Can the Oklahoma Ethics Commission still investigate me for ethics violations after I leave state government?

Plain-English summary

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission was created by State Question 627 in 1990, after the county-commissioner corruption scandal that produced 230 federal convictions in the 1980s. The Commission lives in Article XXIX of the Oklahoma Constitution, which gives it the power to write ethics rules and to "investigate and, when it deems appropriate, prosecute" violations.

Executive Director Boone asked: does that jurisdiction extend to former state officers and employees, or does it end when someone leaves state service?

AG Drummond answered yes, the jurisdiction continues. Three reasons:

1. Plain meaning. Article XXIX, § 4 says the Commission "shall investigate" violations. "Shall" is mandatory. Nothing in the constitutional text limits the duty to investigate to people currently employed.
2. The only limit is a 4-year clock. Commission Rule 6.12 says a civil enforcement suit must be filed within four years of the alleged violation. The Commission's rules have constitutional weight because they are published as statutes unless the legislature affirmatively rejects them.
3. Implied power. Per Oklahoma County Excise Board v. Kurn (1941), when the constitution gives a body a duty, it implicitly gives the powers necessary to perform that duty. If state employees could simply resign to escape ethics enforcement, the Commission's purpose would be defeated.

The opinion follows the Oregon Court of Appeals in Moine v. Oregon Government Ethics Commission (1994), which reached the same conclusion. The AG distinguished Hawaii and New York cases that held differently, noting both turned on statutory limitations specific to those states (limited remedies in Hawaii, restrictive definitions of "public official" in New York) that Oklahoma's broader constitutional regime does not have.

What this means for you

If you are a current state officer or employee

Ethics rules apply to you while you are employed, and you remain potentially liable for four years after the alleged violation, regardless of whether you stay in state service. Resigning before a complaint is filed does not protect you. Document compliance carefully and treat ethics issues as a long-term concern, not a "while I'm here" concern.

If you are a former state officer or employee

A complaint about your conduct while in state service can still result in an Ethics Commission investigation and civil enforcement action up to four years after the alleged violation. If you are within that window, do not assume immunity. Common post-employment exposures: lobbying restrictions, gifts received during your tenure, financial disclosures, conflicts of interest in matters you handled.

If you sit on the Ethics Commission or work as Commission staff

This opinion is binding on state officials. You have explicit authority to pursue investigations against former officeholders and employees, and to seek civil penalties (including fines) under the four-year limitations period.

If you advise state employees on ethics matters

Calibrate your advice. The post-employment investigation and prosecution risk is real and lasts up to four years. Maintain records of disclosures, recusals, and gift declinations for at least that long. Resignations do not extinguish exposure.

If you are a campaign committee or political consultant

The Commission's rules cover campaign contributions and expenditures. Former campaign personnel can still be reached by the Commission for conduct during the relevant campaign cycle, within the four-year window.

If you are a journalist covering ethics issues

The opinion confirms the Commission has the legal tools to pursue cases against people who have left state government. This expands the universe of potential enforcement actions and removes a common defense ("I'm out of state service now, you can't touch me").

Common questions

Q: How long does the Commission have to file a case after I leave?
A: Up to four years from the date of the alleged violation under Commission Rule 6.12. Resigning earlier does not shorten the window.

Q: Are criminal penalties also four years?
A: This opinion addresses civil enforcement. Criminal cases (handled by district attorneys or the AG, not the Commission) are governed by separate criminal limitations periods.

Q: Does the Commission have to know about a violation before someone resigns?
A: No. The complaint can be filed after resignation. The Commission's jurisdiction depends on when the conduct occurred (during state service), not when it was discovered.

Q: Does this apply to elected officials who lose elections?
A: Yes. Defeat at the ballot box does not insulate former elected officials any more than resignation does. The same four-year clock applies.

Q: I left state service three years ago. Am I still at risk?
A: For violations that occurred during your last year of service, yes: you are within the four-year window. For violations that occurred more than four years ago, the Commission can no longer file a civil enforcement action.

Q: Does anonymous reporting work?
A: No. Commission Rule 6.3 requires complaints to come from a non-anonymous source.

Q: Can the Commission impose fines on someone who has left state service?
A: Yes. Article XXIX, §§ 3–4 authorize civil penalties including fines, and the Commission can pursue them against former officeholders and employees within the four-year window.

