• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • ABOUT
    • WHO WE ARE
    • WHAT WE BELIEVE
      • SELF GOVERNMENT
      • FAMILY GOVERNMENT
      • THE PROPER ROLE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT
      • CHURCH GOVERNMENT
  • EDITORIAL
  • VOTER GUIDES
  • LEGISLATIVE TRACKER
  • DOLLARS & SENSE
  • SPECIAL REPORTS
    • Bob Linn – Friend of Liberty or Enemy of Truth?
    • Oklahoma Turnpike Authority – The Biggest Bully on the Block

Ignite Liberty

Making Critical Thinking Great Again!

  • FEDERAL ELECTIONS
    • 2020 ELECTION
  • CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
  • COVID-19
    • COVID-19 RESOURCES
  • WELLNESS WEDNESDAYS WITH DR. JAYNE
  • Pineapples on Mars
    • Pineapples on Mars: LIVE
    • Chapter 1: Introduction
    • Chapter 2: World Death Rates and Covid-19 Infection Fatality Rates
    • Chapter 3: Covid-19 Death Coding, inflation, and Upcharges
    • Chapter 4: Frozen in Time and Masking the Science
    • Chapter 5: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Testing: A chain reaction of false diagnostics?
    • Chapter 6: Why Stop the Healing? Mass Psychosis, American Health and Suppressed Successful Treatment Protocols for Covid-19
    • Chapter 7: Covid-19 Therapeutic Interventions
    • Chapter 8: Are we being herd? Natural vs Vaccine Immunity
    • Chapter 9: Supreme Ridiculousness, The Original Antigenic Sin, Harm to the Naturally Immune, Omicron and Immunological Responses
    • Chapter 10: Vaccine narratives and continued linguistic evolution: leadership, conflicting data and lipid nanoparticles
    • Chapter 11: The Most Dangerous Vaccine Dethroned: Adverse Event Secrecy, Reporting Systems, Underreporting Factors, Batch Lookup, and Excess Mortality
    • Chapter 12: Undue Risk, Specific Adverse Events, and Autopsy’s after Covid-19 Inoculations
    • Chapter 13: Numerical Trickery, Vaccine Efficacy, Variants and Unnatural Viral Trends
    • Chapter 14: Conclusion: We The People Determine The Ending

Featured Stories

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority: The Biggest Bully on the Block (Part 2)

May 13, 2022

Part 2 – The REAL Cost of OTA’s Turnpike Expansion

SPECIAL REPORT

In Part 1 of this Special Report, we uncovered the truth history of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and exposed how they have been able to hijack progress and private property in Oklahoma with impunity since they began.

The response from you, our readers, as well as several Norman-area legislators was overwhelming. It appears as though no other news organization had taken the time to actually explain how the OTA got its vice-like grip over this state. We are humbled at the reception Part 1 received, and hope you will find Part 2 just as informative.

A News 9 story on April 14th detailed a meeting that Access Oklahoma had with the House Transportation Committee, in light of the uproar from Norman citizens following the announcement of the Turnpike expansion through eastern Norman. In that meeting, Jordan Perdue from OTA stated when questioned as to the number of homes that would be impacted,  “We do not have that number right now.”

His response prompted Rep. Mike Dobrinski (R-Okeene) to ask, “How is that information not part of the equation?”

Since OTA has yet to be able to provide the public with any real answers about the total impact of their expansion project, we took the liberty of doing the research for them. In this article, we will detail the projected impact of the proposed new tollroads, broken down by the four main sections of the project:

  • I-40 to Indian Hills Interchange
  • Indian Hills Interchange to Hwy 9
  • Hwy 9 to I-35
  • East-West Corridor from Indian Hills Interchange to I-44

I-40 to Indian Hills Interchange

These numbers are only estimates as the final route has yet to be determined by the OTA. However, as mentioned by OTA representatives at a recent public meeting in Norman, the routes are “pretty much set in stone.” The total number of affected properties in this stretch of the project alone are 1,862. They are broken down by type of property affected, and whether the property will be seized or depreciated below.

The impacted properties that would be condemned (seized) are as follows:

  • Houses lost – 149
  • Other Large Structures lost (Barns/Garages/Shops) – 160
  • Parcels not owned by ODOT – 191

The additional impacted properties which would face economic impacts include:

  • Houses depreciated due to proximity to freeway – 765
  • Other large structures depreciated due to proximity – 597

Total impacted properties:

  • Houses/land either seized or depreciated in value: 1,105
  • Other structures either lost or depreciated in value: 757

Indian Hills Interchange to Hwy 9

According to the “proposed” routes, the total number of affected private properties are 370. This is not including public lands affected that are not owned by ODOT. They are as follows:

  • Houses seized: 120
  • Other large structures seized: 104
  • Private parcels not owned by ODOT: 145
  • Cemeteries: 1
  • State Park: 1
  • Reserved School Land – 1

The property within 1/2 mile of the proposed route that would be negatively affected through depreciation are as follows:

  • Homes: 292
  • Other large structures: 279

The particularly shocking aspects of this portion of the project are the removal of a cemetery, and the plowing through of a federally protected wildlife refuge. When Ignite Liberty spoke with Amy Cerato, one of the affected residents, she mentioned that her discussions with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation (the agency responsible for the protected land around Lake Thunderbird) revealed that OTA had not even notified the Federal government of their intentions to plow through the wildlife preserve.

Ignite Liberty has reached out to the Bureau of Reclamation for comment on this portion of the project. As of publication time we have not received a response. We will update this article should we receive a response.

Hwy 9 to I-35

The stretch of the project from Hwy 9 south to I-35 would affect 1,223 pieces of property, broken down as follows:

  • Houses seized: 182
  • Other large structures seized: 144
  • Private parcels seized: 205

Additionally affected properties within 1/2 mile of proposed route:

  • Houses depreciated: 437
  • Other large structures: 255

Total number 0f affected properties:

  • Houses depreciated or seized: 619
  • Other large structures depreciated or seized: 399
  • Private parcels seized: 205

East-West Corridor from Indian Hills Interchange to I-44

The total number of affected properties by the proposed east-west section of the turnpike are 282. They are broken down as follows:

  • Homes seized: 82
  • Homes and/or property within 1/4 (depreciated): 200

 

The Total Numbers

All toll, the total number of seized property for the entire project is 1,482, broken down as follows:

  • Homes: 533
  • Other large structures: 408
  • Private parcels: 541

The total number of depreciated properties are

  • Homes: 1,694
  • Other large structures: 1,331

John Kilpatrick Turnpike Expansion

Lost in the uproar over the proposed expansion in Norman was the fact that an expansion of the John Kilpatrick Turnpike was also authorized during the same board meeting that authorized the Norman projects.

Residents along the JKT corridor discovered this the hard way as the OTA sent out certified letters to all of the property owners whose property backs up to the JKT ROW this past Saturday – the day before Mother’s Day. The letter was provided to Ignite Liberty by concerned homeowners:

The letter set off a firestorm of concerned homeowners, fearful that their property would be next in line for seizure. Several homeowners spoke with Ignite Liberty out of concern. According to the attorneys they talked to, there was no legal recourse whatsoever to stop the OTA from taking their property since the turnpike was already in existence.

According to one of the homeowners, when they called and spoke with OTA’s corridor manager for the JKT project, they were informed that the letters had somewhat been sent in error, as not all homes along the turnpike were at risk for seizure.

The JKT expansion involves two different sections. The western section shown in the map below involves both widening the turnpike from 2 lanes to 3 (in blue) and adding access points (in yellow).

The eastern portion of the project, shown in the map below, mainly involves expanding the inside lanes only, and conducting sound studies to determine if a sound wall is needed in order to keep the project within legal limits for sound pollution. According to the homeowner who spoke with the OTA, there are no plans to seize property along this section of the JKT since the space for the new lanes already exists in the median.

In a voicemail provided to Ignite Liberty from the homeowners, the corridor manager apologized for having sent identical letters to all affected homeowners and stated that revised letters would be sent out this week detailing which homes would be at risk of seizure and which homes were in the clear.

While it is understandable that errors in judgment could be made, it is rather surprising that more care wasn’t given in order to avoid unnecessary uproar…especially considering the controversy surrounding the Norman project.

It is unknown as of yet how many homes will be affected for the JKT expansion. We are working to determine that number and will update this report once we have the final numbers. Regardless of the impact, the homeowners that will be affected have no legal recourse to keep their property because of the eminent domain authority given to OTA by the legislature 54 years ago.

If something isn’t done by either the legislature or through the initiative process to either arrest or impede OTA’s ability to use eminent domain, no homeowner in their path will be able to rest easy.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority - The Biggest Bully on the Block, Special Reports

SPECIAL REPORT: Bob Linn – Friend of Liberty, or Enemy of Truth? Part 2: The Epic Connection

April 20, 2022

SPECIAL REPORT

In our article published last night, we delved into possible motivations behind OCPAC President Bob Linn’s attack on State Auditor & Inspector (SAI) Cindy Byrd…that his ranting over his Open Records Request (ORR) for files from the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) audit performed by the SAI prior to Byrd taking office is likely a ruse for his real motivation: to discredit the SAI in hopes of casting doubt on the veracity of the office’s audit of Epic Youth Services (EYS) and Epic Charter Schools (ECS).

As of publication time this morning, Linn has yet to issue a response.

In this article we will examine whether the SAI investigative audit of Epic was justified, and whether SAI Byrd was accurate in her assessment that EYS represented the “the largest example of public fraud in the history of the State.”

As we mentioned yesterday, while reading this we ask you to ponder this question:

“Did Bob Linn know about all of this…and if so, why did he try so hard to defend the actions of Epic Youth Services?”

Before we get started, it would be helpful to your understanding if we first gave some background on the purpose of the Office of State Auditor & Inspector so as to understand the role they play in ensuring the taxpayer’s money is being spent properly…in particular the type of investigative audits like Governor Stitt ordered of Epic.

The Purpose of Audits

The purpose of state audits is to examine a body of evidence to determine if established procedures, laws, and regulations governing state agencies has been followed; and if not, to make certain recommendations to ensure compliance with those regulations going forward.

