ETHICS INTERPRETATION EI-2011-004
ISSUED NOVEMBER 17, 2011
Follow ing a public hearing, the Et hics Commission in its regular meeting held
November 17, 2011, considered your request for an ethics interpretation. You have
asked:
Do the Constitutional Ethics Rules [“ the Rules” ],

Sect ion 2 5 7 :1 -1 -1 et seq. of

prohibit your spouse,
w ho is a practicing attorney in this state, from continuing to provide legal
services to either CompSource Oklahoma or the University of Oklahoma?
t he Rules of t he Et hics Commission, 7 4 O. S. 2 0 1 1 , Ch. 6 2 , A pp.

THE FACTS
You have advised:
! your spouse has been a practicing attorney in the State of Oklahoma for the
past 27 years;
! during that time he has represented a number of clients;
! they have included CompSource Oklahoma [“ CompSource” ] and the
University of Oklahoma, w hich he represented for approximately 17 years and five
years, respectively;
! these attorney-client relationships predate both your marriage and you taking
office as the Governor of this state;
! exercising caution, your spouse chose to suspend representation unt il a
determination could be made regarding the legality of his continued w ork for these
clients;
! you posed a similar question to the Attorney General w ho, in Opinion 201114, interpreted the Oklahoma Constitution to mean that prohibitions set forth in Article
X, Section 11 apply solely t o public funds and, hence, do not extend to monies of
CompSource, w hich have been judicially determined as not constituting public funds;
! w ith respect to the University of Oklahoma, the Attorney General found that
prohibitions of Article X, Section 11 do not apply to all public funds, but only to: (1)
the use or loan of public funds in an officer’ s hands, or (2) monies to be raised
through the officer’ s agency;
! the Attorney General thus concluded that Article X, Section 11 does not
Page 1 of 6

 prohibit a governor’ s spouse from being paid attorney fees from funds of
CompSource, nor does it prohibit t he University of Oklahoma from using its public
funds to pay attorney fees to a governor’ s spouse;
! you now ask w hether the Constitutional Ethics Rules in any w ay preclude
your spouse from representing either of these clients;
! the Commission relies solely on your statements and has made no
independent effort to confirm them. It therefore limits its ethics interpretation to the
facts you have provided;
! finally, w hile Section 257:1-1-6(h) protects “ the identity of the person or
persons involved in the situations presented in the request for ethics interpretation,”
you have formally w aived those protect ions and have expressly authorized the
Commission to publish your name and that of your spouse.
THE LAW
Since this is a question of first impression, the Commission has no interpretative
authority on point. For that reason, it w ill confine itself to an examination of language
w ithin applicable Rules. The controlling provision is Section 257:20-1-10(b), in
Chapter 20, governing ethics and conflicts of interest. It provides:
State officers’ and state employees’ private interests in public contracts
*

*

*

(b)
Contracting w ith current or former legislators and statew ide elective officers
– Exceptions. No legislat or or st at ew ide elect iv e of f icer shall sell or cause t o be sold,
rent or lease eit her as an indiv idual or t hrough any business ent erprise in w hich he
holds a subst ant ial f inanc ial int erest , goods, serv ices, buildings or propert y t o any
gov ernm ent al ent it y . No st at e of f icer or st at e em ploy ee, act ing in his or her of f ic ial
c apac it y , shall ent er int o any c ont ract in w hich t he st at e of f icer or st at e em ploy ee
k now s t hat a person w ho is t hen or has been a legislat or w it hin t he prev ious y ear, or
a member of such person’ s immediate family, has a substantial financial interest. The
prov isions of t his subsec t ion shall not apply t o a cont ract of em ploy m ent w it h an
im m ediat e f am ily m em ber of a legislat or, t oget her w it h any renew al, prom ot ion or
lat eral t ransf er of suc h em ploy m ent c ont ract t o anot her gov ernm ent al ent it y , w hich is:
(1 )

in ex ist enc e on J uly 1 , 1 9 9 4 ;

(2 )

in ex ist enc e prior t o t he legislat or’ s t erm of of f ice;

(3 )

in ex ist enc e prior t o m arriage t o t he legislat or; or

(4 )
w it h a st udent em ploy ed on a part -t im e basis, w hich shall be sev ent y f iv e perc ent (7 5 % ) of a norm al f ort y -hour w ork w eek or t hirt y (3 0 ) hours per
w eek , or less, and w ho is regularly enrolled, as def ined in Paragraph 1 1 of
Sec t ion 8 4 0 .8 of Tit le 7 4 of t he Oklahom a St at ut es, in an inst it ut ion of higher
educ at ion c om prising t he Oklahom a St at e Sy st em of Higher Educat ion.

