While Gov. Kevin Stitt claimed a recent legal victory over Attorney General Gentner Drummond on the topic of Cabinet secretaries, the two men’s long relationship is only getting rockier.
Stitt filed a lawsuit against Drummond on Nov. 18, 2024, challenging an attorney general’s opinion that agency heads cannot concurrently serve as members of the governor’s Cabinet. Nearly a year later to the day, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in Stitt’s favor, finding the governor may appoint agency heads without violating Oklahoma’s statute against holding dual offices.
In other government infighting news, the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town in eastern Oklahoma has three separate factions who all claim to be the tribe’s rightful administration. Two of the three vying governments will go before a state Supreme Court referee to determine whether Oklahoma’s highest court can weigh in on internal tribal disputes.
Read on to learn more about those disputes, along with the disbarring of a confrontational marijuana advocate, discord between Stitt and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority regarding “abortion-affiliated providers,” financial mismanagement in two cities, updates from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission and more.
Supreme Court upholds governor’s right to choose Cabinet from agency leaders
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt praised an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision affirming his authority to appoint agency heads as members of his Cabinet — a move he said restores “common-sense government” and rejects what he called a “politically motivated stunt” by Attorney General Gentner Drummond.
In the Nov. 12 ruling authored by Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that state law allows governors to appoint agency heads to serve concurrently as Cabinet secretaries — a long-standing practice dating back to the creation of the Cabinet system in the 1980s.
The ruling came after Stitt filed a lawsuit challenging a February 2024 attorney general’s opinion that said it was improper “dual office holding” for someone to serve both as a state agency director and as a Cabinet secretary. That opinion specifically targeted Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Tim Gatz, who also served as the governor’s Secretary of Transportation.
The AG opinion stated:
- “A single individual holding one or more offices simultaneously as the secretary of transportation, executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and the executive director of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority violates the dual office holding prohibition in Title 51, Section 6 (2021);”
- “When an office holder accepts and enters upon the duties of a second office, acceptance of the second office operates to ipso facto vacate the first office;” and
- “Official actions involving the public interest and third persons, though made by officials who are not qualified to serve but act as de facto officers under color of title, are valid, binding and enforceable.”
Kuehn cited an exception in her opinion.
“Under Oklahoma law, no individual may hold more than one state office unless an exception applies,” she wrote. “While Cabinet secretaries now qualify as officers due to expanded statutory authority, Title 74, Section 10.3 expressly provides that agency heads may serve concurrently as Cabinet secretaries.”
Stitt criticized Drummond in his response to the Supreme Court’s decision.
“For four decades, Oklahoma governors have been able to pick their Cabinet members, plain and simple,” Stitt said. “I set out to make government more efficient, and two people doing one job makes no sense. The attorney general wasted precious taxpayer resources to pursue a politically motivated vendetta and grab campaign headlines. I appreciate the Supreme Court’s ruling putting an end to this stunt.”
Six justices concurred with Kuehn, while two dissented. Justices James Winchester and James Edmondson did not participate, with Winchester disqualified and Edmondson recused. They were replaced by Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals judges Thomas Prince and Jane Wiseman, who respectively concurred and dissented.
‘A class by itself’: Ron Durbin disbarred
After analyzing 20 counts of alleged professional misconduct, all nine justices of the Oklahoma Supreme court agreed to order the disbarring of Tulsa-based former attorney and cannabis advocate Ron Durbin. While some of the allegations focus on run-of-the-mill attorney misconduct, the bulk of the complaints filed against him involved the First Amendment audits on his YouTube channel “Guerrilla Publishing,” which frequently involved him threatening public employees.
“Respondent’s disciplinary case is almost in a class by itself for the purpose of comparing different discipline cases for the degree of discipline,” Justice James Edmondson wrote. “This is due to (1) the number and nature of respondent’s violations, (2) the need for protecting the public, the OBA’s members, and the judiciary from respondent’s misrepresentations, lies and recklessly untrue allegations as a lawyer, and (3) protecting members of the public from unprofessional legal representation. We disbar respondent from the date of his interim suspension.”