Background and statutory framework

After Watergate, Oklahoma enacted the Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act in 1974. After the 1980s county-commissioner scandal, the legislature passed the Oklahoma Ethics Commission Act (1986) and the Campaign Compliance and Ethical Standards Act (1988). Governor Bellmon's Constitutional Revision Study Commission then proposed putting an ethics commission in the constitution. State Question 627 passed in 1990 with 63.82% of the vote.

Article XXIX gives the Commission three powers:

• § 3, promulgate "rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees, including civil penalties." Commission rules become statutes by publication unless the legislature affirmatively disapproves.
• § 4, investigate violations and, "when it deems appropriate, prosecute in the District Court of the County where the violation occurred."
• The structure is intentionally durable. Putting the Commission in the constitution rather than statute makes it harder for the legislature to weaken.

The Commission has 190 rules covering campaign-related conduct, financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, and lobbying. The investigative process starts with a non-anonymous complaint, moves to a preliminary investigation, then a formal investigation if reasonable cause exists.

The AG opinion's reasoning rests on three pillars:

1. Plain meaning of "shall investigate." No textual limit to current officeholders.
2. Implied powers. Necessary to fulfill the Commission's duty.
3. Comparative reasoning. Oregon's Moine decision is on point; Hawaii and New York decisions limiting jurisdiction are distinguishable on statutory grounds.

Citations and references

Constitution:
- Okla. Const. art. XXIX, §§ 3, 4: Ethics Commission

Rules:
- 74 O.S. ch. 62, app. I, r. 6.3, Non-anonymous complaint requirement
- 74 O.S. ch. 62, app. I, r. 6.12: Four-year statute of limitations

Cases:
- Ethics Comm'n v. Keating, 1998 OK 36, 958 P.2d 1250, Commission rules have statutory weight
- Okla. Cnty. Excise Bd. v. Kurn, 1941 OK 234, 115 P.2d 113, implied constitutional powers
- Moine v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 877 P.2d 96 (Or. App. 1994), same conclusion in Oregon
- Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, 19 P.3d 839, expressio unius canon

Source

• Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/ag-opinion-2025-05.html
• Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G. Opinion 2025-5 2025 OK AG 5.pdf

Original opinion text

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-5
Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission
2300 N Lincoln Blvd., Rm. G27
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

April 23, 2025

Dear Executive Director Boone:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask the
following question:
Are state officers and employees subject to the jurisdiction of the Ethics
Commission after leaving their office or position with the State for acts or
omissions that occurred while they were state officers or employees, up to the
time limit for enforcement?
I.

SUMMARY
State officers and employees are subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission
(“Commission”) after leaving their office or position with the State for acts or omissions that
occurred while they were a state officer or employee. This is true for three main reasons. First, the
plain meaning of “shall investigate” in article XXIX, section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution
requires the Commission to investigate alleged violations of its rules of ethical conduct. OKLA.
CONST. art. XXIX, § 4. In fact, the people of Oklahoma explicitly adopted this reading when they
amended the Oklahoma Constitution to establish the Commission.1 Second, other than determining
that the Commission’s rules are implicated, the primary restriction currently placed on the
Commission’s investigatory and prosecutorial power is that a civil suit must be filed within four
years of the alleged violation. 74 O.S.2021, ch. 62, app. I, r. 6.12 (2015). Third, the Commission
must have the implied power to investigate and authorize the prosecution of former state officers
and employees to carry out its express, constitutionally vested authority. See Okla. Cnty. Excise
Bd. v. Kurn, 1941 OK 234, ¶ 10, 115 P.2d 113, 115. Taken together, the foregoing establish that
the Commission retains jurisdiction over former state officers and employees for acts or omissions
during their tenure with the State.
Okla. State Question 627, Ethics Comm’n Initiative (Sept. 1990), Ballotpedia,
https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_627,Ethics_Commission_Initiative(September_1990)
(last
visited Apr. 21, 2025).
1

Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission

A.G. Opinion
Page 2

II.
BACKGROUND
In 1974, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted the Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act,
mirroring sister state and federal law in response to the Watergate Scandal of 1972. 2 Then in the
1980s another political corruption scheme came to light, this time in Oklahoma’s government. 3 In
that scandal, 230 individuals, including 110 actively serving county commissioners, were
convicted of or pleaded guilty to federal charges of mail fraud, tax evasion conspiracy, or
extortion. 4 In response, the Legislature enacted the Oklahoma Ethics Commission Act in 1986 and
Oklahoma Campaign Compliance and Ethical Standards Act in 1988, both of which formed a
predecessor to the current Commission. 5
Still concerned about the condition of ethical conduct, political campaigns, and public service,
Governor Henry Bellmon subsequently formed the Constitutional Revision Study Commission
(“CRSC”), which proposed the constitutional amendment that created the Commission.6 The
proposed amendment appeared on the Oklahoma ballot via a citizen-initiated petition in 1990. It
passed with 63.82% of the vote and became a constitutional amendment. 7 Among other things, the
amendment charges the Commission with the authority to promulgate “rules of ethical conduct for
state officers and employees, including civil penalties for violation of these rules.” OKLA. CONST.
art. XXIX, § 3. The Commission also has investigative and prosecutorial power over state officers
and employees to enforce its rules. Id. § 4.
With the approval of the Legislature, the Commission enacted 190 rules governing, among other
things, (1) the conduct of individuals campaigning for state office, (2) contributions to campaigns,
(3) financial disclosures, (4) state officer or employee conflicts of interest, and (5) lobbyists. See
generally 74 O.S.2021, ch. 62, app. I, r. 2–5 (2015). The Commission’s investigative power begins
with the receipt of a complaint from a non-anonymous source alleging that a state officer or
employee has violated the rules of ethical conduct. 74 O.S., ch. 62, app. I, r. 6.3 (2015). Then, the
Commission conducts a preliminary investigation, and, if reasonable cause exists to believe a
2 About the Commission, Okla. Ethics Comm’n, https://oklahoma.gov/ethics/about-us/commission.html
(Aug. 19, 2024); Don Maletz & Jerry Herbel, Okla. Ethics Comm’n, Almanac of Okla. Pols. 61, 62 (1998),
https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/OKPolitics/article/view/1041.
3 Donald J. Maletz, Okla. Ethics Comm’n, THE ENCYC. OF OKLA. HIST. AND CULTURE (Jan. 15, 2010),

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=OK043.

Charles T. Jones, Once Hit, Comm’rs “Tumbled Like Dominos,” The Oklahoman (Feb 13, 1983),
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1983/02/13/once-hit-commissioners-tumbled-likedominoes/62856511007/; Toll 230, as Book Closes on Cnty Comm’r Scandal, The Oklahoman (Feb 3, 1984),
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1984/02/03/toll-230-as-book-closes-on-county-commissionerscandal/62815077007/.
4

5 About the Commission, supra footnote 2.
6

Id.

7

See supra footnote 1.

Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission

A.G. Opinion
Page 3

violation of the Commission’s rules occurred, the Commission opens a formal investigation. Id. at
6.5, 6.7 (2015). In sum, the Commission must exercise its jurisdiction to investigate and, when
appropriate, authorize the prosecution of ethical rule violations. See OKLA. CONST. art. XXIX, §
4. The issue presented here is whether the Commission retains jurisdiction over former public
officials or employees who leave state service.
III.

DISCUSSION.
A.

Article XXIX, section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution grants the Commission broad
jurisdiction to investigate potential ethics rules violations and prosecute violators of
those rules when appropriate, regardless of whether the state officer or employee
leaves his or her employment after committing the ethical violation.