When the SAI is asked to conduct an investigative audit by the Governor, it is done to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of potentially criminal wrongdoing to warrant the State’s criminal investigation agencies (OSBI, Attorney General, etc.) conducting investigations of their own.

As SAI Cindy Byrd mentioned last night in her presentation to a meeting of OK2A (Oklahoma Second Amendment Association), the auditor’s office does not regularly audit public schools. They only do so when requested by the Governor.

This was the case with the investigative audit of Epic Charter Schools (ECS) and Epic Youth Services (EYS). EYS was the for-profit Education Management Organization (EMO) for ECS until the new board of ECS terminated their contract following the OSBI investigation.

With that in mind, what follow is a summary of the EYS scandal that resulted in the OSBI investigation that has since been turned over to the Attorney General’s Office, who recently turned it over to the Oklahoma County DA’s office.

The information below is taken directly from the audit performed by the SAI at the request of Governor Stitt. The entirety of the SAI’s Epic audit is available here:

Epic Charter Schools Investigative Audit – Part One

Before we get to the Epic scandal, however, it is important to understand the background of its founders, Ben Harris and David Chaney, and what education management organizations (EMO) are designed to do.

Education Management Organizations – Corruption or Capitalism?

EMOs are for-profit companies that charter schools contract with for services necessary to perform their mission, such as financial, legal, IT, curriculum, and other various program needs. EMOs are not, in and of themselves, corrupt.

However, as is the case any time private businesses contract with state agencies, they come under more intense scrutiny simply because the money changing hands is not private money…it’s taxpayers money that the state agencies are tasked with using properly.

Harris and Chaney had significant experience in helping other entities to start charter schools through their work for an EMO. According to a September 5th, 2010 article in The Tulsa World, “Harris, 35, is an expert on virtual charter schools. He worked on the applications of a dozen schools in Florida, California and Arizona for Bricktown-based company Advanced Academics Inc.”

During their work with Advanced Academics, they would help establish charter schools and in return the charter schools would contract to spend a percentage of their state-appropriated funds to hire Advanced Academics as the school’s EMO to help manage the school and provide technology resources.

Harris’ wife, Elizabeth VanAcker, sat on one of the non-profit organizations based out of Florida that applied for no less than 7 charter school applications for virtual charter schools to the State of Florida. Each of those applications for charter proposed contracting exclusively with Advanced Academics to be their EMO.

In 2003, both Harris and Chaney obtained jobs with the Florida Department of Children and Families, with Harris rising to become the agency’s Deputy Secretary. According to the Tulsa World article, Harris’ time with the agency was fraught with scandal:

In July 2004, a whistle-blower investigation revealed that Harris had accepted trips, dinners and other favors from companies looking to contract with the social services agency.”

While no charges were ever filed following an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, that investigation did find that, “both Harris and Chaney were involved in a number of questionable contracts awarded to vendors that appeared to circumvent the state’s bidding process.”

One of Harris’ contacts for one of the questionable contracts was none other than his wife, VanAcker, who worked for both Florida State University’s Institute of Health and Human Services, and a company called Edmetrics…who created Epic Charter School’s initial website for Community Strategies, Inc. – the non-profit organization created by Harris and Chaney that started Epic Charter Schools.

It should be noted at this point that EMOs have come under immense scrutiny nationwide, to include criminal investigations, for mismanagement and embezzlement of public funds intended for the charter schools that end up funding for-profit organizations*.

*For an extensive report on some of those investigations, read Chartered-for-Profit, published by the Network for Public Education.

The Epic Youth Services Scandal

In 2005, Harris and Chaney founded Community Strategies, Inc., a non-profit organization. While they never sat on the board of directors, they did fill all 5 board members seats with their close personal friends. In the same year, the duo also founded Epic Youth Services, another Oklahoma-based EMO similar to Advanced Academics.

Six years later in 2011, Community Strategies, Inc., with Harris still listed as the non-profit’s registered agent, applied for and received a charter from the Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board to start Epic 1-on-1 Charter Schools (ECS). The operating agreement of Community Strategies, Inc – now the governing board for Epic Charter School – mandated that ECS hire EYS as the schools EMO…a company fully owned by Harris and Chaney.

While one could certainly call the nature of the relationship suspect at best, and downright unethical at worst, it didn’t necessarily violate any existing state laws. At the time, virtual charter schools were very much a “Wild West” type of environment, not too dissimilar from the MMJ environment, where the industry was outpacing the regulatory body’s ability to govern it.

The problems with the relationship between ECS and EYS came in the nature of the contract between them.

As mentioned in the SAI audit, the contract had three troubling aspects to it. First, the contract called for ECS to pay EYS a yearly fee of 10% of the “total revenue” received by the school from the state every year for EYS services. That 10% far exceeds the statutory 5% cap on administrative expenses for schools with more than 1,500 students as outlined by 70 OS § 18-124 (schools with between 500-1,500 students may spend up to 7% on administrative expenses).

Second, the contract did not specify what goods and services the 10% fee was paying for. While 70 OS § 18-124 (A) allows schools with deduct expenditures for legal services from their administrative costs when calculating their total percentage of spending, since the contract did not specify or itemize exactly what services ECS was receiving there was no way to prove that the school was within statutory limits.

According to 70 OS § 18-124 (A), any school found exceeding the statutory limit, “shall have the amount which exceeds the five percent (5%) withheld the following year from the Foundation and Salary Incentive Aid for the school district.”

(Note: the current governing board of ECS, in a valiant attempt to undo the damage done by the school’s founders, has complied with this statute and agreed to forgo $20M in state funding over the next two years…an extraordinary step that should be applauded.)

Section D of 70 OS § 18-124 outlines what costs are deemed legitimate administrative expenditures:

  1. Staff for the board of education;
  2. The secretary/clerk for the board of education;
  3. Staff relations;
  4. Negotiations staff;
  5. Immediate staff of the superintendent, any elementary superintendent or any assistant superintendent;
  6. Any superintendent, elementary superintendent, or assistant superintendent;
  7. Any employee of a school district employed as a director, coordinator, supervisor, or who has responsibility for administrative functions of a school district; and
  8. Any consultant hired by the school district.

However, without a detailed itemized contract there was no way for ECS to prove they were in compliance with state law.

Third, and perhaps the most controversial, Harris and Chaney wrote into EYS contract with ECS that EYS was to manage a “student learning fund account.” Learning funds were accounts of between $800-$1000 per student that the parents were able to use to purchase non-faith-based curriculum (remember, ECS is a public school) or pay for extra-curricular activities such as sports, music, etc.

Much of this money was used by parents to pay for fees for their children to participate in the various homeschool associations throughout the state such as the OKC Storm Athletic Association (basketball, volleyball, track & field, etc.), the OKC Patriots Football Team, the OKC Broncos Baseball Team, and the Oklahoma Homeschool Band and Strings. This has been a sore spot for many parent-led homeschooling families as it brings public school dollars into the private homeschool organizations.

The money for these accounts came from ECS general funds and was deposited into a private bank account that Harris and Chaney had sole control over. Then Harris and Chaney tasked themselves to manage the learning funds on behalf of the school.

(Note: of the fifty subpoenas the SAI has issued in the course of their investigation, the subpoena for the learning funds accounts is the only one that remains tied up in Oklahoma County District Court. There was a hearing on this subpoena in 2020. SAI is still waiting Judge Natalie Mai’s ruling. This fact will become important later.)

The “learning funds” accounts was in addition to the 10% administrative fee required by ECS Operating Agreement. This raised the total amount of state-appropriated funds EYS received from the school to a whopping 30%. Both the learning funds, as well as, the administrative fees were deposited into two separate private accounts controlled by Harris and Chaney.

This meant that 30% of the schools funding was, according to the State Auditor, “locked down from any type of government oversight, and no one, not even our office, has ever been able to verify that the dollars placed into these accounts are being used for what they were intended for by law and by contract.”

The Cover-Up

Harris and Chaney were able to get away with all of this through a series of clever moves that, viewed in hindsight, appear to be made to deliberately cover-up their money-making scheme.

First, they hired Josh Brock – from Cushing – to serve as the CFO of both ECS and EYS. This meant that the person both writing and signing the checks from ECS to EYS was not only the same person, but also answered directly to Harris and Chaney. (Remember Brock’s name…it will come up again later)

Second, they hired a CPA by the name of Charles Crooks – also from Cushing – to serve as the school’s internal auditor. Crooks is a licensed CPA, Audit & Tax Partner with CBEW Professional Group, LLP. It was these internal audits presented to the ECS board of directors that assured them year after year that nothing was no malfeasance with their 10% administrative fee or learning funds account.

Note: we are NOT alleging that Mr. Crooks did anything improper…merely that it was his reports that allowed Harris and Chaney to convince the board everything was in compliance.

Third, from 2011-2019 Chaney served as the Superintendent of ECS…chosen by the school’s board of directors, who were appointed by Harris and Chaney.

When you put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, you have:

  • Harris and Chaney created the non-profit (Community Strategies, Inc.) which applied for, and received, the public charter for ECS. At the same time, Harris and Chaney created an EMO called EYS;
  • Harris and Chaney appointed the board of directors for Community Strategies, Inc., which then served as the governing board for ECS;
  • Harris and Chaney wrote into the operating agreement for Community Strategies that the non-profit would contract with EYS as the to-be-named charter school’s EMO;
  • Harris and Chaney wrote into the contract with EMO that EYS would receive an administrative fee equal to 10% of the total funding ECS received from the State – well in excess of the 5% statutory limit;
  • Harris and Chaney also wrote into the contract with ECS that EYS would manage $1,000/student learning funds;
  • Both the 10% administrative fees and moneys for the learning funds were deposited into a private account that Harris and Chaney had sole control over;
  • Harris and Chaney hired one man – Josh Brock – to serve as the CFO for both the school and EYS. They were able to do this because Harris was also serving as the school’s Superintendent at the same time;
  • Harris hired Mr. Crooks as the school’s internal auditor. These audits convinced the board of directors there was no malfeasance;
  • The combined learning funds and administrative fees totaled to 30% of all funds ECS received from the state.

