When an Oklahoma Corporation Commission judge recently delayed a hearing on ONG’s nearly half-a-billion dollars in 2023 fuel costs because of a complaint filed by State Rep. Tom Gann, it came after the Attorney General’s office displayed its obvious resentment of his complaint.
In addressing Admininstrative Law Judge Carly Ortel, Deputy Attorney General Chase Snodgrass was apparently so angry, he did not refer to Gann by his elected title. Instead, he referred to him as Tom Gann.
“Reference the comment filing by Tom Gann—–I don’t think I can make it through this hearing without addressing his comment. I have personally served three Attorneys General and the members of our team come to work every day and our only goal is to try to save ratepayers money,” he began in his statement of resentment.
Here’s what angered Snodgrass and perhaps the judge. Rep. Gann, in his Nov. 19 complaint filed with the commission, accused attorneys in the ONG matter of knowing of the drunkenness and sexual abuse allegations against Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiettand doing nothing about it. He seeks to have Hiett barred from voting on the rate cases and is awaiting a ruling from the state Supreme Court.
“I therefore contend that every attorney involved in these proceedings knows that Hiett is in “violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law” and, by remaining silent, I believe they are in violation of their Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes attorneys for the other parties to the case and the Administrative Law Judge. Consequently, under the circumstances, I believe any further proceedings in this matter are unlawful, because they will be conducted knowingly and willfully in violation of both the Code of Judicial Conduct and Oklahoma’s Rules of Professonal Conduct for attorneys.”
Snodgrass made no direct reference to the actual allegation of misconduct, but claimed he and his attorneys have saved ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars in 2024 and billions of dollars in previous year. He did not deny having any knowledge of Hiett’s alleged conduct including the groping of a man at a bar during a national convention.
“Either through ignorance or willful ignorance of what the law requires of us as attorneys, I feel like our character–our character has been impugned,” he said in reaction.
“I find it really unfortunate that a member of the legislature would disparage and impugn the character of public servants who come every day to fulfill this, their obligation to the people of the State of Oklahoma and Mr. Gann has not only impugned the character of members of the Attorney General’s office, but members of this body, including the judge and the attorneys for the Commission staff and attorneys for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company.”
Again, no reference to Rep. Gann by his elected title as state Representative.
“I find his comments to be defamatory and not in accordance or correct recitation of the law,” concluded Snodgrass.
“Thank you for those comments Mr. Snodgrass—Great catch,” replied Judge Ortel as Snodgrass sat down.
Judge Ortel made no direct comment regarding what Rep. Gann charged in his complaint and only discussed whether it should be considered under the public comment period of the hearing on merit for ONG. Gann had complained that even though there was a public comment period, ONG had not notified its customers of the hearing on the merit.
“I think it is important in this matter that we address this rule. There is a strict procedure that we must follow if it is to be considered a complaint in accordance with the rules.”
When Judge Ortel opened the recent hearing and asked for public comment, no one stepped forward and no one also offered any public comments online.
In announcing her decision to delay, the judge asked for attorneys to present oral arguments on the morning of Dec. 5. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m.
“It would show that we are doing our due diligence and I would hope it would alleviate any concerns by looking into it a little bit further,” she added.
Deborah Thompson, an attorney for ONG said she was prepared to argue during the hearing and contended the complaint by Rep. Gann “is outside the scope of the complaint process” and “not consistent with the rules.” She said the person filing the complaint has not filed an appearance of record, something that is typically done by attorneys as a case winds through the Corporation Commission filing process.
The judge concluded the matter was to be delayed for two weeks “to allow attorneys time to do deeper research of the rules, should they want.”
Rep. Gann was not present for the hearing and when offered another chance to respond to the claims of the Attorney General’s office, he chose not to comment.
But he had stated previously upon learning of the judge’s decision to delay, “‘I am encouraged to see that the Administrative Law Judge is finally taking my formal complaint seriously. Todd Hiett’s ongoing participation in this case is unlawful, unethical and unacceptable.”
He added that as long as Commissioner Hiett refuses to disqualify himself, postponing the hearing on the merits was the first step toward suspending the case, calling it the only solution.