Officials’ dereliction has consequences
The concept of “duty” is exceptionally important in the military. Officers take an oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office, “So help me God.”
Broadly, “duty” means accomplishing the assigned mission to the absolute best of one’s ability, despite difficulty or danger; doing what should be done when it must be done, selflessly and courageously. It is more than just responsibility; it’s obligation — and not to be undertaken lightly.
Public officials in the civilian world take a similar oath. In Oklahoma, they swear not only to “support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma” but also to “faithfully discharge my duties” as a judge or officeholder “to the best of my ability.”
On Dec. 19, eight justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court joined a long list of Corporation Commissioners and attorneys general who have neglected their sworn duties as state officeholders.
In 1989, AT&T (then Southwestern Bell) defrauded its ratepayers in Oklahoma — including the U.S. Department of Defense and all federal executive agencies — by bribing a Corporation Commissioner in a rate case. Two people went to prison, but the bribed order was never overturned, allowing AT&T to keep hundreds of millions of dollars that should rightfully have been refunded to ratepayers.
The unlawfulness and injustice of this situation is clear. And so should have been the duty of our state officials to correct it. Yet time after time, attorneys general have chosen not to bring legal action, Corporation Commissioners have chosen not to declare the bribed decision void and properly redecide it, and now the state Supreme Court has chosen not to find bribery unconstitutional and allow an application seeking to refund billions to ratepayers even to receive a proper hearing.
Everyone agrees the bribery in this case is wrong, but most of our public officials want someone else to fix it. They know what should be done, but citing “jurisdiction” or “preclusion,” declare themselves impotent. These officials should be relieved of their duties.
The DOD and federal executive agencies were parties to this case from the outset, and their filing citing “compelling evidence of intrinsic fraud” and “criminal activity” indicates they may be willing to seek justice at the federal level if Oklahoma officials won’t do what’s right.
The ongoing dereliction of duty by officials in this state will have consequences.