In run for governor, focus should be on serious issues

STATE Auditor and Inspector Gary Jones plans to run for governor as a Republican next year. If he’s serious about that effort, he needs to come up with better issues than complaining that some other statewide officials have security.

Jones recently griped that one of his GOP rivals in the gubernatorial race, Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, has state-funded security wherever he goes, including to campaign events. Jones says having a state trooper drive Lamb gives Lamb an unfair advantage in the campaign.

For example, Jones said a candidate with security is free to make fundraising calls while traveling. Jones said he drives himself to events and cannot make phone calls during that time.

“It gives a couple of people a huge advantage over everyone else,” he said.

In reality, even when candidates for statewide office lack security guards they still rarely drive themselves. Instead, most statewide candidates tap campaign volunteers to handle driving duties so the candidate can make more productive use of his or her time. If a campaign lacks the infrastructure to make such arrangements, it’s a sign the candidate has failed to generate much public support or build a serious campaign organization.

Also, state law has long mandated security for the governor and lieutenant governor, so this is not a recent development nor is the presence of security something Lamb instigated.

Admittedly, such security won't be needed most of the time. But given the attempted assassination of numerous Republican congressmen at a baseball practice in June, it’s not unreasonable to think security may be vital on rare occasions. George Nigh recalled that a threat was made against his life during one of his various terms as lieutenant governor, which started in 1959 and ended when he became governor in 1979.

One wonders if Jones’ objection has less to do with the cost of security for the governor and lieutenant governor than with the fact that he doesn't receive comparable security as state auditor.

This isn’t the first time Jones has complained about something that amounts to little more than a minor perk of public office.

Last year, he objected that remodeling, repair and modernization of the Oklahoma Capitol might lead to losing his office space in the building. Jones even suggested he had a constitutional right to an office in the Capitol.

Yet most statewide elected officials have an office somewhere other than the Capitol building, including the state superintendent, labor commissioner, insurance commissioner and the three corporation commissioners. And roughly 80 percent of Jones’ employees are already housed outside the Capitol.

Thus, Jones’ demand for a Capitol office implicitly meant he was requesting a more expensive, less efficient method of operation for the auditor’s office. Nonetheless, lawmakers eventually ceded to Jones’ demands.

There are serious issues facing Oklahoma that should be addressed during the course of next year’s gubernatorial election: tax and spending policy, education, corrections, economic development, etc. Jones would do well to focus on these and refrain from titfor-tat arguments regarding office-amenity minutia that have little bearing on the average voter.