“Generally, the provisions of a Constitution are construed using the usual rules of statutory
construction.” City of Guymon v. Butler, 2004 OK 37, ¶ 11, 92 P.3d 80, 84. When determining
how a statute applies to a particular situation, the “primary goal is to determine legislative intent
through the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ of the statutory language.” Kohler v. Chambers, 2019
OK 2, ¶ 6, 435 P.3d 109, 111.
Here, the issue is the meaning of article XXIX, section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Specifically, section 4 states, “[t]he Ethics Commission shall investigate and, when it deems
appropriate, prosecute in the District Court of the County where the violation occurred, violations
of its rules governing ethical conduct of campaigns, state officers, and state employees.” OKLA.
CONST. art. XXIX, § 4 (emphasis added). The question is: when does the Commission’s
jurisdiction to investigate alleged rule violations end?
Section 4 mandates that the Commission investigate violations of its rules governing the ethical
conduct of state officers and employees. “‘[S]hall’ connotes a mandatory duty when it is utilized
in a statute.” Schaeffer v. Shaeffer, 1987 OK 30, ¶ 8, 743 P.2d 1038, 1040. Therefore, “shall
investigate” is the Oklahoma Constitution’s dictate to the Commission to investigate violations of
its rules.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court “does not read exceptions into a statute nor . . . impose requirements
not mandated by the Legislature.” Cox v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 2004 OK
17, ¶ 26, 87 P.3d 607, 617. The Constitution provides no limitation on the Commission’s duty to
investigate violations of its rules, including any limitation on the Commission’s jurisdiction over
former state officers or employees. The primary constraint placed on the Commission’s
enforcement power is that a civil lawsuit for violating the ethical rules of conduct cannot be filed
more than four years after the alleged violation. 74 O.S., ch. 62, app. I, r. 6.12 (2015). Therefore,
this office will not read an exception into section 4 precluding the Commission’s jurisdiction over
former state officers or employees.
Moreover, while the four-year limitation on the Commission initiating a civil lawsuit is outlined
in a Commission-promulgated rule, absent disapproval “by joint resolution [of the Legislature],
subject to veto by the Governor,” the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that the Commission’s

Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission

A.G. Opinion
Page 4

“rules shall be published in the official statutes of the State.” OKLA. CONST. art. XXIX, § 3. As a
result, the Oklahoma Constitution itself treats as a statutory equivalent the Commission’s rules that
have not been affirmatively disapproved by the Legislature, including its four-year limitation on
filing a civil lawsuit. See Ethics Comm'n v. Keating, 1998 OK 36, ¶ 32, 958 P.2d 1250, 1259
(“Because of the constitutional underpinning of these Rules we believe they have no less weight
than statutes.”).
The fact that the Commission’s rules are equivalent to a statute is important because the Oklahoma
Supreme Court also follows “the maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius,’ that the mention
of one thing in a statute impliedly excludes another thing, is used to determine legislative intent.”
Patterson v. Beall, 2000 OK 92, ¶ 24, 19 P.3d 839, 845. Again, the Commission’s rules expressly
included a four-year limitations restriction on the Commission’s jurisdiction. This implies that
other restrictions, such as an inability to pursue a former state officer or employee, were
intentionally excluded. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate former state
officers and employees until four years after the alleged rule violation, regardless of whether the
officer or employee has left his or her employment.
The ballot title accompanying State Question 627 further supports this interpretation. The
Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear that “the intent of the framers and electorate is also
reflected in the ballot title of the proposed amendment [to the Constitution] . . . . The ballot title is
a contemporaneous construction of the constitutional amendment and weighs heavily in
determining its meaning.” Fent v. Fallin, 2014 OK 105, ¶ 11, 345 P.3d 1113, 1116–17. The ballot
title for the State Question 627 told Oklahoma voters that “[t]he Commission would be required
to investigate violations. It could prosecute in District Court.” 8 As a result, the ballot title language
confirms that “shall investigate” means the Commission’s duty to investigate violations of its rules
is required. Again, there is no limitation mentioned for officers or employees that subsequently
leave their employment. As a result, the Commission’s jurisdiction does not depend on the officer
or employee maintaining his or her employment with the State.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in a similar case. See Moine v. Oregon
Gov’t Ethics Comm’n, 128 Or. App. 681, 686, 877 P.2d 96, 99 (1994). There, the court held that
the Oregon Government Ethics Commission had jurisdiction to investigate a former public official
for conduct committed while in office. Similar to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission has an obligation to investigate “a violation … of any rule
adopted by the commission.” Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 244.260(6)(e)(A). The Oregon Court of
Appeals reasoned the former public official’s violations of the rules “were no less violations
merely because, at the time of the investigation, petitioner was no longer a public official.” Moine,
877 P.2d at 99. As a result, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission had jurisdiction to
investigate the public official after he left office. 9
8 See supra footnote 1.