Some of the more bizarre allegations against Durbin were:
- Durbin allegedly brought lawsuits against his ex-wife, her family and his neighbors “for the sole purpose of causing certain defendants to incur legal expenses.” The court found he violated ethics rules prohibiting attorneys from engaging in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” or conduct “that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;”
- Durbin allegedly yelled at Tulsa County District Court Judge Sharon Holmes and called her “drunk” in a courtroom hallway after she asked reporters to conduct interviews in a “designated media area.” In his response to the court, Durbin argued his statements were true but did not provide evidence on the record to prove it. The court found he violated ethics rules requiring attorneys not to make false statements “impugning the qualification or integrity of a judge,” avoid misrepresentations and not prejudice the administration of justice; and
- Durbin was accused of making “harassing and slanderous” statements about Tulsa attorney Taylor Burke and other professional violations after the pair represented opposing sides in an election lawsuit between former City Councilors Mykey Arthrell and Grant Miller, including telling Burke in a courthouse elevator, “You’re so fucking stupid. (…) I’m going to kick your ass.” The court found Durbin violated ethics rules by “refusing to participate when opposing counsel sought to interview witnesses,” and publicly yelling at another attorney in the courthouse “to embarrass opposing counsel’s client outside the scope of a formal legal proceeding.”
The court did agree with Durbin on at least one of his misconduct counts, finding he did not violate rules of professional conduct when he publicly accused the governor of “looking at kiddie porn” and a state senator of having an affair in the State Capitol.
“The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has observed that political speech often takes the form of lies, name-calling and various forms of mud-slinging. An oft-repeated theme is accusations of romantic liaisons, and as noted by the court, Andrew Jackson was accused of adultery and murder, and opponents of Grover Cleveland chanted slogans that he had fathered a child out-of-wedlock,” Edmondson wrote. “A member of the OBA may be viewed as possessing special knowledge of the workings of the judicial branch of government. However, we see no reason to conclude a lawyer is perceived to have a special knowledge of the workings of particular members of the legislative branch or alleged sexual liaisons involving the legislators.”
OHCA rejects abortion attestation rule
The board of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority rejected a proposed rule to comply with an executive order banning public funding going to “any individual or organization affiliated with abortion providers.”
On July 31, Gov. Kevin Stitt issued an executive order directing the OHCA to terminate any SoonerCare contracts with “abortion-affiliated providers,” along with requiring all SoonerCare providers to sign a statement “attesting whether they or anyone they’re connected to are involved in abortion-related activities.” The order also prohibited any other state agency from providing any grants, contracts or other funding to any abortion-affiliated providers.
In Oklahoma, abortions are only allowed in case of medical necessity. Abegail Cave, the governor’s director of communications, told The Oklahoman at the time the order was issued that it would not affect providers who perform life-saving emergency abortions. But providers still worried about the ramifications of the order, according to reporting from Jillian Taylor of StateImpact Oklahoma. In September, the OHCA Board tabled a vote to approve a rule requiring attestations, with Vice Chairman Alex Yaffe reporting that providers had concerns with potential executive overreach and the order’s vague language.
On Nov. 13, the OHCA Board voted on the attestation rule, and it failed. Two board members voted in favor, one abstained and three voted against the rule. The board unanimously passed measures seeking an attorney general’s opinion on the matter and a resolution seeking discussion with Stitt to clarify the order. Two days later, the OHCA sent out a letter to providers to say they would not require attestations pending further review of the executive order.
Gubernatorial candidate and House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson praised the OHCA’s action, calling on another candidate for governor — Drummond — to get involved.
“Providers continue to face unnecessary political challenges to practice in Oklahoma and policies like this only further deter providers from Oklahoma and in turn make health care worse for everyone else,” Munson (D-OKC) said in a statement. “I hope the attorney general’s opinion requested by OHCA reflects the growing health care needs of Oklahomans and halts this potential overreach of power from the governor.”
Ethics Commission clarifies bank accounts can be reused …
At a meeting Nov. 13, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion clarifying candidates for public office can reuse a bank account they opened for a prior campaign to the same elected office.
When an official is elected to office, they may keep their campaign committee open for the duration of their term. At the end of their term, they must issue a final report to the Ethics Commission “zeroing out” their campaign committee’s remaining funds or debts, and if running for reelection, the candidate must transfer that remaining balance to a new campaign committee for the upcoming election.
Rep. Judd Strom (R-Copan) asked for clarification if that meant officials must create new bank accounts, too.
