Commentary: Governor should not appoint ethics panel director

Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), Mar 31, 2008 by William O Pitts

Republicans and Democrats in the Oklahoma Legislature professing interest in true ethics reform should look carefully at House Joint Resolution 1099 by state Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond, and state Sen. Joe Sweeden, D-Pawhuska.

It allows gubernatorial appointment of certain state agency directors, instead of their being hired by the commissions appointed to oversee them.

Of specific interest is inclusion of the executive director of the state Ethics Commission in that group. Neither author is noted for rash legislative agendas but they have strayed afar in this mission.

Maybe there is a plan to eliminate this part of the proposal in the Senate or a joint conference. The title is stricken. Hopefully that is true, but the resolution, with the offending language, easily passed the House by a vote of 91-10. All 57 Republicans voted for it with 10 Democrats opposed.

The changes are significant alterations of the philosophy of the composition of Oklahoma's executive branch of government that traditionally has sought to balance the absolute power of the governor with agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs) given the power to name their administrators.

There is little doubt many states give their governors greater control over operations of the executive branch.

But for either system, reasons and arguments exist. The most valid one for allowing gubernatorial appointment of directors is that as chief executive of the state the governor is responsible for actions of the executive branch agencies when some times he has little direct say in their directors' actions.

Allowing boards and commissions authority to hire and fire their executive directors generally provides greater stability and less volatility in the administration of those agencies. Most members of state boards are appointed by the governor on a staggered basis, providing often-needed continuity that is not abruptly interrupted by a change in gubernatorial administrations.

Any governor serving two terms usually is able through appointments to exercise control over the agencies. What Miller and Sweeden are proposing is an alternative giving the governor direct power to name the agency director without going through the commission. Except for rulemaking it gives commissions little authority over their agencies.

Four agency directors are involved in the proposal: the director of Public Welfare; director of Wildlife Conservation; director of the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement (ABLE) Commission; and the executive director of the Ethics Commission.

Only the latter is a patently giant step in the wrong direction. Selection of the Ethics Commission's executive director should be on as nonpartisan and objective basis as possible.

The commission is composed of five private citizens who are registered voters serving without compensation. Each is appointed for a five-year term, one each by the governor, attorney general, president pro tempore of the state Senate, speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Terms are staggered. No more than three members can be from the same political party.

Currently the commission is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. Two members' terms expire in 2009, both are Democrats. One was appointed by the Senate president pro tempore and the other was named by the House speaker prior to Republicans taking control of the House.

Suggesting any governor, who, as in the past has been and in the future may be subject to investigation by the Ethics Commission, should have the power to hire and fire the executive director in charge of the investigation is antithetical to the basic philosophy behind the commission's existence. Not only is the perception of objectivity gone, the opportunity for misuse of the position substantially increases.

Some believe in the past politics have influenced of the commission in some of its investigations and decisions but it is far better than the proposed alternative.

Submitting the question of gubernatorial appointive authority of certain state agencies to a vote of the people is one thing, but including the executive director of the Ethics Commission in that group simply is wrong.

William O. Pitts may be reached by phone at (405) 278-2880 or by e-mailing bill.pitts@journalrecord.com.