Judges: SUSAN BRIMER LOVING, Attorney General of Oklahoma
Filed Date: 5/2/1994
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Dear Representatives Rob Johnson,
¶ 0 The Attorney General has received your letter asking for an official opinion addressing, in effect, the following questions:
1. May ethics rules, newly promulgated by the Oklahoma EthicsCommission and presented to the Legislature in accordance withthe provisions of 3 of Article
Ethics Rules.
A. After public hearing, the Ethics Commission shall promulgate rules of ethical conduct for campaigns for elective state office and for campaigns for initiatives and referenda, including civil penalties for violation of these rules.
B. After public hearing, the Ethics Commission shall promulgate rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees, including civil penalties for violation of these rules.
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 2 As can be seen, these constitutional provisions empower the Ethics Commission to promulgate rules, including civil penalties for rule violations, in three areas:
1. Rules of ethical conduct for campaigns for elected state office;
2. Rules for the ethical conduct of campaigns for initiatives and referenda; and
3. Rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees.
¶ 3 While the Commission in the first instance promulgates ethical rules in these three areas, the rules promulgated by the Commission do not automatically become law. Rather, the Constitution requires that the Commission must present newly promulgated rules to the Legislature and the Governor. The Legislature, by joint resolution, subject to the Governor's veto, is then empowered to disapprove the rules presented, as provided in subsection C of 3 of Article XXIX, Section 3(C):
C. Newly promulgated rules shall be presented to each House of the Legislature and to the Governor on the second day of each session of the Legislature. If these rules are not disapproved by joint resolution, subject to veto by the Governor, during the same legislative session, they shall be effective. In the event the Governor vetoes a joint resolution disapproving any Ethics Commission's rules, the procedure shall be the same as for the veto of any other bill or joint resolution. Effective Ethics Commission rules shall be published in the official statutes of the State.
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 4 Section Article XXIX, Section 3(D), at subsection D, also empowers the Legislature to repeal or modify "effective Ethics Commission rules":
D. Effective Ethics Commission rules may be repealed or modified by the Commission, and the repeal or modification shall be submitted to the Legislature and the Governor in the same manner as newly promulgated rules. Effective Ethics Commission rules may also be repealed or modified by law passed by a majority vote of each House of the Legislature. If the Governor vetoes such a law, the procedure shall be the same as for the veto of any other bill or joint resolution.
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 5 As the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Ethics Com'n v.Cullison,
¶ 6 The Constitutionally created Ethics Commission presented its initial package of ethics rules to the Legislature during its 1992 session. Ethics Com'n v. Cullison,
¶ 7 The first question you ask is whether the Legislature, when presented with a single package of rules, is limited to accepting or rejecting the entire package, or conversely whether the Legislature may consider the merits of each proposed rule separately. Put another way, the question presented is whether the only method available to the Legislature to disapprove a single proposed rule is to disapprove the entire package of proposed rules.
¶ 8 In examining the constitutional provisions establishing the roles of the Commission and the Legislature in the ethics rulemaking process, we apply the rules of construction applicable to statutes, because constitutional provisions are generally construed using those same rules of construction. Cowart v.Piper Aircraft Corp.,
¶ 9 Under these rules' of statutory construction, the various references in the Constitutional provisions under examination, to ethics "rules," or promulgated "rules," in the plural, are of limited aid in construing the intent of the people, as words used in the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular, except where a contrary intent plainly appears. See, e.g., Statev. Hamilton,
¶ 10 Additionally, Article XXIX, Section 3 specifically recognizes that the Legislature may pass a joint resolution disapproving "any Ethics Commission rules." (Emphasis added.) It is well settled that "in the absence of a contrary definition of the common words used, courts must assume that the lawmaking authority intended for them to have the same meaning as that attributed to them in ordinary and usual parlance." E.g., RiffePetroleum Co. v. Great Nat. Corp., Inc.,
¶ 11 Moreover, it is well settled that restrictions on legislative power are to be strictly construed. E.g., Tate v.Logan,
¶ 12 We find nothing in the language of Article
¶ 13 There can be no doubt that in enacting Article XXIX of our Constitution, the people of Oklahoma wanted an ethical framework in place which would govern the ethical conduct of certain elections and public officials. Yet to adopt the view that the Legislature must accept "all or none" of the proposed rules, one must also be of the view that the people, at the same time, believed that to have no effective rules was better than to have each proposed rule accepted or rejected on its merits. That view, taken to its extreme, suggests that the people preferred to leave the Legislature free, year after year, to refuse to approve any ethics rules at all, rather than to give it the opportunity to adopt at least some. Not only is it highly unlikely the people contemplated such a result, it is entirely inconsistent with the broad authority the people in fact left in the hands of the Legislature. A restrictive view of the Legislature's power, a view that would require that in order to disapprove one rule, all rules must be disapproved, would be contrary to one of the primary purposes of the Section. The intent of the Section is to get ethics rules in place. Reading the section to require that, in order to get rid of one perceived "rotten apple," the Legislature would have to reject "the entire barrel of apples," would thwart this intent. Such an "all or nothing" construction could, year after year, well result in the state having no ethics rules at all.
¶ 14 In fact, in enacting Article XXIX, the people gave the Legislature specific and broad authority to modify, and even repeal, ethical rules, once they are effective. It is doubtful that on the one hand the people intended to restrict the Legislature's power to review the merits of each individual proposed rule — that instead they would prefer no rules at all — while, on the other hand, the people gave the Legislature a virtual free hand to act, once a rule is in place.
¶ 15 It is relevant, moreover, to note that at the time the Ethics Commission amendments to the Constitution were voted upon by the people, rulemaking for virtually every state agency in Oklahoma was, and continues to be, governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 75 O.S. 250 (1991) et seq., as amended. For more than thirty years, the Legislature has been authorized by the APA to consider and approve or disapprove agency rules on a rule-by-rule basis, even in situations where the proposed rules were intended to comprehensively address a new or entire subject. We find nothing in 3 of Article XXIX evidencing any intent by the people that the Legislature depart from this long-standing and well accepted practice of considering each proposed rule on its own merits.
¶ 16 Finally, we note that an "all or nothing" view of the Legislature's authority to act on Commission rules would permit a form of "administrative logrolling," a practice which in the legislative arena is prohibited and contrary to public policy. Okla. Const. Article
¶ 17 We thus conclude that the people intended that review of the proposed Ethics rules by their elected representatives be a check on the Commission's actions, a critical review of the Commission action — a critical review of each proposed rule on its own merits. In short, we conclude it was not the people's intent to limit the review of a proposed rule on its merits, nor was it their intent to require that an entire package of Ethics Commission rules be "held hostage" and thus fail because of one controversial rule, which the Legislature finds unacceptable. Thus, we conclude that the Legislature may consider and disapprove each proposed Ethics Commission rule on its own merits, rule-by-rule.
¶ 19 In providing that the Legislature is only empowered to modify or repeal effective Commission rules, the Constitution ensures that the Commission, in every instance, will be afforded the opportunity to initially draft rules within its area of jurisdiction. If we were to hold that the Legislature was empowered to disapprove portions of a rule, we would be permitting the Legislature to have a hand in the initial drafting. Such is not permitted under the Constitutional provisions. When only a portion of the rule is found to be undesirable, the Legislature must nevertheless consider the rule as a whole, and may not disapprove a portion of the rule.
¶ 20 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the AttorneyGeneral that:
1. Enactment by the people of Article
SUSAN BRIMER LOVING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
NEAL LEADER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL