House may want to revisit 2012 proposal

F IVE years ago, after one of its members had gotten into hot water, the state House of Representatives considered establishing a standard procedure to evaluate ethics-related issues. Members ultimately rejected the proposal in a vote that current House occupants might wish had gone the other way.

A special committee that’s investigating sexual harassment allegations against two members has been buffeted from the outset by claims that the process is unfair to the accused and a disservice to taxpayers because the hearings are behind closed doors. The process has been a bumpy ride, to put it mildly.

In late December, Speaker-elect Charles McCall announced that the House Rules Committee would look into allegations of sexual harassment brought against Rep. Dan Kirby, R-Tulsa, by a former legislative assistant. Kirby resigned shortly after The Oklahoman reported that the House leadership last year had quietly approved a wrongful termination settlement payment to the woman, but he rescinded his resignation within days.

McCall said the committee would also review the authority of the House to use operational funds to settle claims, and would look at prior sexual harassment allegations against current House members. That resulted in Rep. Will Fourkiller, D-Stilwell, being drawn into the investigation for allegedly making a high school page feel uncomfortable in 2015.

Kirby and Fourkiller have denied wrongdoing — and have complained about the way the committee is being run. It has opted to hear from witnesses in closed sessions, a decision its chairman, Rep. Josh Cockroft, R-Wanette, said was made to protect confidential information of alleged victims and unelected witnesses.

This approach prompted House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, to request an attorney general’s opinion as to whether the committee and its chairman were violating the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. Meantime, two of the three Democratic members of the nine-member committee haven’t participated, citing the panel’s secrecy rules.

Fourkiller said he would only testify if the proceeding was open to the public. The proceeding “does not provide the equitable forum to repair my character and reputation,” he said.

Kirby, who now faces allegations made by a second former aide, last week initially refused to go before the committee, saying its rules limited his ability to defend himself. Among other things, Kirby said neither he nor his attorney were notified about the questioning of witnesses or allowed to be present for that questioning.

This drew a strong rebuttal from Cockroft, who said Kirby had been offered every document the committee felt it could provide without compromising confidential information, and that the process had been fully explained to Kirby from the start. Kirby’s decision also prompted McCall to suspend Kirby as chairman of the House Business, Commerce & Tourism Committee pending the outcome of the investigation. A few days later, Kirby changed course and appeared before the committee after all.

The panel’s final report is expected soon. Regardless of the outcome, members may want to revisit the idea of establishing a standard procedure to deal with future incidents. Doing so might help avoid some of the headaches experienced this time.