To be sure, appellate courts in Hawaii and New York held that their state ethics commissions did not have
jurisdiction after public officials leave their employment with those states. But those decisions were based on statutory
limits to those states’ ethics commissions that are not present in Oklahoma’s constitutional regime. Hawaii’s Ethics
Commission’s powers were limited to reprimanding, placing on probation, demoting, suspending, or discharging a
public official. Doe v. State Ethics Comm’n, 53 Haw. 373, 374–75, 494 P.2d 559, 559 (1972). Thus, the Hawaii
9

Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission

A.G. Opinion
Page 5

To reiterate, Oklahoma’s Constitution places a mandate on the Commission to investigate
violations of its rules without an express limitation on the Commission’s jurisdiction to investigate
former state officers or employees. Violations of the Commission’s rules are no less violations
merely because the perpetrator has left his or her position with the State. Accordingly, section 4
grants the Commission broad jurisdiction to investigate potential ethics rules violations and
prosecute violators of its rules when appropriate, regardless of whether the state officer or
employee leaves his or her employment before the investigation begins.
B.

The ability to investigate and authorize prosecutions of former state officials and
employees is also implied from the express grant of authority to the Commission in
article XXIX, sections 3 and 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

“[T]he construction of a constitutional provision must not be so strict or technical as to defeat the
evident object and purpose of its adoption.” Kurn, ¶ 10, 115 P.2d at 115. Indeed, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court has recognized that “[i]t would not be practicable, if possible, in a written
constitution, to specify in detail all of its objects and purposes or the means by which they are to
be carried into effect.” Id. ¶ 13, 115 P.2d at 115 (citation omitted). As a result, “[i]t is an established
rule of construction that, where a constitution confers a power or enjoins a duty, it also confers, by
implication, all powers that are necessary for the exercise of the one or for the performance of the
other.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Commission was born out of an “increasing concern for ethical conduct and political
campaigns and public service.” About the Commission, Okla. Ethics Comm’n,
https://oklahoma.gov/ethics/about-us/commission.html (Aug. 19, 2024). Thus, the Oklahoma
Constitution conferred broad power on the Commission to establish rules governing the ethical
conduct of state officers and employees and broad power to enforce such rules through civil
penalties, including the “payment of fines.” OKLA. CONST. art. XXIX, §§ 3–4. But if a state officer
or employee can break ethical rules and resign to escape constitutionally authorized punishment
such as fines, then the Commission’s rules have no teeth and the Commission’s purpose is stymied.
Indeed, the fact that Oklahoma felt it necessary to amend its Constitution to cement the
Commission within it, rather than merely enacting a statute, demonstrates its strong desire to curb
corruption and enforce ethical rules. OKLA. CONST. art. XXIX, § 4; Donald J. Maletz, State Ethics
Reform: Okla. Ethics Comm’n, 10 OKLA. POLS., no. 1, (2001) at 83, 84,
https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/OKPolitics/article/view/501 (“Unlike most agencies
of state government, the [Ethics Commission] was created not by statute but by an amendment to
the state constitution.”). Therefore, the ability to investigate and authorize prosecutions of resigned
state officials and employees is also implied from the express grant of authority to the Commission
in article XXIX, sections 3 and 4 to promulgate rules of ethical conduct, investigate potential
violations, and authorize prosecution, including seeking fines, when applicable.
Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Ethics Commission’s investigation was accomplished “[o]nce a public
employee has withdrawn from public service.” Id. at 375. Likewise, the New York Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction
was limited “only” to certain public officials defined in statute. Flynn v. State Ethics Comm’n, Dep’t of State, State of
N.Y., 87 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 661 N.E.2d 991, 993 (1995). Former state officials were not included in these statutory
definitions. Id. Therefore, the New York Ethics Commission did not have jurisdiction over former public officials.
Here, Oklahoma’s Constitution permits the Commission to seek fines for rules violations, OKLA. CONST. art. XXIX,
§§ 3–4, and it does not have any restrictive definitions for public officials. Accordingly, the Hawaii and New York
cases are not instructive when it comes to this question of Oklahoma law.

Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone
Oklahoma Ethics Commission

A.G. Opinion
Page 6

It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
State officers and employees are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ethics
Commission even after leaving their office or position with the State for acts
or omissions that occurred while they were a state officer or employee, up to
the time limit for enforcement. 10

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

GARRY M. GASKINS, II
SOLICITOR GENERAL

10
These determinations are limited to the text of the question and the general information provided to the
office. This opinion does not determine whether a state officer or employee is subject to the Ethics Commission’s
jurisdiction as applied to a particular situation, and it shall not be construed in such a manner. Unlike a court, an
Attorney General Opinion does not consider or make rulings on factual issues; Attorney General Opinions are limited
to questions of law. 74 O.S.2021, § 18b(A)(5); 2023 OK AG 14; 2012 OK AG 23.