In short, Harris and Chaney had literal and de facto control over the school – the source of revenue via public funds sent from the state – and EYS, which provided the full management for the school.

Just “Two guys making a profit” or Criminal Behavior?

While Bob Linn has repeatedly characterized this as “two guys providing a great service to the state, at lower costs, and getting very wealthy off of it”, the truth is far more complicated.

In the reports filed with OESC (Oklahoma Employment Security Commission) from 2010-2018, EYS had zero employees outside of the company’s two owners. You read that right. EYS was paid 30% of all state-funds that ECS received for work that they did not have the employees to do.

So, who did all of the work that the for-profit EYS was contracted to do, including managing the disbursement of the learning funds?

The answer? The employees of ECS that were paid out of the remaining 70% of state funds that the school retained after paying EYS for the same work.

This begs the question, if Harris and Chaney knew that the state-paid employees of ECS were going to be doing the work EYS was being paid for (because EYS did not have the capacity to perform the work due to have zero employees), then what work or services were Harris and Chaney knowingly taking the money for? Regardless of what work or services they were being paid for (if it was indeed anything at all), it was not the work or services for which the money was authorized for. 

This practice wasn’t just limited to EYS business in the State of Oklahoma. As the SAI audit revealed, and as the next article will detail, EYS was receiving payment from Epic California for the same services that ECS was paying them for. (We will discuss Harris and Chaney’s California ventures in a later article.)

This is where Harris, Chaney, and now Brock’s behavior goes from being unethical into what very well maybe criminal.

SAI Byrd has mentioned in a speech to the Oklahoma County GOP, including the audit’s findings, that Harris and Chaney’s behavior “could be considered embezzlement.” If so, then this would justify the OSBI launching their own investigation following the completion of the SAI’s audit.

To understand what Byrd meant by this statement, let’s take a look at how embezzlement is defined in Oklahoma law. 21 OS § 1451 (A)(1) defines embezzlement as:

(A) Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property of any person or legal entity, legally obtained, to any use or purpose not intended or authorized by its owner, or the secretion of the property with the fraudulent intent to appropriate it to such use or purpose, under any of the following circumstances: (emphasis added)

    1. Where the property was obtained by being entrusted to that person for a specific purpose, use, or disposition and shall include, but not be limited to, any funds “held in trust” for any purpose.

This would mean that any funds received by EYS for the “administrative services” that Harris and Chaney knew EYS had no capacity to perform, and that they knew would be performed by ECS (remember, Harris is the Superintendent of ECS) could fall under the embezzlement statutes listed above.

To be clear, it is unknown at this point what charges will be brought by the Oklahoma County DA’s office, who recently received the case from the AG. However, according to multiple speeches made by current SAI Cindy Byrd, these allegations are far too series for charges to not be brought.

In fact, during a Q&A following her speech last night to OK2A a member of the audience asked Byrd when charges were going to be filed against Harris, et al. Her response was, “very soon”.

Remember how we said at the top of this article that the entire purpose of SAI Investigative Audits was to determine if there was grounds for the State’s criminal investigative agencies to conduct their own investigations? Give the evidence above, it’s hard to see how they could ignore it.

What’s Bob Linn’s Excuse?

Given all of this above, one must ask the questions, “Why did Bob Linn have a problem with the SAI doing the job she is required by law to do?” Furthermore, “Why has Bob Linn not excoriated Governor Stitt for ordering the audit of Epic? Did he expect the SAI to be derelict in her duty and refuse the Governor’s order for the audit? If she did refuse to perform the audit, would Linn have blasted her for failing to do the job we elected her to do? Wouldn’t that be tantamount to the same accusations he’s been leveling at the SAI Office for the OSDH audit…that the Auditor’s office didn’t do their job?”

It all begs the question, “What is Bob Linn so afraid of?” Considering the evidence from the SAI audit certainly warranted a further criminal investigation, why does he not want the truth to be known? Does he have deeper connections to Epic than he’s told the public…or the board of OCPAC? Is he worried that a criminal investigation may implicate him in some way? To coin a phrase that he has used against Byrd, “What is Bob Linn hiding?” Why does he not want the auditor to simply do the job she was hired to do?

In the next article, we will detail how Harris, Chaney, and Brock extended their scheme beyond the borders of Oklahoma into California, and even attempted to take it to Texas.

As for Mr. Linn, we leave you with this:

“For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17 (NKJV)

 

 

Filed Under: Bob Linn - Friend of Liberty or Enemy of Truth?, Featured Stories, Special Reports

SPECIAL REPORT: Bob Linn – Friend of Liberty, or Enemy of Truth?

April 19, 2022

SPECIAL REPORT

Bob Linn, President of OCPAC

Members of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) as well as anyone who has regularly attended their weekly meetings or read the weekly newsletters published by OCPAC’s President Bob Linn, know that for the last two plus years Linn has used that platform to publicly attack the Office of State Auditor & Inspector (SAI) in general, and current SAI Cindy Byrd in specific.

Over that time period, Linn’s criticism of Byrd has primarily focused on the office’s response to his Open Records Request (ORR) for records pertaining to the SAI audit of the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH). If you remember, prior to Byrd’s tenure as SAI a huge scandal broke out surrounding the OSDH when their internal accounting system incorrectly showed approximately $30M of taxpayer money was missing, which resulted in nearly 200 OSDH employees being laid-off statewide.

Throughout most of 2021, Linn repeatedly accused Byrd of being part of an elaborate cover-up by slow-walking her office’s response to his ORR – though Linn never actually said what he thought she was “covering up.” Linn has intimated that the alleged “missing” $30M was due to malfeasance or dereliction of duty on behalf of the SAI (and not the OSDH despite their flawed internal accounting system) and has leveled the bulk of the responsibility for that on Byrd, supposedly for her alleged refusal to completely respond to his ORR in a timely manner.

Linn’s outrage has puzzled many OCPAC attendees on two accounts:

  1. During the time period that Linn alleges the SAI was “responsible” for the OSDH accounting errors, Byrd was assigned to the office’s County Audit Division out of Ada, and was not party to the OSDH audit; and
  2. As revealed in a recently discovered letter Auditor Byrd wrote to the OCPAC Board of Directors,Byrd did respond fully and completely to his ORR.

What has made Linn’s relentless attacks on Byrd especially puzzling is that it represents a 180º turnaround for Linn after OCPAC unanimously endorsed Byrd during her 2018 campaign. During that election, Byrd racked up a commanding victory, outpacing even Governor Stitt by over 174,000 votes on the way to receiving the most votes for a statewide official ever in the history of the state with over 818,000 Oklahomans supporting her.

Because of this, Ignite Liberty recently called Linn to attempt to ascertain a better understanding of why he has focused so much of his ire on Byrd. He requested we send any questions about Byrd to him in writing. We sent him the following question:

“If Cindy Byrd was not the auditor in charge of the OSDH audit re: the “missing” $30M, why have you continued to attack her for the audit and not focused all of your attacks on Gary Jones…especially when OCPAC donated money to her campaign and openly supported her?

Much of your weekly emails have accused her office of trying to keep information hidden from you, and accused them of delaying responding to your ORR. Yet in the end you stated today that you got everything you asked for. You also stated today that they should have just copied files over easily.  My own experience with requesting ORR from state agencies is that it does take a while to get the information back. Regulatory procedures required for ORR/FOIA requests do require an agency to do their due diligence to ensure information subject to the privacy act/ongoing criminal investigations/or other information not subject to FOIA are redacted. Do you feel like the time they took to fulfill your ORR was unreasonable?”

Not surprisingly, we have never received a response.

Clues In The Past

We began reviewing the timeline of Linn’s comments about Cindy from the time Linn took over as President of OCPAC in the summer of 2018 through the present to see if we could pinpoint when his attitude began to change. What we discovered unlocked a treasure trove of clues.

Linn’s first public attacks on Byrd were in October 7th, 2020, immediately following the release of the SAI Audit of Epic Charter Schools. You can see the entirety of Linn’s comments below:

https://igniteliberty.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Little-Marxist-2.16-to-4.48.mp4

 

 Ignite Liberty was present at that meeting and remember well the shock that ripped through the audience following his statements. His comments were part of an introduction of Brian Hobbs, who spoke to the OCPAC audience to defend Epic’s founders, Ben Harris and David Chaney, in light of the release of the damning audit. Those comments are below:

https://igniteliberty.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Bob-Linn-OCPAC-5-12-21-FULL.mp4

 

The attacks at the October 7th meeting mirror those in the October 5th newsletter. However, all newsletters for 2020 have been scrubbed not only from OCPAC’s website, but from archive.org as well (the “Wayback Machine”).

It was shortly after this that Linn submitted his ORR for the now 2-year-old OSDH audit – which Byrd was not party to – that he since has used to repeatedly badger Byrd and her office.

To many who attend OCPAC regularly, and those who watch online, Linn’s use of the OSDH ORR to attack Byrd – even going so far as to bring in a “expert” by the name of Steve Anderson to help – has made no sense whatsoever.

Given that the pivot point in his behavior was not the OSDH scandal, but the SAI audit of Epic Charter Schools – which Linn has repeatedly praised and defended – reason would have it that the Linn’s use of the OSDH scandal has been a blatant attempt to cast public doubt on the veracity of the Epic audit. After all, if he can somehow prove that the Byrd used her office to “cover up” the scandal at the OSDH through denying or slow-walking his ORR, then his allegations that she is using her office to engage in a witch hunt of the Epic founders would carry some weight.

There are two problems with this:

  1. As mentioned above, Byrd was not connected in any way to the OSDH Audit, and fully answered and complete Linn’s ORR for the OSDH Audit files. In our phone call with Linn, he even admitted that “we got everything we asked for. Nothing was redacted.”
  2. The Investigative Audit of Epic Charter Schools was ordered by Governor Stitt pursuant to 74 O.S. § 212(c). Not once has Linn criticized the Governor for ordering the audit. Instead, he used Steve Anderson to attack the veracity of the audit’s findings, and then continued to use Anderson to attack Byrd’s response to the ORR of the OSDH Audit.

