer would be entitled to keep his or her statutory salary and/or continue to accrue credit toward his or her OPERS retirement. As we have not answered “yes” to your first question, the second question is moot.”
In summarizing his findings, Edmondson stated:
“It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. There are no constitutional, statutory or common law methods by which a statewide elected official may be suspended from office, voluntarily or involuntarily, prior to an actual conviction of a crime. Okla. Const. art. VIII, § 1; 51 O.S.2001, § 24.1(A).
2. A statewide elected official may commit actions which constitute “stepping aside” or informally “suspending” himself or herself with pay after being charged with a crime, but prior to conviction without abandoning his or her office. Whether the officeholder’s actions constitute abandonment is a question of fact which cannot be answered in an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S. 2001, § 18b(A)(5).
3. Generally, a statewide elected official may not “step aside” or “suspend” himself or herself without pay as the salary of an elected official is incident to the office. Young v. Morris, 150 P. 684, 686 (Okla. 1915).
4. The official’s conduct, even if it were to constitute abandonment, does not ipso facto create a vacancy in office. Young v. Morris, 160 P. 684, 686 (Okla. 1915). The appropriate procedure for determining whether a statewide elected official’s actions constitute abandonment of office is an impeachment proceeding. Okla.Const. art. VIII, § 1; 51 O.S.2001, §§ 51 – 71.
5. A statewide elected official is entitled to continue to accrue credit toward the official’s OPERS retirement as long as the officeholder remains in office. Young v. Morris, 150 P. 684, 686 (Okla. 1915).