Court Opinion

ID: 9627345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:42:35.353174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:44.977682
License: Public Domain

¶ 1 KAUGER, Chief Justice,
with whom HODGES, Justice, joins, concurring in result:
¶ 2 If the Ethics Rule were the only authority addressing the issue, it would control. However, I concur with the majority that the unseverable power to regulate the Governor’s security and transportation is vested in the Legislature, and that it cannot be overridden by the Ethics Commission. Under Oklahoma law, the Legislature is in a unique position to balance the two equally valid but competing public policy considerations of the Ethics Commission by placing statutory limitations on transportation and security by modifying the Ethics Commission Rules. However, the Legislature has exercised its authority in such a way that it has left a statutory lacuna1 insofar as the way in which legitimate gubernatorial travel and security considerations relate to the need to ensure that public resources are not used for political campaign and personal travel.
¶ 3 If the Legislature chooses further to exercise its power, it may provide, as has the Congress in regard to the President’s security and transportation,2 that expenses incurred during political campaigns be reimbursed, and that expenses be pro rated when personal, political, and official appearances are intermingled.3

. Cox v. Dawson, 1996 OK 11, 911 P.2d 272, 281; City of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1990 OK 27, 789 P.2d 1287, 1292; State v. Goforth, 1989 OK 37, 772 P.2d 911, 914; Maule v. Independent School Dist. No. 9, 1985 OK 110, 714 P.2d 198, 203; R. Aldisert, "Hard Core Judicial Process Problems Facing Judges in the 89's”, p. 34 (1982).

. Just this week, the Legislature has moved to limit the use of state-owned aircraft for travel to and from partisan party events by passing H.B. No. 3226. The bill will be codified as 74 O.S.Supp.1998 § 500.6A. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on April 27, 1998, and by the Senate on April 1, 1998. It was signed by the Governor on April 29, 1998, taking full force and effect upon its approval. Section 2 of H.B. No. 3226 is an emergency clause providing:
"It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval."
Ethics Comm’n v. Cullison, 1993 OK 37, 850 P.2d 1069, is not contrary to today’s opinion. *1265There the Legislature improperly acted in the role of the Commission in drafting its own set of ethics rules. We also said that the Legislature's power in other areas was not diminished by the creation of the Ethics Commission. The recent legislation, like 47 O.S.Supp.1992 § 2-101, is within the power of the Legislature.

. The majority concludes that 47 O.S.1991, § 2-101(b), added by 1983 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 302, § 1, to require that the Commissioner of Public Safety provide personal security and protection, transportation and communications capabilities to the Governor, controls over Ethics Commission Rule 257:10-l-3(a) which prohibits the use of public property to raise political campaign funds. Following our reasoning in Cullison, we should read 47 O.S.1991, § 2— 101 (b) to require that the Commissioner of Public Safety provide transportation to the Governor, except as proscribed by Rule 257:10-l-3(a).
It is noted that the 1998 Oklahoma Legislature passed Enrolled House Bill No. 3226, which the Governor signed on April 29, 1998. The measure prohibits any person from traveling on any aircraft owned, leased, chartered, or operated by the state to attend any political event; any event for compensation, except the state salaiy; or, any event requiring an admission fee or donation, except charitable events. The measure restricts non-essential governmental use of aircraft by any person at the state's expense. The measure does not amend 47 O.S.1991, § 1-201 (b). Further, the measure does not explicitly regulate ethical conduct of state officials. Although the measure is not before us, my reading of 47 O.S. 1991, § 1-201 (b) limited by Rule 257:10-l-3(a) would be consistent with the new measure, as well as our opinion in Cullison.