“I have understood the rule to mean that with each election cycle, a candidate/officeholder would be asked to ‘zero-sum’ or close out their current bank account, create a new account, and transfer any carry-over funds to that new account. I understand that some do not,” Strom wrote. “I have found the action to be cumbersome, be confusing, and possibly lead to the unintended consequence of observers being misled by the transfer of funds.”
The Ethics Commission clarified a new campaign committee must be registered with the commission, but a new bank account for each campaign was not necessary, so long as the campaign was for the same office.
“So long as the candidate committee fully accounts for all funds and debt remaining in the prior committee before opening a new candidate committee, it is not necessary to open a new depository account and obtain a new account number with the committee’s financial institution,” the commission advised. “If the first account was opened with the year of the committee included (such as ‘Susie for Senator 2022’) the committee is permitted to request the financial institution to change the name on the account to the new committee year (‘Susie for Senator 2026’). It is also permissible for the committee’s depository account to be opened with the financial institution without specifying the year on the account name.”
The commission voted unanimously to adopt the advisory opinion, choosing between two drafts, one which included the clarification that a bank account name does not need a specified year on the account name.
…and zeroes in on ‘dark money’
The Ethics Commission also voted to pursue rule changes to the definition of a PAC in order to fend off “dark money” ad campaigns. Rep. Meloyde Blancett (D-Tulsa) requested a rule making request regarding independent expenditures. Blancett was unable to attend the Nov. 13 meeting, but Ethics Commission executive director Lee Anne Bruce Boone said Blancett was basing her concerns off of reporting from Clifton Adcock of The Frontier, honing in on three 2024 case studies in particular: the Oklahoma Supreme Court retention election, the defeat of former Senate president pro tempore heir-apparent Greg McCortney, and the case of a 77-year-old woman who was unknowingly listed as the chairwoman and treasurer of at least one political group.
Bruce Boone said one action the commission could take to try to limit dark money expenditures is a rule change.
“Rule 2.79 defines a PAC as a group of two or more persons that make expenditures for independent expenditures. So two or more persons is a PAC. A person, in Oklahoma law and in federal law, can be almost any type of organization. So if that person is an LLC, they don’t have to register as a PAC, because they could be one person under the definition,” Bruce Boone said. “A for-profit LLC is not a PAC and would not have to disclose its donors for the purposes of an IE report — an independent expenditure report. It wouldn’t have to say where the money came from because of that difference in definition of person.”
Bruce Boone floated the idea of making the definition of a PAC to be one or more people, instead of two or more people. Ethics Commission general counsel Margaret Kerr said many of the tactics organizations use to “minimize disclosure” are well within the rules.
“This would be one option. I can’t guarantee how much more disclosure it would provide by amending this rule,” Kerr said.
Bruce Boone said her staff could also look into other administrative changes. While details of the eventual reform remain up in the air, the commission voted unanimously to “move forward with a potential rule change” to change the definition of a PAC after a motion from Vice Chairman Adam Weintraub.
“I’m sort of a mind that anything we can do to shine a light on dark money is a good thing,” Weintraub said.
State audits find widespread mismanagement in City of Spencer finances …
Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd released a forensic audit Nov. 13 detailing extensive financial mismanagement within the City of Spencer in Oklahoma County. The investigation began after residents filed a petition requesting a review of city finances from July 2016 through June 2021.
“The City of Spencer has a systemic problem with basic oversight and compliance,” Byrd said. “Our investigators uncovered as much mismanagement as they could. However, the city’s recordkeeping was so shoddy and unorganized, their financial issues are likely much worse than this audit report shows.”
The audit found more than $1.2 million in unpaid utility balances, including accounts belonging to Spencer City Council members who routinely failed to pay bills. One council member reportedly made no payments for nearly four years, accumulating almost $8,000 in unpaid utilities.
Auditors also identified more than $523,000 in bond expenditures that violated rules and more than $826,000 owed to the IRS from unpaid payroll taxes. Missing or unaccounted-for municipal court funds totaled more than $46,000.
Byrd said the problems reflect a failure of leadership and oversight by the Spencer City Council. Her office has referred the findings to Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna’s office for further review.
… and fraud, mismanagement by former Konawa officials
A separate audit released Nov. 6 by Byrd’s office revealed years of financial mismanagement and fraud within the City of Konawa in Seminole County. The investigation, requested by the city council between 2020 and 2023, examined allegations against six former city officials, including two city managers, two treasurers and two clerks.