Those familiar with the tactics used by renowned Marxist activist Saul Alinsky (mentor to Hillary Clinton among others) know that one of his favorite tactics was to attack an demonize the messenger – not the message – in order to destroy that messenger’s credibility to the public.

If Linn is correct and the finding of the Epic audit are indeed flawed then he may have a point in accusing Byrd of using her office to attack “two guys who provide a great service at half the cost and make millions doing it” (Linn’s frequent characterization of Harris and Chaney).

If, however, the Epic audit is grounded in the law and on well-documented facts, then the members of OCPAC should ask the OCPAC board why its President is using Alinsky-style tactics to demonize an elected official carrying out her sworn duty…for such action is usually only done when the person making the accusations has something to lose, be it in monetary gain, power, or both.

To get to the bottom of all of this, we decided to dig into the audit ourselves to determine whether the SAI’s findings carry substance. In an upcoming series of articles, we will lay out our findings including many facts that the main stream media – and most of the “conservative” media – has ignored.

It is not the purpose of this investigation to assign guilt or innocence to Harris, Chaney and Company – and should note that at the time of publication charges have yet to be filed. It is the purpose of this investigation to see whether Linn’s accusations against Byrd are warranted.

What we did find, and will endeavor to make clear, is that when SAI Byrd stated publicly that the office’s findings in the Epic audit was “the largest example of public fraud in the history of the State”, that statement was not made lightly.

There is powerful, convincing evidence not only to justify the call for the audit, but to thoroughly justify Byrd’s assessment. As you read the articles to follow, we urge the readers to ask “did Bob Linn know about all of this…and if so, why did he try so hard to defend the actions of Epic Youth Service (EYS)?”

It’s a question that every member of OCPAC…every conservative in the State of Oklahoma should be asking.

Filed Under: Bob Linn - Friend of Liberty or Enemy of Truth?, Featured Stories, Special Reports

What Happened To The Election Integrity Bills That Were Filed in Our Legislature in 2022?

April 12, 2022

Editor’s Note: Ignite Liberty has partnered with the Oklahoma Liberty & Integrity Group. OKLIG is one to the leading grassroots election integrity organizations in the state. Below is the next installment of their election integrity series.

by Wendi Montgomery Dial, Principal Co-Founder Oklahoma Liberty & Integrity Group

In January of 2022, the Oklahoma State Legislature had many bills related to election integrity filed by several lawmakers. Some of them were very good bills that would investigate the 2020 election and address the core issues surrounding Oklahoma’s elections and election law. Some of them continue on the path toward keeping Oklahoma’s elections on the way to complete digital control, from voter registration to non-transparent counting of the votes, all of which would be directly out of the hands of the citizens of Oklahoma and controlled by others. So, what is the status of those bills, as of March 18, 2022, where did they end up, who is responsible for the ultimate outcome for each bill, and what would their impact be on election integrity in our state if passed?

The Senate

There were several bills filed in the Oklahoma State Senate regarding election integrity that Oklahoma Liberty & Integrity Group was watching that would truly impact our elections for the better, given the problems we see with our data and issues with the voter registration rolls.

SB 1820

State Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow)

Authored by Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) . This bill would require notary publics to submit copies of their receipt books to county election boards within a certain timeframe before an election. It was important because notaries must by law only notarize a certain number of ballots off site of their place of business. In order to notarize ballots off site, they must be granted special permission by the County Election Board of their county. This is a way to audit notary books and make sure that law is being followed. This bill died in the Rules Committee without a hearing.

SB 1805

Authored by Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow). This bill would require the State Election Board to update the election system to create a unique identifier code on each ballot printed in two places, perforate one of those sections for the voter, digitize the ballots and make them available to the public, and allow voters to look up their own ballot online using the generated code only known to themselves. This would have been an important improvement for accountability to the voters to any election system that uses scanning machines and computer tabulation to count cast votes. This bill died in the Rules Committee without a hearing.

SB 1748

Authored by Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow). This bill would set rules for applying for absentee ballots, listing valid reasons for a request for an absentee ballot to be granted. This would disallow the mass mail out of ballots and require that people have one of eleven listed valid reasons for requesting an absentee ballot, such as disability, military, etc. This bill died in the Rules Committee without a hearing. Detecting a pattern here?

SB 1690

Authored by Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow). This is the most important bill regarding election integrity that was filed this session. It was filed in a special session late last year and was not heard. This bill would require the appointment of an independent third party to conduct a forensic audit of the Nov 2020 election in the State of Oklahoma in designated counties, establish deadlines for the completion of said audit, require submission of a report, and designate funding for such an audit. This bill died in the Appropriations Committee after being kicked there by the Rules Committee.

SJR 47

State Senator Warren Hamilton (R-McCurtain).

Authored by Senator Warren Hamilton (R-McCurtain). This Joint Resolution would have voters in Oklahoma decide on a Constitutional Amendment to the State Constitution requiring post election audits permanently after every election. These would be random but guarantee that once every 10 years all counties would be audited. This bill died in the, you guessed it, Rules Committee.

Did any election integrity legislation make it out of any Senate Committee and to the floor for a vote? As of today, March 19, 2022, one bill has make it to the floor of the Senate, been voted on, and passed.

SB 1637

State Senator John Haste (R-Broken Arrow).

Authored by Senator John Haste (R-Broken Arrow). Co Authored by Representative Mark Lepak (R-Claremore) of the House. This bill amends 26 O.S. 2021 Sections 14-108.1, 16-105, and 16-123, and puts the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma in charge of reports of election fraud and irregularities in the state. Should they choose not to investigate the reports, they will be designated to the appropriate county DA for investigation. Currently, the Attorney General is not explicitly listed as an investigating authority for election fraud in Oklahoma. This is an important change in the election law which allows a statewide elected official to determine how reports of election fraud are investigated. The vote on the floor was 42 Yeas, 6 Nays. It now goes to the House for a vote. On April 6th, this bill passed the Elections and Ethics Committee of the House intact.

Maybe if Haste had authored the other Senate bills, they’d have made it out of the Rules Committee? The behavior of the Rules Committee certainly begs the question. This allows the Senate leadership to claim that they acted on election integrity in their body, without doing what is necessary to address the two most important issues that govern elections in Oklahoma, absentee ballots and making the machines more transparent to the voters of the state. Not only that, the bill that came out of the Senate has a provision that is addressed also in the House by a bill filed by Representative Nicole Miller (R-Edmond).

The largest transgression by the Rules Committee and Appropriations Committee against the people of Oklahoma is the abject failure, given what is being uncovered in other states, including red states, to prove to the people of the state of Oklahoma, given plenty of suspicion in the data from the 2020 election from THIS state, and the condition of our voter registration rolls brought to their attention by citizen groups investigating the 2020 election, that our elections are indeed the best and most secure in the country by killing SB 1690 and SJR 47, which would ensure their integrity permanently through regular forensic audits.

The House

The House isn’t faring much better when it comes to getting critical election integrity bills out of committee, unless they keep the status quo when it comes to machines, farming out our voter registration rolls to an unelected committee comprised of 31 individuals, 30 of which aren’t from Oklahoma, or making small changes to absentee voter requirements. All progress is important, but some progress is more important than the rest. It’s the opposite of progress to keep in place a system that facilitates further use of machines and the sharing of sensitive voter information in our elections.

HB 3677

Authored by Representative Sean Roberts (R-Hominy). This bill, before amended in committee, would require all Oklahomans to reregister to vote by 2023. The amended version provides protections to poll watchers and verified voter registrations. The reregistration language was stripped out in committee, perhaps the most important legislation filed this session to clean up our voter rolls. This bill passed the Elections and Ethics Committee on March 2, 2022.

HB 3365

Authored by Representative Eric Roberts (R-Oklahoma City). This bill sets stricter rules for mailing out voter registration cards, sets rules for cancelling a voter registration, requirements if a voter’s registration is listed at an address with five or more other registered voters, rules for reporting deaths to the State Election Board, and rules for voting if a voter’s registration has been listed as inactive for problems in the personal information listed above. This bill passed the House on March 14, 2022.

HB 3046

Authored by Representative Mark Lepak (R-Claremore). This bill prohibits the use of private funds for elections. It requires elections be paid for by public funds. It passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2022.

HB 3364

Authored by Representative Eric Roberts (R-Hominy). This bill provides rules for applying for an absentee ballot electronically. It passed the House March 9, 2022.

HB 3321

Authored by Representative Nicole Miller (R-Edmond). This bill requires ballots to be printed on paper and moves the investigation of election fraud and complaints to the Attorney General’s office first, then to the local DA’s office should the Attorney General decide not to pursue it at the state level. It prohibits the appearance of poll watchers over electronic device and prohibits the connection of devices to the internet. It passed the Elections and Ethics Committee on Feb 21, 2022. On April 6th, it passed the Senate Rules Committee amended, missing Section 5, which was removed. Section 5 is the provision that sends election claims to the Attorney General.

HB 2974

Authored by Representative Jim Olsen (R-Roland). This bill requires the State Election Board check the voter registration database and report addresses with 10 or more voter registrations to local DA’s for investigation and possible criminal referral. This measure passed the House of Representatives on March 8, 2022.

While the passage of all of these measures in the House is important, there were a few bills that were allowed to die in committee, such as HB 3154, authored by Representative Kevin West (R-Moore). This bill would have required voters to be notified of particular information by mail before an election, such as what will be on the upcoming ballot. HB2975, authored by Representative Jim Olsen, would have outlined legal boundaries for cancelling a voter’s registration. And where is the House legislation calling for a forensic audit of the 2020 election, which we know warrants an investigation, given the 77 county data that has been gathered and analyzed by Oklahoma Liberty & Integrity Group as well as others independently investigating elections in Oklahoma?

