Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Todd Hiett has been cleared by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission of some of the allegations made against him by three state legislators.
The allegations stemmed from claims of public drunkenness and sexual abuse that led to Hiett resigning last summer as chairman of the three-member commission but not from the commission itself. He had been accused of drunkenly groping a man at a hotel bar in Minnesota and the man was an employee of a major utility in Oklahoma. The legislators who sued Hiett also made complaints with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, accusing him of voting on issues where there was a conflict of interest because of the utility employee.
The Oklahoman reported over the weekend of the Ethics Commission’s May 1 vote to clear him of the accusations made about a conflict of interest rule. Hiett issued a statement to the newspaper stating, “I appreciate the Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s thorough review of this matter and its commitment to transparency and fairness.”
The clearance came on a 3-0 vote by the commissioners while two members of the body recused from voting because of reported conflicts of interest. In what was described by The Oklahoman as a rare public comment, the Commission explained the dismissal was because of an exemption in state case law known as the rule of necessity. It was Hiett’s argument that he had to vote on Commission rate cases because a “concurrence” of a majority of the commission is needed for a decision. He is one of three members of the Corporation Commission.
Rep. Tom Gann, who along with Reps. Kevin West and Rick West sued Hiett before the Supreme Court where one lawsuit is pending, disagreed with the Ethics Commission decision, calling it “baffling.”
In a statement provided to OK Energy Today, Gann referred to a prior Supreme Court opinion in which former Justice Doug Combs concluded the “rule of necessity need not be utilized to maintain a quorum of three in every case.”
“If the Ethics Commission has (wrongly) decided that the common law Rule of Necessity allows Commissioner Hiett to participate in cases tainted by his misconduct, despite Ethics Rule 4’s prohibition against Conflicts of Interest, that means the Ethics Commission determined that there *is* reason to question Hiett’s impartiality in these cases,” he continued “Otherwise, the Rule of Necessity, which only applies to biased and/or conflicted decision-makers, could not apply.”
Rule 4
Conflicts of Interest
Rule 4.1. Purpose of Rule 4.
The purpose of Rule 4 is to establish rules of ethical conduct
for state officers and employees by prohibiting conflicts between
their public duties and private economic interests.
History
Promulgated by Ethics Commission January 10, 2014; effective upon Legislature’s sine die adjournment May 23, 2014; operative January 1, 2015.
Commission Comment
Article XXIX, Section 3(B) of the Oklahoma Constitution requires the Commission to “promulgate rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees.” As one way to address this requirement the Commission requires financial disclosure to reveal potential conflicts of interest between the public duties and private financial interests of certain state officers and employees in Rule 3. In Rule 4, the Commission restricts certain conduct by state officers and employees to eliminate other potential conflicts of interest.
Gann called the Ethics commission decision a “mistaken legal conclusion” and said its role was to be the “trier of fact.”
“I look forward to hearing what the proper trier of law, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, has to say about the correct interpretation of Ethics Rule 4’s prohibition against OCC Commissioners participating in cases about which a reasonable person would question their impartiality–especially the dozens of OCC cases worth billions of dollars to Oklahoma utility customers that have been tainted by Hiett’s misconduct.”