Opinion ID: 1426886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: G. Opin. 97-72, at ถ 22.

Text: ถ 21 In sum, the language of the statute and the discernable intent of the Legislature indicate no limitation upon the Governor's use of the DPS-provided transportation to attend partisan political events. It would thus appear at this point that the DPS-provided transportation to the political event is an activity occurring as a part of the ordinary conduct of the Department of Public Safety. ถ 22 The Commission argues that the transportation was not occurring as a part of the ordinary conduct of a governmental entity. In support of its argument the Commission relies upon the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 10 งง 14, 17, 19. [6] The Commission's arguments from these sections of the Oklahoma Constitution may be summarized in one proposition, namely, that the Governor's transportation to a partisan political event is not transportation for a public purpose. The Commission's arguments characterize the Governor's transportation as fulfilling a private purpose. One problem with this analysis is its method of determining which activity is, and is not, for a public purpose. ถ 23 The Commission looks at the activity of the official at the destination to determine if transportation is for a public or private purpose. It reasons that a partisan political event is not an official duty of the office of the Governor, and thus transportation by the Governor to such event is private and not authorized. We must first note that when the Legislature enacted ง 156.1 it declined to adopt the Commission's definitions of a public purpose. Further, we must conclude that the definition used by the Commission is overly restrictive. ถ 24 These two conclusions are illustrated by examining the type of transportation authorized by ง 156.1. For example, ง 156.1 states that a state employee who receives emergency telephone calls regularly at the employee's residence while not on duty, and is thus called upon to use a vehicle in response to the emergency calls, may use a state vehicle for transportation to and from the employee's residence. Id. ง 156.1(B)(1). If we were to adopt the Commission's analysis we would examine the conduct of the employee at the point of destination to determine if it was an official duty of the employee. If not, the transportation was not for a public purpose and it would violate the Oklahoma Constitution. ถ 25 The Governor is the chief officer of the Department of Public Safety (ง 2-101), and he states that the DPS transportation is, in the exercise of his statutory discretion, a permissible means of responding to emergency calls and making himself available to perform the duties of his office regardless of his location. In other words, the Governor does not stop being the Governor at 5:00 p.m. He is Governor twenty-four hours a day, and must respond to the duties of his office whenever they arise. ถ 26 It is common knowledge that certain law enforcement employees use their vehicles for transportation to and from their homes. They do not travel to their residences for the purpose of fulfilling an official duty. The Commission thus asks us to adopt a view of the Oklahoma Constitution that would make statutes authorizing this practice to be unconstitutional. [7] But clearly, ง 156.1 indicates that government transportation to a destination (private residence) for a private purpose (to go home at the end of the work-day) does in fact fulfill a public purpose, because the employee responds to emergencies from the residence. The Legislature has indicated in ง 156.1 that the public receives a public benefit in having employees timely respond to emergencies related to the performance of their official duties. The same may be said with regard to the Governor in ง 2-101, since the Legislature has not imposed restrictions on the Governor's travel. ถ 27 But is ง 2-101 nevertheless unconstitutionally applied by the Governor when he uses DPS transportation to attend a political fundraiser? In other words, is the public purpose of the Governor's being able to respond to emergencies and being constantly accessible to the institutions of government in some way less of a public purpose when he attends a fundraiser? The answer to this question must be in the negative. ถ 28 The public purpose of DPS transportation is not lessened by the fact that the Governor travels to a destination for a private purpose. His duties to respond as Governor are not lessened by the fact that he travels to a destination for a private purpose, nor by where in the state he is located. [8] Disasters are not unknown in this state. They are not pre-scheduled for the benefit of a timely government response, and neither do they necessarily occur within the regularity of a forty-hour work-week. See for example 63 O.S.1991 ง 683.8. [9] Similarly, our State Constitution provides that: The Governor shall cause the laws of the State to be faithfully executed, and shall conduct in person or in such manner as prescribed by law, all intercourse and business of the State with other states and with the United States, and he shall be a conservator of peace throughout the State. Okla. Const. Art. 6 ง 8 (emphasis added). We conclude that the DPS transportation does not violate the Oklahoma Constitution when used by the Governor to attend a political event. ถ 29 Once we conclude that providing the Governor with DPS transportation fulfills a public purpose although the destination is unrelated to his official duties, we must necessarily again conclude that the public purpose fulfilled by providing such transportation is one of those activities that are a part of the ordinary conduct of the governmental entity. The DPS transportation used by the Governor to attend a partisan political event is thus first prohibited by Commission Rule 10-1-3(a), but then exempted by Rule 10-1-3(h). ถ 30 Our conclusion is that the transportation provided to the Governor by the Department of Public Safety did not violate the Rule of the Ethics Commission, and the Commission's construction of its Rule is not required by the Oklahoma Constitution. We conclude that the Oklahoma Constitution was not violated, and we reject the Commission's definition of a public purpose for measuring the constitutionality of statutes providing government-funded transportation.