1046 (OKLA.1980). FURTHER, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE INTERPRETATION FOLLOW THE PLAIN INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. STATE EX REL. CARTWRIGHT V. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP., 663 P.2D 718 (OKLA.1982).
IN REGARD TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, 74 O.S. 150.5(D) PROVIDES THAT A PERSON WHO REQUESTS AN OSBI INVESTIGATION, IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNOR, MAY GIVE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN SUCH A REPORT ". . . ONLY TO THE APPROPRIATE PROSECUTORIAL OFFICER OR AGENCY HAVING STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER IF THAT ACTION APPEARS PROPER FROM THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, AND SHALL NOT REVEAL OR GIVE SUCH INFORMATION TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR AGENCY." (EMPHASIS ADDED.) THE USE OF THE WORD "SHALL" CONNOTES A MANDATORY DUTY, IN THIS CASE NOT TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION. TIB CORP. V. EDMONDSON, 630 P.2D 1296 (OKLA.1981). AS THAT SAME SUBSECTION PROVIDES THAT OSBI INVESTIGATIONS BEING CONDUCTED ARE CONFIDENTIAL, THE PLAIN INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE PROHIBITS THE GOVERNOR FROM DISSEMINATING A COPY OF AN OSBI REPORT TO ANY PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THAT SUBSECTION. FURTHER, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SUCH INFORMATION, EVEN TO AUTHORIZED PERSONS, TWO CONDITIONS MUST FIRST BE SATISFIED. FIRST, THE PARTY TO BE GIVEN THE INFORMATION MUST BE A PROSECUTORIAL OFFICER OR AGENCY WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER. SECOND, THE DISSEMINATION TO THAT OFFICER OR AGENCY MUST APPEAR PROPER FROM THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT.
WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, A LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE A PROSECUTORIAL ENTITY. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE AN ENTITY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AN OSBI REPORT, UNLESS IT WAS AN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE PROVIDED WITH SUBPOENA POWER AND SO WAS AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST AN INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO 74 O.S. 150.5.