None of the measures that passed out of committee in the House would make a dent to solve the problems of election integrity as we know of them in the State of Oklahoma today. And the measures that would have gone a long way to securing our elections died in committee of a supposedly conservative GOP led state legislature. Now, why is that? And who are sitting on these committees killing the bills we need that would give the voters and citizens of Oklahoma peace of mind that our elections are truly safeguarded in this state? Who in this state needs phone calls and possible primarying by the GOP membership and citizens in their districts?

The Senate Rules Committee

  • Darcy Jech, Chair
  • David Bullard, Vice Chair
  • Mark Allen
  • Bill Coleman
  • Julie Daniels
  • Jessica Garvin
  • James Leewright
  • Lonnie Paxton
  • Frank Simpson
  • Roger Thompson

The Senate Appropriations Committee

  • Roger Thompson, Chair
  • Chuck Hall, Vice Chair
  • Kim David
  • Tom Duggar
  • John Haste
  • Brent Howard
  • Darcy Jech
  • Chris Kidd
  • John Michael Montgomery
  • Joe Newhouse
  • Roland Pederson
  • DeWayne Pemberton
  • Dave Rader
  • Paul Rosino
  • Frank Simpson
  • Darrell Weaver

The House Elections and Ethics Committee

  • Jim Olsen, Chair
  • Max Wolfley, Vice Chair
  • Jim Grego
  • Anthony Moore
  • David Smith
  • Rande Worthen

While the above Senate committees are busy killing any meaningful provisions to ensure election integrity, the Senate Public Safety Committee is busy passing overwhelmingly, SB 1591, a bill to allow undocumented workers, aka illegal aliens who are here against immigration laws, to be issued driver’s licenses. (update: SB 1591 was killed in the House by Speaker Charles McCall on April 12th) Now what can driver’s licenses be used for in Oklahoma? And what does membership in ERIC require of every state? A list of all people registered to drive in a state, as well as a requirement that any persons that ERIC find on that list not be registered to vote be notified by the state that they should register to vote. Some states even automatically, without a person’s consent, register them to vote as soon as they get a driver’s license. But, this is not SOME state. It’s Oklahoma. So, what is going on? Maybe we should ask the Public Safety Committee members in the Senate. Maybe they want primary opponents? Some of the names on this committee look familiar……from killing election integrity bills. So what is going on? Maybe their constituents and citizens of this state should ask them, as respectfully as they feel necessary.

The Senate Public Safety Committee

  • Lonnie Paxton, Chair (voted YAY)
  • Darrell Weaver, Vice Chair (the LONE NAY vote on SB 1591)
  • Mark Allen (Co Authoring 1591 and voted YAY)
  • Micheal Bergstrom (not present to vote)
  • Bill Coleman (voted YAY)
  • Nathan Dahm (not present to vote)
  • Kim David (not present to vote)
  • Darcy Jech (voted YAY)
  • Dave Rader (voted YAY)
  • Cody Rogers (voted YAY)

Filed Under: Election Integrity, Featured Stories

Letters to the Editor: Cathy Costello Letter to OCPAC Following Romero Attack

April 4, 2022

Cathy Costello – wife of former Oklahoma Labor Commissioner Mark Costello,

Rumors have been swirling recently that Bob Linn and OCPAC’s crusade against Cindy Byrd was going to culminate in the organization endorsing Mike Romero to run against Cindy in the upcoming statewide primaries. Many conservatives believe that this is one of, if not the main, reason why OCPAC invited Romero to give a presentation about the OSDH scandal a few years back which involved the “missing” $30M (it was never actually missing).

Curiously enough, and in a manner that would be fitting with an attempt to attack a future political opponent, Romero’s presentation made a point of attempting to tie Cindy Byrd to the audit of the OSDH scandal, even though Gary Jones was the State Auditor and Inspector at the time that was responsible for the audit.

Following Romero’s presentation, Andrew Speno and Cathy Costello went to talk to him about the inclusion of Byrd in the presentation. What follows is a letter from Mrs. Costello sent to Bob Linn, president of OCPAC, that details that account:

______________________

Bob,

I wanted to give a little time and space from the incident last week before responding. When you invited me to sing for OCPAC, I was unaware who Mike Romero was. You told me he would be talking about corruption at the health dept. I did remember hearing something about 30 million missing from the health dept., but that it was eventually found. 

It is always good to hear all sides of a story, even if it’s 4-5 years old. I saw several people in line speaking to Mr. Romero after his presentation. I decided to go over and simply introduce myself. I shook his hand and told him I was the widow of Labor Commissioner Mark Costello. 

While I was standing there, I heard Andrew Speno ask Mr. Romero, in a CALM tone, why he kept showing Cindy Byrd’s picture next to Gary Jones, frequently referring to “they,” and mentioning her name. He asked what Cindy Byrd had to do with this situation at the health dept. Mr. Romera became agitated and denied he had done this during the presentation. But…he had in fact said, “Gary Jones and Cindy Byrd would not talk to me” and he did in fact show Cindy Byrd’s photo multiple times, saying “they” and giving the impression that she was involved. He then began blaming Cindy and holding her responsible. 

Mr. Romero’s response to Andrew Speno’s question was so adolescent. Raising his voice, he yelled, “I’m the son of immigrants!! Those people on the screen made fun of my last name because it ends in an O!!!” I immediately thought to myself, this man is so thinned skinned and immature, he has no business in government. I also thought, my name ends in an O and so does Andrew’s.  

I got to know Cindy when I was running for Labor in 2017-2018. I politely said, “with all due respect, I believe Cindy was overseeing county government, working in Ada at the time of the health dept. incident. The County government division is completely separate from the division that was overseen by a different person, the Deputy State Auditor for Agencies, who works at the capitol.” Cindy would not have had anything to do with this issue. Boy, that really set him off. 

He began to yell at me and became shockingly rude. I asked him if he knew who I was and he said in a loud and ugly tone, “yeah, yeah I know who you are! I don’t have to talk to you people.” He just kept badgering me, giving no opportunity to respond. I wasn’t going to stand there and be yelled at. I walked away. He yelled after me, “Hey lady, hey lady, why don’t you just stick to singing, cause you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I was absolutely dumb founded at his explosive behavior and responses to me. That’s why I wanted you to know how your guest speaker had treated me. Mark had always been a huge supporter of OCPAC, but he would have been disgusted by Mr. Romero’s behavior. He is a bully and his high level of defensiveness didn’t add up. 

After doing some simple investigation, and web searching, I discovered that the FBI, OSBI, SAI, multi-county grand jury and OK District Court ALL “blamed the former chief financial officer, Mike Romero, saying “he never fully understood the underlying budget data or the agency’s cash position.” Now his immature, defensive and rude behavior made sense. 

I have known Gary and Mary Jane Jones for many years. Gary has been recognized as a leader who was trusted to come in and lead a state convention, when the party couldn’t agree, receiving high praise from both grassroots and trusted leaders alike. He is ethical and  unafraid to tell the truth and stand his ground in his job and in government. 

I also have a very high regard for Cindy Byrd. She is ethical, moral, godly and smart. Mr. Romero’s presentation seemed more like a hit piece on these two individuals with no footnotes or references, than an explanation of the so-called “missing 30 million dollars.”

Bob, as I said to you on Wednesday, you are in no way responsible for another person’s behavior. I do not hold you responsible or blame you for what happened Wednesday. However…what I would expect, after that display of explosive and unpredictable behavior, is that Mr. Romero never be welcomed back to OCPAC. Mark Costello used to say, that everyone is entitled to their good reputation. Both Gary Jones and Cindy Byrd deserve an opportunity to respond and address OCPAC to defend themselves from his assertions. I know you will do the right thing. 

In the meantime, I think I will take a sabbatical from OCPAC for a while. I wish you nothing but the best.

Regards,

Cathy Costello 

Filed Under: Editorial, Featured Stories, Letters to the Editor

Ignite Liberty Exclusive: State Auditor Issues Response to OCPAC Allegations

March 21, 2022

OKLAHOMA CITY

Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd.

Anyone who receives the weekly emails from OCPAC or have attended any of their meetings over the past year plus knows that OCPAC President Bob Linn has continuously criticized State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd and her office for an alleged lack of timeliness in response to numerous Open Records Requests that Mr. Linn had submitted through an entity known as Corporations Funding Education, and not through OCPAC itself.

During a recent Ignite Liberty investigation, we attempted to find business filings for Corporations Funding Education. No such filings exist in the State of Oklahoma. Additionally, we have discovered a never-before-published response from SAI Byrd to the OCPAC Board regarding Mr. Linn’s repeated accusations of fraud and wrongdoing on behalf of her and her office. That letter, though it was sent to the OCPAC Board over 6 months ago, is published with permission from the SAI for the first time below:
Ignite Liberty will monitor the situation between OCPAC and the SAI office and publish updates as they are available.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, State Government

Oklahoma Turnpike Authority: The Biggest Bully on the Block (Part 1)

March 15, 2022

Part 1 – A Brief Background of the OTA

SPECIAL REPORT

Imagine for a moment if the state legislature decided to create a privately funded organization in order to take over an essential function of government, and then gave that entity the power for condemnation to seize private property anytime it wants to in order to accomplish its goals.

If that were being discussed in the current legislative session there would be an outcry unlike anything this state has ever seen. Any legislator voting for it would face a wave challengers in the next election along with demands for their immediate resignation.

The scenario I just described, however, is not fiction…it’s what happened almost 70 years ago when the legislature created the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

In the coming series of articles in this special report, we will shed light on the true legal nature of the OTA and expose their history of abuse of power that makes the dream of home ownership a myth for many Oklahomans. It is our hope through this expose´ that Oklahomans will see that no entity is too big or too powerful to challenge if the citizens of this state will use the tools given to them in the Oklahoma Constitution to fight back against abusive “state” entities.

A Brief History of the OTA

The OTA was created through an initiative referendum passed by the state legislature in 1954. For those of you not familiar with the different types of state questions available under the Oklahoma Constitution, here’s a brief explanation:

Initiative Petition:

A process by which the legal voters of Oklahoma have the right to propose any legislative measure or to propose amendments to the Oklahoma Constitution.

