CHICKASHA – The district attorney’s office for District 6, which covers Caddo, Grady, Jefferson and Stephens counties, will investigate allegations that two Grady County commissioners violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, said a spokesman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
“We were requested to investigate possible misconduct,” public information manager Hunter McKee said in an Aug. 9 email to a Southwest Ledger reporter. “The investigation has been handed over to the district attorney’s office.”
An attempt to reach DA Jason Hicks for comment was not immediately successful.
The allegations surfaced during the Board of Grady County Commissioners’ June 24 meeting, when the board discussed changing the way money for road repairs is divided among the county’s three districts. A Ledger reporter watched a video of the meeting, which was posted on YouTube.
Grady County Districts 1 and 2 each receive 32% of the county’s funds for road improvements, while District 3 g ets 36%, said District 3 Commissioner Gary Bray. But he said his district has more road miles than the other districts, so it should get a bigger share of the money.
“I feel like we’re going to have to redivide the money fairly,” Bray said. “Would it be fair that we divided it 33 1/3%? Is that fair?”
Bray later said he thought his district should get 43% of the money, based on the number of road miles.
Chairman Zachary Davis, who represents District 1, objected to the proposal. Davis said the mone y each district receives should be based on the population in each district, instead of the number of road miles.
“Why do the 18,000 citizens in District 1 deserve less money than the 18,000 peo ple in District 3?” he asked.
Bray repeated his argument that he deserves more money because his district has more road miles.
“You’re getting $93.16 a mile,” he said. “District 2’s getting $62.67 a mile, and I get $55.41 a mile . I’ve got more miles than anybody and getting less money than anybody.”
But Davis said he would oppose any plan that would result in less money for his district.
“As a representative of the citizens of District 1, I have no intention of giving you one penny of our money,” he said. “Not one penny, Gary.”
Discussing public business Davis later asked Bray and District 2 Commissioner Kirk Painter if they had discussed the proposal privately, which would be a violation of the state’s open-meetings law.
“Have you guys talked about this outside an open meeting?” he asked.
Painter shook his head at Davis’ question, and Bray said they had not discussed the issue in private.
Davis said staffers in Districts 2 and 3 had told him that P ainter and Bray were talking about a new plan for dividing money for road repairs – an allegation that the other commissioners denied. Davis also said several months ago, he overheard a conversation between Painter and another person in which Painter raised the issue.
“I don’t know who he told this to, but he said – I want to get this right – ‘ Zach’s not going to like our next stunt. We’re going to redivide the money after the election,’” Davis said. “Well, here we are after the election, talking about redividing the money.”
Painter denied that the conversation had taken place.
“That was never done,” he said.
Davis was referring to the June 18 GOP primary election for the District 2 seat, which pitted Painter against challengers Ruth Bingham and Garland Terry. Bingham and Painter finished first and second, respectively, but neither candidate won more than 50% of the votes cast.
Bingham and Painter will face off a gain in the Aug. 27 runoff primary election.
Davis said the a genda item concerning road-repair money was a violation of the Open Meetings Act, because it came out of a private discussion between Painter and Bray. He also said the two commissioners had discussed county business in private before.
“There’s been many instances since January where it was obvious that these a genda items were rehearsed,” Davis said. “ This is dangerous.”
Assistant District Attorney Charles Sifers, who serves as the county’s legal adviser, said he did no t know whether Painter and Bray had committed a crime. But he said he thought Davis’ allegations warranted an investigation.
“There is suff icient enough information that’s been laid out here today, in my opinion as a l awyer, that an investigation should be made of these allegations,” he said.
Sifers urged the board to delay action on funding for road repairs until the investigation is f inished and the results show whether Davis’ allegations have merit. The board followed his recommendation.
But Painter wanted to weigh in on the road funding issue first. He said District 2 had not gotten enough money for road repairs for several years, but Davis and Bray agreed to make up the difference when they joined the commission.
“That’s why when these two guys came in, I asked them for 1 percent apiece, and I thought it was fairing it up,” Painter said. “Well, apparently, I wasn’t.”
The commission ultimately followed Sifers’ advice and took no action on the issu e.
Bray, Davis and Painter did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
‘Don’t do it ’ Technically, the commissioners can get together outside the courthouse without violating the open-meetings law, as long as they don’t discuss county business, Sifers said. But he said the commissioners should avoid socializing together, because people who see them will assume they are talking about county business.
“If you’re asking me if it’s OK to go have lunch today, I’m going to say, ‘Uh-uh,’” Sifers said. “Don’t do it.”