Page 2 of 6

 No legislator or statew ide elected officer shall at t em pt t o inf luence or perf orm an
of f icial f unc t ion requiring t he ex ercise of discret ion relat ing t o a cont ract w it h any
gov ernm ent al ent it y if a member of the legislator’ s or statew ide elective officer’ s
immediate family has a substantial financial interest in such contract.
(c )
Exceptions.
apply t o:

Subsec t ions (a) and (b), ex cept as prohibit ed by law , shall not

(1 )
c ont rac t s w it h st at e em ploy ees f or goods or serv ices v alued at less
t han f iv e t housand dollars ($ 5 ,0 0 0 );
(2 )
c ont rac t s w it h st at e em ploy ees ent ered int o af t er public not ice by t he
gov ernm ent al ent it y and com pliance w it h com pet it iv e bidding procedures; and
(3 )

em ploy m ent c ont ract s ent ered int o w it h f orm er legislat ors.
*

*

*

Sec t ion 2 5 7 :2 0 -1 -1 0

[em phasis added]

The Rule breaks dow n into three distinct parts.
First, w ith certain exceptions, it prohibits legislators and statew ide elective
officers from contracting w ith a state governmental entity. The latter is defined as:
Definitions
*

*

*

“ Governmental entity”
(1 )
m eans any depart m ent , com m ission, aut horit y , council, board, bureau,
c om m it t ee, legislat iv e body , agency , st at e benef icial public t rust , or ot her
est ablishm ent of t he ex ecut iv e, legislat iv e or judicial branch of t he St at e of
Ok lahom a.
(2 )
shall not m ean ent it ies of polit ical subdiv isions of t he St at e of
Ok lahom a.
*

*

*

Sec t ion 2 5 7 :1 -1 -2

The Commission finds that both CompSource and the University of Oklahoma w ere
intended to fit under this broadly-w orded definition, w hich includes “ establishments”
of any of the three branches of government in the State of Oklahoma.
Second, the Rule precludes st ate officers and employees from entering into
publicly funded cont racts w ith a person w ho has served as a legislator w ithin the
previous year, as w ell as a member of his or her immediate f amily. The latter is
defined in the Rules as:
*

*

*

Page 3 of 6

 “ Immediate family” m eans a c hild under t he age of eight een (1 8 ) y ears residing in a
st at e of f ic er’ s or st at e em ploy ee’ s household, a spouse of a st at e of f icer or st at e
em ploy ee, and an indiv idual c laim ed by t he st at e of f icer or st at e em ploy ee or t he st at e
of f icer’ s or st at e em ploy ees’ s spouse as a dependent f or t ax purposes.
*

*

*

Id.

Finally, it forbids a legislator or statew ide elective officer from att empting to
influence or perform an official function requiring the exercise of discretion relating to
a contract w ith a governmental ent it y w here the legislator’ s or statew ide elective
officer’ s immediate family has a substantial financial interest in that contract.
ANALYSIS
These facts do not involve a statew ide elective officer – like the governor –
ent ering a contract in her official capacity w ith a person w ho has been a legislator
w ithin the past year or w ith his or her immediate family member. Therefore, part tw o
of paragraph (b) of Section 257:20-1-10 does not apply.
Similarly, part three has no application. There is no suggestion that the
governor w ill attempt to influence or perform an official function requiring the exercise
of discretion relating to her spouse’ s contract for legal services w ith one or more
governmental entities.
The Commission therefore turns to part one of Rules’ Section 20-1-10(b). As
noted, it prohibits a statew ide elective officer – including the governor – from selling
or causing to be sold, rent or lease either as an individual or through any business
enterprise in w hich he or she holds a substantial financial interest, goods, services,
buildings or property to any governmental entity.
This language w ould prohibit the governor – w ere he or she a law yer – from
selling services, including legal services, to a state governmental entity. But, by its
clear w ording, it does not reach a spouse or other members of the immediate family.
The absence of inclusive language in this provision show s an intent by the framers to
omit the spouse, particularly w here that person – and immediate family members –
are expressly provided for elsew here in this Chapter of the Rules.
For instance, Section 257:20-1-7 includes w ithin its strictures not only a spouse
and immediate family member(s), but expands the regulation to include an adopted
child, step-child, and a business entity w ith w hich a st ate officer or legislator is
associated. In pertinent part, it provides:
V otes, deliberations, and discussions by legislators or statew ide elective officers