Legislative Referendum:

A method used by the Legislature to submit a proposed measure to the legal voters of Oklahoma.

Referendum Petition:

A process by which the legal voters of Oklahoma propose changes to legislation from the current legislative session, (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health or safety). Referendum petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State not more than ninety (90) days after the final adjournment of the session of the Legislature which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.

An example of the Initiative Petition is the recent State Questions that legalized medical marijuana.

In 1953, the state legislature passed SB 454 and HB 933 as Referendum Petitions creating the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and authorizing the construction of two turnpikes. One became the H.E. Bailey Turnpike which connects Wichita Falls, Texas and Oklahoma City. The other was supposed to connect Oklahoma City and Wichita, Kansas along the same route as the eventual IH-35, but was never built because of the construction of the interstate.

Those two bills would then become State Questions 359 and 360, which went before a vote of the people on 26 January, 1955 in a special election. Both questions passed by identical percentage points of 56%-44%. SQ 359 passed by a margin of 40,586 votes with 174,236 voting for and 133,650 voting against. SQ 360 also passed by a 39,030 vote margin with 171,151 voting for and 132,121 voting against.

A New Kind of Entity

In the creation of the OTA, the legislature and people of Oklahoma created a new hybrid entity that was both private and public at the same time. Section 2 of State Question 360 (codified as 69 O.S. § 1703) defined the new “authority” as,

Corporate and politic to be known as the ‘Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’ and by that name the Authority may sue and be sued, and plead and be impleaded. The Authority is hereby constituted an instrumentality of the state, and the exercise by the Authority of the powers conferred by this act in the construction, operation, and maintenance of turnpike projects shall be deemed and held to be an essential governmental function of the state with all the attributes thereof.”(emphasis added)

Politically speaking, then, the OTA is imbued with the full power of the State, and with that comes the power of condemnation, otherwise known as eminent domain.

Understanding the nature of this relationship takes a rudimentary understanding of the Law of Agency. Without going through a 1L Contract Law class, the Law of Agency can be summed up as a relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another. That includes the authority of the agent to bind the principal to financial obligations. The law of agency is based on the Latin maxim “Qui facit per alium, facit per se,” which means “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself.”

Under this legal principle, the principal is legally responsible for the actions of their agent as long as they are acting under the auspices of the principal. Meaning, if the agent breaks the law, the principle could be held liable for damages as long as the principal knew what the agent was doing and the agent was acting in the full faith and credit of the principle.

Likewise, any legal restrictions on the principal would automatically apply to the agent, insomuch as those restrictions govern the actions related to their relationship. For instance, in domestic law cases when a VPO (victim’s protection order) is issued against an abuser in order to protect their victim from further abuse the VPO usually includes language that extends the legal restriction to the agents of the abuser.

One would expect that an agency of the State would have the same authority – namely to bind the State to contracts – to act on it’s authority, and to risk the State being sued should that agent act in a manner that violated any principle of civil or criminal law. Certainly if the State gives an agency the power of condemnation (one of its sternest powers), then the State should be legally liable for the actions of that agent.

However, that relationship does not exist for the OTA. 69 O.S. § 1705 (d), which gives the OTA its authority, states that, “Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is hereby authorized and empowered:

(d) To sue and be sued in contract, reverse condemnation, equity, mandamus and similar actions in its own name, plead and be impleaded; provided, that any and all actions at law or in equity against the Authority shall be brought in the county in which the principal office of the Authority shall be located, or in the county of the residence of the plaintiff, or the county where the cause of action arose. All privileges granted to the Authority and duties enjoined upon the Authority by the provisions of Sections 1701 through 1734 of this title may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction in an action in mandamus.”

The words at the beginning of paragraph D carry enormous legal significance. The actions that are named (to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, etc.) are actions that define a legal entity as being separate from another. For instance, when a child turns 18, known in the law as the “age of majority”, that child can then sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in his or her own name as opposed to their parents. They are now legally responsible for themselves at all times.

As such, the words “in its own name” draw a sharp, clear distinction between an agent of the State – one imbued to act with full State authority, and for which the State is fully responsible – and a private entity. An agent or agency of the State, like the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, has full state authority but also binds to the State to any and all contracts it signs. The State is also responsible for overseeing and funding that agency.

By including the words “in its own name” in the definition of powers listed in 69 O.S. § 1705, the State has not created an agency. It has defined a legally separate entity for which the State cannot be held legally liable, and which does not have the authority to bind the State to contracts.

However, the State then gave this “private” entity the same legal authority the State has, namely the power to seize property by force using eminent domain in order to build turnpikes. Remember the words we italicized in 69 O.S. § 1703 above? “The Authority is hereby constituted an instrumentality of the state…projects shall be deemed and held to be an essential governmental function of the state with all the attributes thereof.” Sure seems like a full “state agency” doesn’t it?

Yet in Section 1 of SQ 360 (codified as 69 O.S. § 1702) the State tries to distance itself from the “agency” relationship:

Turnpike revenue bonds issued under the provisions on this article shall not at any time be deemed to constitute a debt of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or a pledge of the faith and credit of the state or of any such political subdivision.”

Confused yet?

This very notion seems to fly in the face of representative government.

One of Oklahoman’s constitutional rights protected by both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions is the right to redress their government for grievances. If the state legislature or state agencies do something we don’t like, we have the right to hold them accountable through courts of equity or through the ballot box.

And yet, there exists no recourse whatsoever for the citizens of Oklahoma to against the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority for redress of grievances, even though this same authority has been given the Constitutional power of eminent domain. Just ask the Oklahomans who have tried to stop their power of eminent domain in court. The citizens of Oklahoma have lost…every single time.

The line between public and private gets even blurrier when you look at who currently heads the OTA. The Board of Directors are chosen according to the OTA’s bylaws (which they are authorized to create under 69 O.S. § 1705 (b)). The Executive Staff is chosen by the Board of Directors. Yet both of those entities contain State Officials. The Governor is always an ex officio member of the Board, and the current Executive Director of the OTA is Tim Gatz – who simultaneously serves as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and as Governor Stitt’s Secretary of Transportation (more on this potential conflict of interest in the next article).

But Aren’t The Turnpike Supposed To Eventually Be Free?

When the voters passed SQ 359 and 360, they were promised that the turnpikes would eventually be free, once their bonds were paid off. Section 9 of State Question 360, which was codified after passage as 69 O.S. 1951, § 667, included the following passage:

When all bonds issued under the provisions of this article and the interest thereon shall have been paid or a sufficient amount for the payment of all such bonds and the interest thereon to the maturity thereof shall have been set aside in trust for the benefit of the bondholders, such projects, if then in good condition and repair to the satisfaction of the Commission, shall become part of the state highway system and shall thereafter be maintained by the Commission free of tolls.

This section is often quoted by turnpike opponents in frustration as to why Oklahomans are still being charged tolls on the State’s original turnpikes decades after the construction is finished and the bond should have been paid off.

The answer lies in HB 501 of the 32nd Legislative Session in 1968. That bill amended 69 O.S. § 667, and codified the amendments as 69 O.S. § 1717, to which the following language was added:

Provided, that when all bonds for any turnpike project and the interest thereon shall have been paid or such provision for payment made, prior to payment of the bonds and interest on any other project or projects, such project shall continue to be operated as a toll facility at toll rates not less than the lowest rate being charged on any project, until all bonds issued by the Authority and the interest thereon shall have been paid or such provisions for payment made. The revenues of such paid-out projects shall be used and applied by the Authority in paying the obligations or depositing in the sinking fund of such other turnpike projects in the following order: (a) To any project or projects in default on interest: (b) to any project or projects in default on principal; (c) to any project or projects having insufficient reserves or sinking fund under its trust agreement. If all such other projects have sufficient reserves then the revenues from such paid-out project shall be prorated between such other projects on the basis of the outstanding bonds of each project. If two or more projects fall within any of the above categories, then the revenues shall be prorated between them on the basis of the outstanding bonds of each project.

The law was amended again in 2003 (SB 464) and 2005 (HB 1969) requiring further legislative approval for any transfer of turnpike to ODOT. Those changes are now codified as 69 O.S. § 1717.1.

In plain English, that bill gave the OTA two new “powers” that have allowed it to rule over Oklahomans with impunity. First, it allowed the revenues from existing turnpikes to go to fund the expenses on any new turnpike projects. That means that if you drive the Kilpatrick or Turner Turnpikes (whose bonds have long since been paid off) you are literally paying for roads you are not driving on.

Second, it allowed all toll roads to remain under the control of the OTA as long as the bonds to build the new turnpikes weren’t paid off. Since then, the OTA has engaged in clever bond financing to ensure that their debt servicing continues in near-perpetuity. A few examples of that are available  on OTA’s website:

  • Bonds in the amount of $558.4 million were issued in February 1989. $385.4 million was for the construction of the Cherokee Turnpike and the first sections of the Kilpatrick, Creek, and Chickasaw Turnpikes. The remaining $173 million was used to advance refund all of the outstanding Authority bonds from 1966 and 1971.
  • In October 1991, bonds in the amount of $50 million were issued to provide funds sufficient, together with other funds of the Authority, for the completion of the Portland Interchange on the Kilpatrick Turnpike and certain other improvements to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.
  • In May 1992, bonds in the amount of $608.3 million were issued in order to refinance approximately 94% of the Authority’s outstanding debt and in effect decreased the Authority’s aggregate debt service payments by approximately $36.8 million over the next 30 years. This action also resulted in economic gain (the difference between the present value of the old and new debt service payments) of approximately $29.4 million.
  • In October 1992, bonds in the amount of $50.8 million were issued to refund the 1991 Revenue Bonds and in effect decreased the Authority’s aggregate debt service payments by approximately $4.5 million over the next 25 years. This action also resulted in a cash-basis economic gain (the difference between the present value of the old and new debt service payments) of approximately $1.4 million.
  • On May 14, 2002, the Authority issued $314,065,000 of Series 2002A Refunding Second Senior Revenue Bonds, and $255,575,000 of Series 2002B Refunding Second Senior Revenue Bonds. The Series 2002 Bonds were issued for the purpose of refunding the remaining Series 1989 Revenue Bonds, the Series 1992A-E Revenue Bonds, and portions of the 1992F and 1992G Bonds and in effect decreased the Authority’s aggregate debt service payments by approximately $50.9 million over the next 20 years. This action also resulted in a present value cash-basis gain (the difference between the present value of the old and new debt service payments) of approximately $32,583,380.

