Commissioner Hiett fights legislators’ move to prohibit him from votes on major utilities

 

 

Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett responded Friday to the claims of three state legislators who want him prohibited from further votes on fuel cases involving ONG, OG&E and PSO.

On the deadline for him to respond to the claims of Reps. Tom Gann, Kevin West and Rick West, Hiett’s attorneys said the request for a writ of prohibition was based on “unproven and salacious allegations, rumors, and inuendoes.”

The legislators went to the Supreme Court based on claims that led to Hiett stepping down as Corporation Commission Chairman. The claims leveled against him included alleged sexual assault or groping of a man at a hotel bar during a national convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota and public drunkenness on more than one occasion.

“They provide no support for this argument” argued Hiett in the filing. The three legislators contended that the victim of the alleged sexual assault was a man who was employed by one of the three major utilities and went before the commission.

Hiett’s attorney maintained Hiett’s votes “were a proper application of the powers granted to him by Oklahoma’s Constitution.” He also contended the legislators “cannot show that Commissioner Hiett has or will exercise a power unauthorized by law.”

“Petitioners have failed to offer this Court any showing of bias, or that Commissioner Hiett cannot be fair and objective,” stated the attorneys in Hiett’s response.

The legislators argued in their  request of the Supreme Courts that the “rule of necessity” should not apply, meaning Hiett’s vote is not necessary because the two remaining Corporation Commissioners would constitute a majority, enough for any recognized vote on an issue.

But Hiett’s attorneys maintain that the rule of necessity “requires that Commissioner Hiett not be disqualified as the Commission must act as a body to exercise the authority of the state—something it cannot do without Commissioner Hiett’s participation in the proceedings in question.”

Click below for Supreme Court filing

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1059562381-20240926-150952-.pdf