State Sen. Jim Wilson has asked Attorney General Scott Pruitt to investigate online Ethics Commission reports.

Wilson noted the removal of an original contribution report from the State Ethics Commission’s website and the substitution of a different report.

In a letter sent to Pruitt on Monday, Wilson notes the original report, which was dated October 30, 2012, had incorrectly listed the name of an organization contributing to Friends of Wayne Shaw for Senate 2012.  Subsequently, a completely different document was substituted for the form. 

The new document deleted a contribution listing from the first form and shows an equivalent amount listed as contributions of $50 or less in the aggregate.

“First of all, any errors in the original report should have been corrected with an amended report.  The ability to remove an actual report and replace it with a backdated ‘new’ original report implicates complicity from the Ethics Commission staff or at least a breach of security,” said Wilson, D-Tahlequah.  “The second consideration is knowingly and falsely claiming the $500 amount came from aggregating contributions of $50 or less.”

Along with the letter, Wilson forwarded the original document as well as the “new” original report.“I’m asking the Attorney General to investigate this because he is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Oklahoma.  Any explanation or justification by the Ethics Commission based on an internal investigation would be suspect,” Wilson said.

Governor Mary Fallin Thursday reappointed Preston Doerflinger as director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), formerly the Office of State Finance.  Doerflinger resigned in March as OMES director in order to serve as interim director of the Department of Human Services (DHS) at Fallin’s request.

With the recent selection of Ed Lake as permanent DHS director, Doerflinger is returning to his post at OMES.  Doerflinger’s reappointment requires confirmation from the Oklahoma State Senate. 

During his absence, Transition Project Manager Carol McFarland served as acting OMES director.  Doerflinger remained secretary of finance on the governor’s cabinet during his time at DHS.

“I want to commend Preston Doerflinger for his service as interim director of DHS,” Fallin said. “Preston helped guide DHS during a critical time when key reforms, such as the Pinnacle Plan, were implemented.  His leadership helped the agency move forward as improvements were made to ensure DHS adequately serves our state’s most vulnerable citizens.”

Fallin continued, “As OMES director and secretary of finance, Preston Doerflinger has been a critical part of my administration’s efforts to save tax dollars by implementing cost-saving reforms and consolidating state agencies.  I’m glad to have Preston back at OMES as we continue to pursue reforms to save tax dollars and help us deliver on the promise of a more efficient and effective state government.”

Doerflinger added, “Though I’m returning to OMES, I will offer my support and remain a resource for Ed Lake as he begins his tenure at DHS.  I want to thank the staff at DHS for their hard work and dedication and for welcoming me as interim director.  The staff at OMES did a great job during my absence as director and I’m excited to rejoin the team.  There’s more work for OMES as we pursue further reforms that will save tax dollars, eliminate wasteful government spending and improve the effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of government services.”

Before being selected as OMES director and secretary of finance in the Fallin administration, Doerflinger was elected city auditor of Tulsa in 2009. He previously served as chief executive officer of PLD Management, a business consulting and investment firm he founded.  Prior to that, he helped found several health care consulting and supply companies across Oklahoma.  Doerflinger holds a bachelor’s degree in organizational leadership from Southern Nazarene University, where he graduated with honors.

OKLAHOMA CITY – On the November ballot, retention votes for four state Supreme Court justices are getting unusual attention this year, with voices both for and against a “yes” vote jockeying for position in these final days.
 
Advocacy for the jurists has emerged, featuring newspaper and other advertising, distribution of talking points to attorneys and other citizens, and other low-key approaches.

The activity is modest in comparison to candidate races, but the focus on judicial retention – both for and against – is unprecedented in the Sooner State. 
 
To be clear, it would not be accurate, eight days before the election, to dub this a “judges war” – words like “joust” or a “dust-up,” perhaps even “battle” seem apt.
 
Support for “YES” votes took shape in response to a critical business-oriented analysis of judicial voting patterns on issues touching tort litigation and business issues.
 
The State Chamber of Commerce sponsorship of the critical study of the Supreme Court for the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council, released in early October, led trial lawyers to respond.
 
“Sholer v. ERC Management Group LLC” (2011) is one case that drew the ire of business groups, and it was included in the evaluation. In that instance, a Court majority ruled property owners (in this case, an apartment complex) could be held liable for injuries previously deemed “open and obvious” and therefore not subject to tort. 
 
Gently countering the Chamber study, an advertisement placed by an Oklahoma City group called “Yes for Fair and Impartial Judges” underscores the importance of judicial integrity, fairness and impartiality. The group, including attorney Terry W. West of Oklahoma City, took what he called “educational steps” to inform voters that the four Supreme Court justices are not running against each other, but that voters “have the opportunity to support them, to uphold the law as written.”
 
Members of the Oklahoma County Bar Association have grown more visible in supporting the justices over recent weeks. State bar association officials are chiding the peers at their State Chamber for the industry and trade association’s evaluation of the four justices, which centered around 145 cases involving civil liability since 2006.
 
Fred Morgan of the State Chamber insists his organization’s evaluations are designed to fill a gap in which voters “have little or no information” about jurists. He said the Chamber wants voters to “make an informed decision on Nov. 6.”
 
On the side of the justices, lawyers have not opened financing floodgates, but in addition to scattered advertising are circulating messages via social media platforms asking colleagues to “educate and inform” Oklahomans, to “uphold the integrity and quality of justice in Oklahoma.”
 
On ballots, all state voters will see the names of the four justices – Yvonne Kauger, Noma Gurich, Doug Combs and James Edmondson. Voters are asked the question (Yes or No): “Shall —— of the Oklahoma Supreme Court be retained in office?”
 
Typically, justices and judges are retained by 2-1 or stronger margins. The Chamber study and a recent controversy could erode that support.
 
As reported on Watchdog.org, earlier this month Justice Gurich’s husband – John Miley, an attorney at the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission – used his state email address to advocate support for all the justices and judges facing retention this year.
 
Miley has said the advocacy did not violate states ethics strictures against use of government resources for political purposes. He asserts judicial retention elections are not political.
 
However, even supporters of the justices seem to agree with Miley’s critics, that such use of the state email system was unwise.
 
Members of the Oklahoma County Bar, encouraged by leaders to post messages on Facebook pages, were cautioned: “Please be sure that you do not forward this email to any address that is a government or judicial office.”
 
Through the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council, the State Chamber has its own advertising effort in selected newspapers. Those ads distill the evaluation of the High Court and a newer appellate court assessment without, however, explicitly calling for votes for or against any jurist. Each of the four “Supremes” facing retention were found to vote “right” less than one-third of the time, in the Chamber’s perspective.
 
The Chamber explains its evaluation system by pointing to a statement from the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System: “Where judges stand for ‘YES/NO’ retention votes…there should be robust judicial performance evaluation systems and wide public dissemination of evaluation information so that voters are informed about judges on their ballots.”
 
The Chamber also points out, “Similar evaluations have been completed in many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.”
 
Morgan and others who distributed the Chamber analysis say the focus on civil liability is intended to underscore the role legal climate plays in state economic growth. The evaluation aimed to decide, for each of the cases examined, whether or not a justice’s vote had the effect of expanding civil liability.
 
Last week, the State Chamber unveiled a second analysis, focused of the records of the judges on the Court of Civil Appeals. Only three of the six judges evaluated were given formal scores, and the averages were higher than for the Supreme Court justices previously evaluated.

Editor’s Note: In a separate report from the  McCarville Report, Contributing Editor Jerry Bohnen writes "Mum’s the word from the dozen judges who make up the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals in the wake of their evaluation by the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council.  Click here to read that report from www.McCarvilleReport.com.