The last three examples are of particular interest, as they were not bonds issued to “construct, maintain, repair, and operate turnpike projects” as allowed by 69 O.S. § 1701, which should call into question their legality.

Combine these two powers with the power of eminent domain, and OTA’s authority to continue to seize private property, build turnpikes wherever they wish (including through wildlife preserves – more on that in the next article), charge whatever they wish, and then hold the registration of your vehicle hostage if you don’t pay up remains unchecked.

Consequently, if any of these powers were taken away by the people of Oklahoma through an initiative petition (either to pass legislation or amend the Oklahoma Constitution), the power of OTA to continue to charge for turnpikes already paid for and take private property by force would be essentially neutered.

Sure, no one has to take the tollways…unless you want to drive to Tulsa, Lawton, or spend 30-min to and hour extra in your commute (which burns through how much gas?) trying to drive from Broadway Extension over to Hefner Parkway. It’s kinda like how no one had to pay the mob in Chicago for protection…but life went a lot better for you if you did.

The Victims of OTA’s Abuse

In the next article, we will profile some of the victim’s of OTA’s unchecked authority, including those homeowners threatened with loss of the homes down in Norman. And yes, as referred to above, homeowners aren’t the only ones affected. OTA is even threatening the dead.

Editor’s Note: those of you who followed us on Facebook will know by now that we are no longer on that platform. We are working hard to transition over to Gab, and eventually Truth Media. In the meantime, you can help us out by sharing articles like this one on your social media platforms. Even though we’re not there, anyone can still share our articles on any of the social media platforms you wish. 

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority - The Biggest Bully on the Block, Special Reports

Conservative Coalition Forms to Defeat School Choice Bills

March 7, 2022

OKLAHOMA CITY

In the wake of the advancement of SB 1647 (Senator Treat’s “school choice” bill) to the floor of the Senate for discussion and vote, a group of statewide conservative grassroots organizations have formed a coalition to what they see as a imminent threat to private schools and parent-led homeschooling…namely the encroachment of state influence via public funding.

The group consists of ROPE 2.0 (Reclaim Oklahoma Parental Empowerment), the Constitutional Home Educators Alliance (CHEA), the Muskogee Politico, the Liberty Ladies, Nathan Teague (a Norman-area homeschool dad and author), and Ignite Liberty.

The group issued a formal statement, published below:

CHEA and ROPE have been actively lobbying at the Capitol against the passage of SB 1647, and for the passage of SB 1471. That bill would create a tax credit of up to $2500 per student for parent’s out-of-pocket expenses related to their child’s education.

While SB 1647 would involved state funds being handed out – which always comes with strings attached – SB 1471 (which is listed on Ignite Liberty’s Legislative Tracker) would simply involve parents being able to write those expenses off of their taxable income for the previous year. As a result, no state education dollars would ever change hands, preventing the strings of state oversight from being involved.

The Coalition appears to be having an effect, as passage of SB 1647 appears now to be less than a sure thing. House Speaker Charles McCall has repeated said that he has, “no plans to hear [SB 1647] this session.”

Ignite Liberty has joined this coalition support of defending private and homeschool education in order to preserve the maximum amount of parental control over their child’s education.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Legislation

Letters to the Editor: City of Norman Sends $100K to San Francisco Non-Profit With Poor Record to “Fight Homelessness”

February 24, 2022

by Shane Smith

Last year, the City of Norman paid San Francisco-based nonprofit, Homebase, $100,000 for a plan to solve our homeless situation. A quick look at their website makes one wonder whether we got our money’s worth. They describe themselves thusly:

Homebase is committed to advancing diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in our organization and the communities where we partner. Recognizing that homelessness is driven by systemic, intersectional inequities, we believe it is crucial as an organization to promote equity and anti-racism throughout our work.

The Homebase Board of Directors believes that equity and anti-racism are essential to creating innovative, transformative, strategic and practical solutions for people experiencing and at risk of homelessness. We acknowledge the profound historical and systemic barriers to stable housing that exist for many of our BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized neighbors.

Our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging at Homebase begins with providing equal access and fair opportunities for our existing and incoming staff, and we endorse and support our staff in their work to build community capacity to end homelessness, reduce poverty, and foster thriving, inclusive and equitable communities.”

Picture of a homeless camp in Norman. Picture first appeared in a 2018 Norman Transcript article.

While these are noble goals, this organization is clearly anything but objective. This is the loaded language of the far Left, and it’s hard to believe that they would produce anything approaching an objective assessment of our local problem, or proffer any real solutions.  Was it really worth it to pay this organization $100,000, and would it be anything other than a fool’s errand to pursue their policy proposals?

Take their hometown of San Francisco. Is that city’s homeless problem anywhere close to being solved? Or are their policies making the problem worse? Far, far worse, it turns out. Despite spending close to $1 billion each year on the problem, homelessness has exploded in that city.  The problem has gotten so bad that San Francisco has resorted to purchasing bus tickets for these homeless people and sending them on their way, far from the city.

This mirrors the experience of other cities that continue to spend increasing amounts on a problem that only gets bigger. You’d think more people would detect a patten here, and perhaps realize that the enormous amounts of money are making the problem worse by creating a magnet effect that draws more homeless to the city in search of benefits.

The root of the problem is traced to the “housing first” philosophy, more rigid ideology than data-driven solution, and one that forms the foundation of Homebase’s solutions. In essence, “housing first” refers to a policy of just building as many homes as deemed necessary for the currently homeless, regardless of personal history, criminal or otherwise. “If they’re homeless, just give them homes!” goes the logic. The magnet effect is created, word gets out, and homeless travel far and wide to reap the rewards. “Build it and they will come”, as Ward 3 councilmember Kelly Lynn often says in debates over the “housing first” boondoggle. Low-barrier housing brings criminals, and with it criminal activity.

This isn’t difficult to understand, but the debate surrounding the homelessness issue is mired in emotional manipulation and accusations of callousness. No, we aren’t callous, we are being realistic. We live in a world of cause and effect, and of limited resources. We must take into account how low-barrier housing would affect the residents of Norman. How much crime is acceptable? How many murders? A recent Norman Transcript article quotes Ward 7 councilmember Stephen Holman as saying,

Before we had this overnight shelter, we had two homeless people freeze to death on the sidewalk in downtown Norman, and that made the news, and I can assure you—that did not make the city of Norman look very good…Talk about a homicide, a single homicide that could’ve happened anywhere—to me, two homeless people freezing to death on a sidewalk in a city of this wealth is way worse of an image than a single homicide.” 

At least one can give Holman credit for thinking in terms of tradeoffs, but this is an outrageous statement. How many murders should we tolerate as a community? Two extra per year? Four? How much property crime is acceptable in his mind?

For Norman, Homebase offers several “solutions” that could be pursued immediately: A year-round, low-barrier shelter, incentives for landlords to take in people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify as tenants, establishing single-room occupancy units, among others.

This would simply be a disaster.

Low-barrier shelters attract criminals. “Landlord incentives” create slumlords. Piles of money and services, while a temporary fix, only attract more homeless to the city offering them. “Subsidize something and you get more of it”. This is a stark reality. This doesn’t mean “do nothing”, but it also means not turning our current homelessness problem into a spiraling crisis, which is certainly where this fool’s errand would lead.

Filed Under: Editorial, Featured Stories, Letters to the Editor

Protecting the “Other Means”: CHEA Fights to Defend Homeschooling From Creeping State Influence

February 22, 2022

OKLAHOMA CITY

Jana Belcher, Vice Chair of the Constitutional Home Educators Alliance.

Article 13, Section 13-4 of the Oklahoma Constitution is the section of the state’s constitution that gives the legislature the authority to compel school attendance for all children that are “sound in mind and body” from the ages of 8 to 16. The section reads as follows:

The Legislature shall provide for the compulsory attendance at some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided, of all the children in the State who are sound in mind and body, between the ages of eight and sixteen years, for at least three months in each year.

The clause, “unless other means of education are provided” is the clause that has allowed Oklahoma to enjoy the most robust homeschooling environment of any state in the union.

According to the Constitutional Home Educators Alliance (CHEA), that robust environment is now under direct attack through several of the “school choice” bills currently being pushed through the legislature – several of which have the backing of prominent conservative groups and legislators.

The biggest threat, according to CHEA, comes from the Sen. Greg Treat (R-Oklahoma City) sponsored bill, SB 1647. The bill, entitled the Oklahoma Empowerment Act, creates the Oklahoma Empowerment Account – a school voucher-type program that allows parents to take the money the state allocates to the public school for their child’s education and use it to help pay for private schools or homeschool expenses.

The groups supporting that bill, which include the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs (OCPA), laud the bill as a way of allowing children from poor and underperforming schools a way out of those schools through either private education or homeschooling.

However, Jana Belcher, a founding member of CHEA and Vice Chair of the CHEA board, has a very different take on this bill.

“It’s not empowerment. It’s enticement and entanglement.”

Last week, Ignite Liberty interviewed three ladies – Jana Belcher, Carrie Bertrand, and Jenni White – who are at the forefront of the fight against “school vouchers” in an effort to better understand their argument against it. Jana Belcher and Carrie Bertrand are founding members of CHEA. Jenni White is a long-time conservative activist, former mayor of Luther, and founder of ROPE (Restoring Oklahoma Parental Empowerment).

White pointed out that the act itself is based on flawed logic. “We already have ‘school choice’ in Oklahoma. Parents can choose to send their kids to public school, public-school at home (via EPIC and other virtual charter schools), private school, or parent-led, parent-taught homeschool. If they can’t afford private school, we already have the Lyndsay Nicole Henry Scholarship that pays for children with special needs or from underperforming schools to attend the private school of their choice.”

