Is this just the tip? OU Foundation may face possible ethics probe for unreported gifts

From Today OU Daily 

OU Foundation may face possible ethics 

probe for unreported gifts

Nicholas Harrison/The Daily

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The OU Foundation may be under investigation by the Oklahoma State Ethics Commission for failing to report gifts to university officers and employees.

The Daily submitted a complaint to the commission Dec. 13 stemming from the OU Foundation’s denial of an open records request first reported Dec. 7.

Although the foundation invoked a statute that allows them to keep donor information confidential, the state attorney general’s office had issued an opinion in 2002 that indicated it must still comply with all applicable state ethics laws.

In his 2002 opinion, Attorney General Drew Edmondson wrote, “The authority of a public body to keep donors’ identities confidential is tempered by the rules of the commission.”

Edmondson noted state officials and employees are required to be independent and impartial and to exercise their powers and prerogatives without prejudice or favoritism.

Anyone who does business with a state entity is required to report any gift to a state officer or employee with a cost of more than $50, according to state statutes.

 

On its official website, the foundation’s audit report indicates it has several contracts with the university and provided $21,644,682 in salary supplements in 2010 and $28,824,589 in 2009. However, when The Daily contacted the commission, no reports were filed by the foundation.

At its regular meeting Dec. 21, the commission acted on two complaints, voting unanimously “there was a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of constitutional ethics rules had occurred.”

Immediately after the meeting, Marilyn Hughes, executive director for the commission, confirmed an investigation had been opened on the OU Foundation. 

 However, when contacted by The Daily on Tuesday, Hughes said she could neither confirm nor deny the investigation.

All information regarding ongoing investigations is kept confidential in accordance with state law. After a complaint is submitted it is presented to the commission by the executive director during a closed executive session, said Rebecca Adams, general counsel to the commission.

If the commission determines rules have been violated, there is no guarantee the findings will be available to the public.

At its discretion, the commission may resolve a possible rules violation by issuing a private reprimand which remains confidential. They may also issue a public reprimand, reach a settlement or bring a lawsuit to court, Adams said.

A the time this story was written, OU Foundation President Guy Patton and OU Press Secretary Chris Shilling said they had not been contacted by the commission. They were not aware the foundation was the subject of an investigation and could provide no comments.

Cost of (Ethics Commission) computer upgrade disputed

Cost of computer upgrade disputed

By MICK HINTON World Capitol Bureau

OKLAHOMA CITY — The state ethics director on Friday disputed a senator's claim that it would cost $150,000 to adapt a computerized campaign reporting system that the agency doesn't want.

The real cost is more like $750,000 and possibly as much as $1 million, Ethics Commission Executive Director Marilyn Hughes said.

The Legislature is planning to give the Ethics Commission only $50,000 this session for the computer conversion.

Legislators and ethics commissioners are feuding over the agency's funding bill, which earmarks the money to pattern Oklahoma's campaign reporting system after the Federal Election Commission's.

Ethics commissioners are strongly opposed to adapting to the FEC system because they say it fails to meet the requirements of Oklahoma's campaign reporting laws.

Oklahoma's laws limit contributions from an individual or family to $5,000 during a campaign cycle, which can last two years or more. But the FEC system does not provide for cumulative totals throughout a campaign, so it cannot be determined whether a contributor exceeds the limit, Hughes said.

On the other hand, some lawmakers and political action committees have complained that the Ethics Commission's current reporting system is slow and hard to operate compared with the federal system.

Paul Ziriax, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans, said Friday that there have been "numerous complaints" that the current electronic reporting software is "seriously flawed" and needs to be replaced with something more "user-friendly."

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee said $150,000 would cover the cost of the system conversion. He said the $50,000 appropriated by the House would give the commission a good start.

Coffee said he wanted the entire $150,000 appropriated but that the House and Governor's Office were not in agreement.

Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, said Senate Republicans had asked the vendor how much the changeover would cost.

"I made an inquiry with the software vender, and they said there were a lot of variables, and it would be difficult to predict," he said. "But that was their best estimate."

Hughes produced an e-mail Friday from the vendor that stated a price of "over $750,000 plus additional maintenance the first year to put the total over $1 million."

Senate leaders were trying Friday to get the vendor to recheck the cost.

Neither Coffee nor Hughes has received an official estimate to convert the Oklahoma system.


Mick Hinton (405) 528-2465
mick.hinton@tulsaworld.com

Gifts to lawmakers exceed $200,000

Gifts to lawmakers exceed $200,000
By Michael McNutt
Capitol Bureau

Lobbyists spent more than $200,000, mostly on meals, gifts and tickets for legislators in 2007, a 28 percent increase over the previous year, state Ethics Commission records show.

Most of the money, or about 66 percent, was spent during the first half of last year when legislators were in session and before a new law took effect that limited the amount companies that hire lobbyists can spend.

A big chunk of the money during the last six months of 2007 was spent on season football tickets at the state's two largest universities, commission records also show.

A law that took effect July 1 states lobbyists can spend only $300 a year on an elected state official or legislator from each client they represent and limits companies that hire lobbyists to spending $300 a year on an elected state official or legislator, regardless of the number of lobbyists they have. Ethics concerning lobbying will again be an issue this legislative session, which starts today.

More than half the money spent in 2007 on legislators went to Republicans.

Republicans control the House of Representatives, 54 members to 47 members. More than $92,000 was spent in 2007 on House Republicans compared with more than $38,000 spent on House Democrats, according to lobbyist reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.

Republicans and Democrats are evenly split in the Senate. More than $33,000 in gifts was given by lobbyists to Senate Republicans compared with more than $27,000 given to Senate Democrats, according to lobbyist reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.