The audit found more than $60,000 in unauthorized or improper payments and multiple violations of state law. Former city clerk Shauna Farmer admitted to misappropriating $53,298 and resigned in 2020. Former city manager Tim Cully received $7,016 in unsupported compensation and was later ordered to pay $2,852 in restitution for misuse of a city fuel card. Former treasurer Stephanie Clanton overpaid herself $1,800 in wages.
Auditors also discovered misuse of city credit cards by former city manager Brett Wade and his wife, treasurer Tamara Wade, as well as unrecorded utility payments and questionable account adjustments totaling nearly $38,000.
Byrd criticized the Konawa City Council for failing to provide oversight and allowing employees to retain control despite evidence of misconduct.
“Konawa City Council members failed to provide oversight and, worst of all, they failed to act when problems came to light,” Byrd said.
Judge rejects City of Henryetta’s bid to dismiss Muscogee lawsuit
A federal magistrate judge Nov. 18 rejected the City of Henryetta’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Muscogee Nation over the municipality’s practice of ticketing tribal members, ruling that long-standing federal law controls criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country.
In a 13-page order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jason Robertson emphasized his role was not to revisit Oklahoma politics or history but to apply the U.S. Constitution, treaties and binding precedent. Robertson said the boundary between state authority and tribal sovereignty “was marked long before this dispute arose,” and he said nothing suggests Congress has changed it.
The Muscogee Nation filed the lawsuit against Henryetta in July, alleging the city is unlawfully prosecuting tribal members and non-members for municipal offenses committed within the tribe’s Indian Country reservation. The city argued it has concurrent jurisdiction under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Castro-Huerta decision and that the Curtis Act grants municipal authority, and that the nation lacked standing.
The court rejected each argument. Castro-Huerta, the judge wrote, concerned only crimes committed by non-Indians. The Curtis Act, the court noted, was extinguished at statehood, a point reaffirmed by the Tenth Circuit. Citing McGirt v. Oklahoma, Ute Tribe v. Utah and Hooper v. Tulsa, the judge concluded that only Congress can authorize state or municipal prosecution of Indians in Indian Country. Because Congress has not done so, Robertson ruled the Muscogee Nation’s claim of harm to its sovereign authority is enough to establish standing and denied Henryetta’s motion to dismiss the full lawsuit
Following an Oct. 7 hearing, a settlement conference was scheduled for Dec. 10, with a ruling on the Muscogee Nation’s motion for a preliminary injunction expected sometime after a Dec. 22 deadline for both parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Anderson, Brown, Smith, oh my! Arguments set for Thlopthlocco Tribal Town case
Two of the three parties claiming to be the rightful government of the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town are set to argue Dec. 11 before an Oklahoma Supreme Court referee over whether Oklahoma’s state courts may intervene in internal tribal affairs. The case is the latest in a long running dispute over the governance of the tribal town stemming from its last official election in 2007.
The Thlopthlocco Tribal Town has been a federally recognized tribe since 1936 and historically is one of the confederated tribal towns that made up the Muscogee Nation. The Thlopthlocco Constitution of 1938 does not have separate branches of government and gives its governing authority to a 10-member business committee.
Five members — a town king, two warriors, a secretary, and a treasurer — are set to be elected by tribal members every four years. The other five members are members of an “advisory council” appointed by the elected officers.
The tribe held its last official election in 2007, and Nathan Anderson took office as town king after winning a plurality of the vote, despite the tribe’s constitution requiring a majority vote. Shortly after taking office, Anderson attempted to remove and replace other members of the business committee, resulting in his removal from office in July 2007 and protracted litigation. Since his removal, Anderson’s faction has continued to argue that they are the tribe’s rightful government.
Court documents reveal a tumultuous year for the tribal town’s government. In early 2025, Anderson organized a purported tribal election set for Feb. 22, and on Feb. 24, he notified the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the results. In July, he applied for a federal grant as the tribe’s government. Around August, he allegedly accessed a BIA website and removed the business committee which had been in power — led by Town King Brent Brown — from access to the federal website. The Brown faction’s access to the website was restored Aug. 16.
At the end of a Brown-faction quarterly business committee meeting Oct. 18, another group of Thlopthlocco citizens asked Brown’s committee to resign and purported to hold a replacement election. On Oct. 23, the purportedly elected committee — led by Town King Brent Smith — successfully occupied the tribe’s social services office.
