Mike Reynolds and the Challenge to the Contingency Review Board

Analysis: Former state legislator Mike Reynolds has brought a case before the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Contingency Review Board (CRB), a small state body composed of the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President Pro Tempore. Though seldom discussed publicly, the CRB has for decades exercised authority to approve certain financial decisions outside the normal legislative process.

Reynolds argues that this arrangement violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s separation of powers.

Specifically, Article IV, Section 1 provides:

“The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments… and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”
Okla. Const. art. IV, § 1.

The Legislature is the branch empowered to make appropriations, and not merely in principle. Oklahoma has 149 legislators for a reason — to deliberate publicly, vote publicly, and be accountable publicly. Yet the CRB has long made budgetary adjustments without the participation of the full Legislature, without committee hearings, and without floor debate. In effect, three officials exercise the budgetary authority of the entire Legislature.

This is not just a procedural shortcut. It is a structural transfer of power.

A Familiar Pattern: Institutions Protect Themselves

In a recent Malloy’s Crucible essay, The Tilted Scales: Parents’ Rights vs. Institutional Stability in Oklahoma Schools, I analyzed the same dynamic was examined in a different context: that institutions tend to protect their own stability first, often at the expense of the citizens they are meant to serve.

That earlier analysis observed that when parents seek redress in schools, they frequently find themselves confronting systems designed to preserve organizational order rather than protect individuals. The result is a quiet but persistent tilting of the scales — where citizens must exert extraordinary effort simply to have their concerns acknowledged.

A similar imbalance recently appeared in a small district east of Oklahoma City, where a citizen who challenged the legality of a school bond issuance on Constitutional grounds, was ultimately ordered to pay over $22,000 in the attorney fees to the school district. The message was unmistakable: when ordinary Oklahomans attempt to test constitutional limits, the system can respond in ways that discourage citizens from ever trying again.

The Reynolds case shows that this same pattern appears at the level of state government.
The CRB centralizes decision-making and places practical power in the hands of a few, while ordinary citizens — and even rank-and-file legislators — are left on the outside looking in.

When Power Moves Out of Public View

When financial authority is shifted into private discussions among three leaders, citizens lose more than transparency:

• They lose the ability to see the reasoning behind public spending.
• They lose the ability to hold individual lawmakers accountable for decisions made.
• They lose the ability to correct government behavior through elections.

This is the constitutional concern at the heart of Reynolds’ filing. Government relies on traceability of decisions. If people cannot see how choices are made, they cannot meaningfully govern those who make them.

Not a Partisan Dispute

The CRB has operated during Republican and Democratic leadership alike. It benefits whoever holds power. But the long-term cost is the same:

Citizens lose their seat at the table.

Reynolds brings this case as a private citizen, not as a party operative or officeholder. He has nothing material to gain. His action is a reminder that constitutional structure does not defend itself. Citizens must defend it.

The Stakes Before the Court

If the Court upholds the CRB’s current authority, the Legislature could legally shift even more core functions away from open deliberation and into leadership-controlled processes. The Legislature, piece by piece, could cede its constitutional identity, leaving representative democracy in form but not in function.

If the Court rules the CRB unconstitutional, the Legislature retains the full ability to act — but must do so in public, through votes, as the Constitution requires.

This case is not about policy: Should the state spend monies to supplement the SNAP (food stamps)? It is about who governs and whether government remains anchored to public consent.

The Larger Question for Oklahoma

Whether in school boardrooms or state budget committees, the question is the same: Will institutions serve the people, or will people be expected to navigate systems that primarily serve themselves?

The CRB case is one moment — but it exposes a broader reality:

• When power consolidates, the scales tilt.
• When citizens insist on transparency and accountability, the scales rebalance.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court will decide the legal question.

But the civic question — whether Oklahomans will accept government that acts beyond public view — remains in the hands of the citizens.

About the author: Ken Malloy is a retired energy policy lawyer and former federal regulatory strategist who has spent the last several years working to improve K–12 education governance in Oklahoma. He writes on civic accountability, institutional reform, and the responsibilities of self-government. He can be reached at ken@caem.org.