Page 4 of 6

 (a)
A legislat or or st at ew ide elect iv e of f icer shall not int roduce or cause t o hav e
int roduc ed, request t he int roduct ion of , prom ot e, or v ot e on any legislat ion if t he
st at ew ide elec t iv e of f ic er or legislat or or a child, adopted child, step-child or spouse of
the officer or legislator or a business or entity w ith w hich the legislator or officer or a
member of the immediate family of the legislator or officer is associated has:
(1 )

a pec uniary int erest in; or

(2 )

a reasonably f oreseeable benef it f rom :

t he legislat ion . . .
*

*

*

Sec t ion 2 5 7 :2 0 -1 -7

Similar language is contained in Rules’ Section 257:20-1-8, w hich regulates
votes, deliberation and discussions by public members. There applicable language
includes not merely the public member, but his or her immediate family, as w ell as a
business or entity w ith w hich he or she – or immediate family member(s) – is
associated, has a pecuniary interest in or a reasonably foreseeable benefit from the
matter under consideration by the entity the public member serves.
V otes, deliberations, and discussions by public members
(a)
A public m em ber shall not part icipat e in t he discussion on, v ot e on, inf luence,
or at t em pt t o inf luenc e an of f ic ial act ion of t he gov ernm ent al ent it y t he public m em ber
serv es on if t he public m em ber or a m em ber of t he im m ediat e f am ily of t he public
m em ber or a business or ent it y w it h w hich t he public m em ber or a m em ber of t he
im m ediat e f am ily of t he public m em ber is associat ed, has:
(1 )

a pec uniary int erest in; or

(2 )

a reasonably f oreseeable benef it f rom :

t he m at t er under c onsiderat ion by t he gov ernm ent al ent it y of w hich t he public m em ber
is a m em ber . . .
*

*

*

Sec t ion 2 5 7 :2 0 -1 -8

These establish that t he framers w ere aw are of the option of extending Chapter 20
Rules to include spouses, immediate family members, adopted children, step-children
and even businesses or entities in w hich the state officer holds a substantial financial
interest. With regard to the controlling language of Rules’ Section 257: 20-1-10(b),
they chose not to take that step.
The Commission thus finds that nothing in the applicable part of that provision
precludes the spouse of a statew ide elective officer from contracting for legal services
w ith a state governmental entity. As noted, the latter includes both CompSource and
the University of Oklahoma.

Page 5 of 6

 Therefore, the Commission finds that nothing in the Constitutional Ethics Rules
prohibits a governor’ s spouse, w ho is a practicing attorney in the State of Oklahoma,
from continuing to provide legal services to either CompSource or the University of
Oklahoma. Because this holding provides the ultimate answ er to your question, the
Commission does not analyze any alternate scenarios.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore the Ethics Interpretation of the Ethics Commission, as decided at
its regular meeting held November 17, 2011, that the Constitutional Ethics Rules do
not prohibit the Governor’ s spouse, who is a practicing attorney in the State of
Oklahoma, from continuing to provide legal services to either CompSource or the
University of Oklahoma.
Please be advised that ethics interpretations are fact specific. They answ er only
the question or questions put forth in the underlying request. While they may shed
light on other situations, this opinion does not necessarily control them. To be binding
on the future action of this agency, the interpretation must be directed to the
individual situation.
The Commission is authorized to issue ethics interpretations by Oklahoma
Constitution Article 29, Section 5 and Rule 257:1-1-6(h) . Questions pertaining to
other Oklahoma Statutes, the state and federal Constitutions or federal law cannot be
interpreted by the Commission and must be referred to the appropriate authority.
Et hics Interpretations are issued not by staff, but by the Commissioners.
Members consider briefs, testimony and input from the public, w ho have prior notice
of the issues and an opportunity to be heard on the questions presented in the ethics
int erpretation request. Follow ing consideration in executive session, members vote
on the matter in open meeting.
Ethics Interpretations are ordinarily published w ith sufficient deletions to prevent
identification of the requester. The protection of confidentiality w as, in this instance,
formally w aived. This opinion therefore bears no restrictive label.
We trust the foregoing has answ ered your questions. Please advise if w e may
be of further assistance.

Page 6 of 6