The Brown faction’s business committee approved a tribal resolution Oct. 23 authorizing a lawsuit in Okfuskee County District Court seeking the court to order both the Anderson and Smith factions to “cease and desist their efforts to disrupt the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town government.”
The Brown faction filed suit as the Thloplocco Tribal Town against the Smith faction and Anderson faction Oct 27, requesting:
- a temporary injunction preventing the Smith faction from disrupting tribal offices;
- a permanent injunction preventing the Smith faction from interfering with the tribe’s government;
- a declaratory judgement the Smith faction is not the Thloplocco government;
- a temporary and permanent injunction preventing the Anderson faction from interfering with the tribe’s government;
- a declaratory judgement the Anderson faction is not the Thloplocco government; and
- an order the Okfuskee County Sheriff work with the Brown faction to ensure the Smith faction does not disrupt tribal offices.
District Court Judge Lawrence Parish issued an order granting the temporary injunction against the Smith faction the same day.
On November 12, the Anderson faction filed a special entry of appearance and emergency request to stay the injunction against the Smith faction, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction over the intra-tribal dispute. The same day, their attorneys filed for a writ of prohibition with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to lift the injunction, which will be heard at oral arguments in December. The turmoil appears to have coincided with an attempted robbery of the tribal town’s Golden Pony Casino in Okemah.
Additional victim comes forward against former Choctaw tribal councilman
Former Choctaw Nation Tribal Councilman Ron Perry, 73, was charged in October in Choctaw Nation District Court with a seventh count of sexual battery after an additional victim came forward.
Perry was initially charged with six counts of sexual battery in April following allegations of serial sexual misconduct involving women employed by the tribe.
The former councilman represented Choctaw Nation’s District 5 and had served on the council since 2011 before tendering his resignation April 1, the same day charges were filed. The Choctaw Nation did not provide a reason for his departure at the time.
Amended felony information filed in the case alleges Perry committed the fourth count of sexual battery on or between Feb. 24 and March 6 “by knowingly and intentionally touching, mauling or feeling the buttocks or vagina of Victim 7, who is at least 16 years of age or older, in a lewd and lascivious manner.”
According to the original probable cause affidavit filed by Lighthorse Police investigator Alena Brant, Perry repeatedly harassed six women — identified in court documents as “Victims 1-6” — by groping, fondling and touching them without consent. Incidents allegedly occurred between March 2023 and early 2024 at various tribal facilities.
Court records indicate that Perry admitted to some of the allegations, including grabbing one woman’s buttocks and attempting to lift another’s dress, though he claimed some actions were “jokes.”
Each count of sexual battery carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $5,000 fine, with sentences eligible to be stacked up to nine years. Formal arraignment on the charges is set for 1 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, at the Choctaw Nation Judicial Center in Durant.
Tulsa approves $26.25M for man wrongly imprisoned 24 years
The Tulsa City Council on Nov. 12 approved a $26.25 million settlement for William Henry Jamerson, a man who spent more than 20 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. The decision comes more than a year after a Tulsa County judge vacated Jamerson’s 1991 conviction, ruling that newly discovered DNA evidence and major investigative failures had rendered the original verdict unreliable.
Jamerson, 56, said the vote brought long-awaited relief after 35 years of trying to clear his name.
“God took me this far, so it’s a blessing to be over with it now,” he told The Frontier. “All the stress is gone. I’m glad it’s over with, that’s what’s important. I can move on with my life.”
Arrested at age 22, Jamerson was convicted in 1991 of raping 16-year-old Kayleen Dubbs after Dubbs identified him in a photo lineup and a blood-type analysis linked him to semen collected in the case. His two-day trial featured no opening statement or defense witnesses and ended after a brief jury deliberation. He spent 24 years in prison and, even after his 2015 release, remained on the state’s sex offender registry.
Jamerson had long begged for DNA testing, but he was repeatedly told the rape kit evidence was no longer available. In 2022, his attorney, Dan Smolen, uncovered the rape kit slides in a police property facility, leading to DNA testing that excluded Jamerson. Dubbs in 2023, told The Frontier she no longer believed he was the attacker and felt police had steered her identification.
Judge David Guten vacated the conviction in July 2024, writing that the new evidence “undermines confidence in the verdict.” Smolen praised the city for settling, noting it avoided a potentially far larger jury award.
