After a contentious hearing in which Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony attempted to question Oklahoma Natural Gas attorneys about their knowledge of any details of the sexual claims made against commissioner Todd Hiett, an Administrative Law Judge on Thursday ruled against a state legislator’s complaint against Hiett to have him removed from the utility’s rate cases.
Rep. Tom Gann, who filed the original complaint to have Hiett banned from voting on the case, felt his complaint had been “brushed aside” by the Corporation Commission and on a “technicality.”
Administrative Law Judge Carly M. Ortel, who repeatedly attempted to stop Commissioner Anthony’s questioning of ONG attorney Deborah Thompson, issued her decision at the end of a nearly 75-minute hearing, saying his complaint did not meet OCC requirements. The decision focused on the complaints filed in September, October and November by Rep. Gann and Doctor Mike Ritz and Connie Ritz and whether they were complaints that met the definition of complaints under OCC rules.
Gann made it clear afterward in a statement provided to OK Energy Today, the ALJ’s decision wasn’t satisfactory.
“The revelations and result of this morning’s meeting only adds to my concerns about what appears to be an intentional ignoring of the laws and rules intended to protect utility customers by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.”
He wasn’t finished.
“The fact that the Attorney General, who is supposed to represent the interests of ONG’s customers, said “it is not clear” whether State Ethics Rules or Code of Judicial Conduct apply to this case is a shocking illustration of how callous one can become to the due process rights of Oklahomans.”
Rep. Gann continued. “I am more convinced than ever that Commissioner Hiett’s self-admitted drunkenness and alleged unlawful behavior is tainting multi-billion-dollar utility proceedings at the OCC to the detriment of ratepayers. If the formally filed complaints of an elected member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives can be brushed aside by the OCC on an invented technicality, what chance do the due process rights of everyday Oklahomans have?”
Gann concluded by declaring, “I continue to pray the Oklahoma Supreme Court will put a stop to this moral outrage once and for all.”
All three commissioners were present for the hearing and while his name was the target of discussion and questions, Commissioner Hiett remained quiet and listened intently.
“So after thorough review and consideration, I find that the filings by Rep. Tom Gann and Mike and Connie Ritz on Sept. 12, Sept. 18, Oct. 15, Nov. 20 and Nov. 25 do not relate soley to the operation of fuel gas or purchase power adjustment clauses of Oklahoma Natural Gas and therefore do not rise to the level of complaint as contemplated by OAC 165 50-dash-5-dash 3,” declared the judge. She referred to Commission rules that required how formal complaints about utilities are handled by the agency.
The rules required that for a complaint to be considered, an attorney of record had to have made the filing. Gann did not. Thus, the Judge said a separate hearing on the complaint was not warranted and a general hearing on the merits of ONG’s 2023 fuel purchase costs would continue.
“The filings will be considered with any other public comments and will be given the weight they are due,” added Judge Ortel. She also explained she would not address any of the allegations made by Gann in his complaint as he sought to have Commissioner Hiett removed from hearing rate cases involving ONG,OGE and PSO. Gann raised the issue because employees of the utilities might have witnessed some of the sexual abuse and drinking allegations made against Hiett.
” My authority in this matter and all matters that I preside over comes from the commission itself and is very limited in nature. That limited authority does not extend to recommending or not recommending the removal of a commissioner,” continued the ALJ.
“Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address the unfounded and inappropriate statements made about me in the comments. I’m also, as the attorneys stated in their oral arguments, well aware of my ethical and legal obligations. I work hard every single day to uphold the oath that I have taken in this office.”
ONG attorney Thompson and her partner, Kenneth Tillotson represented the utility. Thompson argued that Gann’s complaints did not comply with Corporation Commission rules and pointed out the Republican legislator’s complaints did not make any mention of the utility’s “operations”.
“The filings fail to meet legal standards,” she implored before Commissioner Anthony, as promised in a filing earlie in the week, attempted to question her possible knowledge concerning the sexual allegations raised against Hiett. It was in 2023 at a formal opening of a new law firm by Thompson and Tillotson that Hiett allegedly exposed himself to two female OCC employees.
Anthony, who supported Rep. Gann’s efforts to have Hiett removed from the rate cases because a witness to the incident as well as one at a June 2024 incident in Minnesota work for the utilities in question, tried to question Thompson about it.
“Your honor, respectfully, there is an ongoing investigation with regard to this. There is a Supreme Court writ that is pending and I am not going to be interrogated during the course of a fuel adjustment clause case with regards to issues that this commission has no jurisdiction over,” answered Thompson.
She further told Anthony, “I am aware of my ethical obligations and I’m fully comfortable that I am complying with my ethical obligations and that I am completely comfortable proceeding and appearing before this commission.”
When Anthony attempted to question her law firm partner, Kenneth Tillotson, ALJ Ortel objected to the “line of questioning” and asked to have the hearing redirected to the subject at hand—the hearing on the merits.’
But Anthony persisted, drawing another response from Thompson who said the questions were “outside the scope of the proceeding.”
“It’s not appropriate and I’m not going to participate —and I would do the same from any commissioner that was attempting to besmirch our professional obligations and our ethics.”
When Anthony again tried to question Thompson and Tillotson, ALJ Corley interrupted and said she did not continue the hearing so the attorneys would face questions “outside the scope of this matter.”
Tillotson stood and answered Anthony’s question. “Commissioner Anthony, I think my partner said it correctly and I stand by what she said.”
It prompted the ALJ to indicate if the line of questioning continued, she would turn the hearing over to the full commission and resume the hearing on the merits at another time.
Deputy Attorney General Chase Snodgrass, in his oral comments about the hearing, also argued Rep. Gann’s complaint did not meet the commission rules and regulations.
“I just want to note for the record that before today, the Attorney General has never told Rep. Gann or Dr. Ritz or any member of this body that we opposed hearing their filing as a complaint. I specifically never told in my communication with Rep. Gann that we were in opposition to his complaint.”
In responding to Commissioner Anthony’s Dec. 2 fiiling, Snodgrass indicated he would not answer to all of the allegations.
“No member of the Attorney General’s utility regulation unit, whether an attorney or non-attorney or staff member–no member of the attorney general’s utility regulation unit have any direct knowledge of any criminal wrongdoing by any commissioner, past or present.”
He continued, ” I have no direct knowledge so anything I’d say would be speculation.”
When Anthony questioned him about ethics, Snodgrass replied he was well aware of his obligations to the bar, something he takes very seriously. He said if he were to ask for a commissioner’s recusal, he has an ethical obligation to make such a request based on facts.
“Reading a newspaper or reading something on twitter is not the same thing as having a sworn affidavit or having a police report. None of those things—I certainly don’t have direct knowledge—-respectfully Commissioner, I think I’ve entertained your questions a little too long.”
Anthony’s response? He advised Snodgrass to do further checking about his claim because “two officials from the Kansas Corporation Commission to have affidavits filed with the Oklahoma Supreme Court giving information is a little bit more than somebody’s Twitter feed—thank you.”