New rules proposed

The Ethics Commission has proposed a rule that would drastically cut the maximum amount of money lobbyists could spend on each legislator.
The proposal would reduce from $300 to $100 the amount spent on elected officials during a calendar year by companies or associations that hire lobbyists. Those companies also provide the money to buy meals and other gifts for legislators.

The proposal also would require lobbyists to disclose gifts after spending more than $10 on a state official or aide during each six-month period. Lobbyists now are required to report gifts costing $50 or more.

Both proposals will take effect July 1 if legislators take no action on them by the time the session ends in late May. The House and Senate both have to pass a resolution to kill the proposals; the governor can veto the resolution.

How much was spent?

The money spent by lobbyists on legislators in 2007 is an increase of more than $40,000 over 2006, when lobbyists spent $161,552, records show. Lobbyists gave legislators $175,780 in gifts in 2005 and $125,000 in gifts in 2004, records show.

Rose State College professor John Wood submitted a report to the Ethics Commission that said companies employing lobbyists have an advantage over most Oklahomans, mainly because the average Oklahoman cannot afford to hire a lobbyist.

The typical annual income from lobbying in Oklahoma is $86,525, Wood said. Nearly 40 percent of Oklahoma lobbyists make more than $100,000.

Term limits in the state Legislature have increased lobbyists' relative power to legislators who are overall less experienced and have less institutional memory compared with legislators who have been in office longer, Wood said.

How funds are spent

Most of the money spent on legislators in 2007 was for meals, ranging from $6 breakfasts to $210-a-plate dinners.
Lobbyists also bought gifts and tickets, such as to concerts or to sporting events.

Season tickets to Oklahoma State University and University of Oklahoma football games made up 24 percent of the $207,784 spent on legislators last year.

OU gave 92 legislators season football tickets at a cost of $27,600, records show.

Legislators have the option to receive one OU discounted season football ticket, said Catherine Bishop, vice president of public affairs at the university.

The season ticket costs $379, with OU paying $300 and each legislator paying $79, Bishop said. The most OU or any group that hires lobbyists legally can spend on each legislator each calendar year is $300.

Legislators also have the option of buying up to one additional season football ticket at the public rate, which for 2007 was $370, Bishop said.

"Their visits give us the chance to make them aware of our academic and research programs, which are of great benefit to our state,” OU President David Boren said. "These tickets are paid for through athletic department funds, which come from ticket revenues.

"We do not use appropriated funds or funds designated for academic programs,” Boren said. "We remain one of the very few universities in the nation where the athletic department makes subsidies to academic budgets each year instead of the academic budget subsidizing athletics, which is true for most universities.”

About $1 million comes from the athletic department each year to support OU's library, Boren said.

OSU gave 80 legislators season tickets valued at $288 each for a total of $23,040.

"Football games are a great opportunity to have Oklahoma leaders visit our campus and get an update on what OSU is doing to fulfill its land-grant mission of teaching, research and outreach,” said Gary Shutt, OSU's director of communications.

Each legislator has the option to receive one season ticket at no cost because it is under the $300 limit and the option to buy as many season tickets as they want, Shutt said.

Next year, however, a season ticket will cost more than $300 because OSU is playing an extra game, he said. Legislators receiving a free season ticket would pay the amount over $300, he said.

The $50,640 in OU and OSU season football tickets to legislators made up about 72 percent of the $70,414 in gifts given to legislators by lobbyists from July 1 through Dec. 31, records show.

Who got the most gifts?

Rep. Dennis Adkins, R-Tulsa, received the most in gifts during the last six months, according to available Ethics Commission reports. He received $1,733.

Five others received more than $1,000 in gifts during that time period: Reps. Mike Thompson, R-Oklahoma City, received $1,175 and Tad Jones, R-Claremore, received $1,070; Sens. Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow, received $1,040, Owen Laughlin, R-Woodward, received $1,032 and Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, received $1,028 in the last six months of 2007.

Fourteen of the state's 101 representatives and two of the state's 48 senators received no gifts during the last six months of 2007, reports show.

During the last six months of 2007, Republicans received 61 percent of the money given to House members. House Republicans received $26,761 in gifts from lobbyists while House Democrats received $17,295, reports show.

In the Senate, Republicans received 58 percent of the gifts given, with GOP members getting $15,369 and Democrats receiving $10,991, reports show.

The exact amount given to legislators is unknown. Lobbyists only have to disclose gifts after spending more than $50 on a state official or aide during each six-month period.

Some miss report deadlines

About 100 of the state's 389 registered lobbyists had failed to file spending activity reports by the Jan. 22 deadline, according to the Ethics Commission. Fifty-six had failed to file reports through Jan. 31.
The $207,784 figure was obtained by checking paper spending activity reports filed by lobbyists through Jan. 31 with the Ethics Commission. About a dozen lobbyists filed online, a new option this year.

However, those reports were difficult to track because a new format for the commission's Web site showing lobbyist gifts is still being developed. One option showing lobbyists' expenditures for the year doesn't list specifically how the money was spent and another reporting option does not list the expenditures by lobbyists.

The state's Web site provider is designing the reporting site. Marilyn Hughes, executive director of the Ethics Commission, said she hopes the information can be displayed correctly in the next month or so.

Wood, the Rose State College professor, said Oklahoma compares poorly with other states in terms of lobbyist disclosure.

In 2003, Oklahoma ranked as the 42nd best state and in 2006 lobbyists themselves felt "there are as many shady deals and underhanded tactics in Oklahoma as there ever were,” according to a study, Wood said.

However, the Ethics Commission "has gained great strides” in putting lobbyist expenditures, names and employers online since 2005, he said.

"Interest groups are strong in the state, but face some limitations with the strength of the governor and Legislature,” Wood said. "However the business and oil interest groups in the state are very powerful coupled with a weak two-party system and term limits.”