“What this truly does,” according to White, “is incentivizes government control of private schools and de-incentivizes homeschooling.” It does this through the promise of a parent being able to take the approximately $3,900 the state would normally allot to the school district and send it to the parents that enroll in the program. The group claims that any state funds disbursed to the parents would automatically come with strings attached, giving the government more control over not only private schools but over homeschoolers as well.

Their point has validity to it, as Senator Treat admitted in committee hearings last week that there would have to be accountability for the funds disbursed. “If a parent is going to take the funds and go to Disney World, then obviously that’s a problem.” Treat went onto say that 10% of all of the “education savings accounts”  through this program would be audited every year. Any evidence of wrongdoing would then be turned over to the Attorney General’s office for investigation.

As written, the bill only allows parents to use the funds to enroll their children in “education service providers” that the state has approved to receive empowerment funds. According to the bill as currently written, education service providers are defined as,

a person, business, public school district, public charter school, magnet school, institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, or organization that receives payments from a parent directing an Oklahoma Empowerment Account to provide educational goods and/or, services to empowerment students.”

The bill defines “qualified expenses” as the following:

  • tuition and/or fees at a private school accredited or in the process of obtaining accreditation by the State Board of Education or another accrediting association approved by the State Board of Education
  • tuition and/or fees for non-public online learning programs
  • services contracted for and provided by a public school district, public charter school, or magnet school including but not limited to classes and extracurricular activities and programs,
  • tutoring services provided by an individual or a tutoring facility,
  • textbooks, curriculum, or other instructional materials including but not limited to supplemental materials or associated online instruction required by an education service provider,
  • computer hardware or other technological devices, educational software, and applications that are used to meet an empowerment student’s curriculum needs,
  • tuition and/or fees for a curriculum or program, along with related instruments, supplies, accessories, and materials, that provides instruction in drama, music, speech and debate, agriculture, or other similar activities,
  • school uniforms,
  • fees for nationally standardized assessments including but not limited to assessments used to determine college admission and advanced placement examinations as well as tuition and/or fees for tutoring or preparatory courses for the assessments,
  • tuition and/or fees for summer education programs and specialized after-school education programs; provided, however, that such expense does not include before- school or after-school childcare,
  • tuition, fees, instructional materials, and assessment fees for a curriculum or program offered by a technology center school,
  • educational services and therapies including but not limited to occupational, behavioral, physical, speech- language, and audiology therapies,
  • tuition and fees for concurrent enrollment at an institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education,
  • fees for transportation paid to a fee-for-service provider for the student to travel to and from an education service provider,
  • or any other qualified expense approved by the Agency.

According to this, then, a parent would be barred from using Empowerment Act funds to purchase curriculum to teach their children themselves without express permission of the Agency responsible for administering the program. Nor could they use Empowerment Act funds to pay for expenses related to joining one of the many homeschool co-ops around the state unless that co-op has been approved by the state to be an “education service provider.”  

CHEA argues that the notion that parents would have to get permission from the state to use these funds to educate their children themselves flies in the very face long-established Supreme Court precedent:

Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is ‘the mere creature of the State’ and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally ‘have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare {their children} for additional obligations.'” U. S. Supreme Court, PARHAM v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

While it is true that homeschool parents wouldn’t be forced – yet – to take these funds, CHEA believes that the lure is too great for those families wanting to homeschool. As a result, those families will enroll in the program thinking it is the same thing as homeschooling, when in reality it is very different.

The trickle-down effect of that decision could do irreparable damage to the rich homeschool landscape that Oklahoma families have enjoyed for so long. As these funds make their way into the numerous homeschool organizations that have served the homeschool community for years, it would bring state regulation with it.

When pressed as to the concern about the legislature being able to use this bill as a way of controlling homeschoolers, Treat responded, “whether some future legislature is going to do that or not, we can’t really fight that battle now.”

According to CHEA, the legislature shouldn’t even open the door to the possibility.

The Digital Wallet Program

It appears as though the funds would be disbursed differently from other state benefit programs. There is a separate bill authored by Rep Ryan Martinez (R-Edmond), HB 3482, that would create a “digital wallet” program that appears to be the funding mechanism for the Empowerment Act funds.

According to the bill, the Digital Wallet Program is designed to, “increase learning opportunities for students, establish new flexibilities for families, empower families to create education solutions that fit the unique needs of their children, and to empower and encourage the state to directly support families.” The funds would be distributed by “the Governor, or his or her designee.”

CHEA has spoken to Rep Martinez to express their concerns about the bill. Since then, it was been activated and as been moved to the House Appropriations and Budget Education Subcommittee for consideration.

The Cautionary Tale of EPIC and the OKC Storm

CHEA has been speaking out for almost a decade against the creeping advancement of state influence into the homeschool world through the intermingling of state funds into homeschool extra-curricular programs via EPIC Charter School “learning funds.” Their argument has merit.

Back in 2019, one of the most prominent homeschool athletic associations in the state, the OKC Storm, was investigated by the OSBI in direct connection to their investigation of EPIC Charter Schools. OSBI officials raided the home of OKC Storm founder and athletic director Kurt Talbot, seizing his computer and cell phone in the process.

In the warrant, the OSBI alleged that the OKC Storm unlawfully received state funds through EPIC. The warrant stated, “Kurt Talbot employed over a dozen coaches who were not certified teachers and provided direct instruction to players. Kurt Talbot admitted that state appropriated funds were used to buy uniforms for Epic students, cover some of the costs of paying the coaches, and other expenses of the OKC Storm.”

Though no charges were ever brought against the Storm, homeschool parents run the very real risk of having their homeschool day interrupted by an investigation from state agencies should they take the bait and participate in the Oklahoma Empowerment Account program…and it wouldn’t even take anything as drastic as an OSBI investigation.

According to Section “N” of the proposed legislation, it would only take an “anonymous report”:

The Agency may promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this act, which shall include but not be limited to, (1) Establishing or contracting for the establishment of an online anonymous fraud reporting service; (2) Establishing an anonymous telephone hotline for fraud reporting.”

For CHEA, that risk alone is far to great to warrant passage of SB 1647.

SB 1647 passed out of the Senate Education Committee by the narrowest of margins, 8-7. It only passed because the Senator McCourtney utilized the privileges granted to him as Senate Floor Leader to vote in the committee.

The bill now heads to the Appropriations Committee. If it passes out of that committee it will head to the full Senate for consideration. As of now, if the bill passes the Senate it appears to be doomed in the House, as the Speaker of the House has said the bill will be “dead on arrival.” That, of course, could change.

Tax Credits Instead of Vouchers

In response to their advocacy against the bill, CHEA has been ruthlessly attacked on Facebook, in particular by those directly associated with OCPA, accusing them of not caring about kids in difficult family or educational situations.

Trent England, a member of the OCPA, attacks members of CHEA for their stance against SB 1647.

The attacks appear to be baseless, however, because the group is backing a version of “school vouchers” that does not pose a threat to homeschoolers.

SB 1471 (included in Ignite Liberty’s legislative tracker) would create refundable tax credits through the state tax structure that would allow parents to receive a tax credit for their children’s educational expenses of up to $2,500. Should a parent fall into the income category that would grant them a refund, those funds would be received in the form of a state tax refund through the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

So those same “single moms” Mr. England referred to in his tweet would likely be eligible for tax credits under that program.

Because this money is not given to the parents through the Oklahoma Empowerment Accounts, there would be no strings attached as to how the parents use it. In actuality, it would be a refund for money the parents have already spent on their child’s educational expenses.

According to a summary of the bill, “The Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) may require applicants for the credit to submit copies of such receipts or similar financial documentation as may be necessary to confirm the taxpayer’s statement of the allowable credit.” This would both prevent  any fraud, waste, or abuse by the parents as well as eliminate any avenue for the state to directly interfere with how a parent chooses to homeschool their child.

CHEA has been working behind the scenes to try and strengthen this bill even further by allowing parents to receive the $2,500 in tax credits without having to spend the money first – similar to how the Advanced Child Tax Credit from the CARES Act was paid out last year. This too could be done without the unwanted “strings” attached that would give the government a way into the homeschooler’s home.

SB 1647, according to Belcher, Bertrand, and White, would allow the state to, “follow the money first to the child, and then into the home where they would map the progress of the child via 300 different datapoints in the state’s longitudinal database.”

Additional Threats to Homeschooling

While SB 1647 presents the gravest threat, there are other bills that are equally concerning to CHEA for homeschoolers and private schools.

SB 1583 creates a “transfer allowance” that would allow a parent to transfer their child out of a failing school to the private school of their choice at the state’s expense. The summary for this measure directly points out the avenue that this gives the state for direct influence over a private school, stating, “The measure requires the State Department of Education to approve private schools in which students may enroll.”

SB 1509 is the most recent version of the “Tim Tebow” law attempted to pass through the state legislature. The law would provide a path for homeschool students to participate in extra-curricular activities at public schools, but only under strict guidelines.

According to the bill summary, “The measure allows a student to demonstrate adherence to academic standards by a method of evaluation agreed upon by the student’s parent or legal guardian and the resident district superintendent.” This gives the public school superintendent direct influence over how homeschool parents educate their children. If they feel a homeschool family should be using the same sex-ed curriculum, or the same SEL (social-emotional learning – another word for Common Core) programs the school uses then they would be within their power to force the parents to comply.

They Just Want to be Left Alone

Above all, CHEA emphasized that homeschooling families to not want any of these bills. They simply want to be left alone to educate their children according to the dictates of their own conscience.

They pointed out that homeschool parents have a long history of making whatever sacrifices were necessary to provide their children with the opportunities to be successful in their chosen fields. They have not yet needed the help of the State, and they don’t need it now.

Beyond that, the voucher programs seem to have a history of poor success. According to EdChoice.org, Florida’s voucher program is only used by 4.9% of students despite 62% of their students being eligible. Given how Florida’s program has been touted for its success by the proponents of SB 1647, it draws to question if there are other influences behind the scenes.

Data from EdChoice.org showing low participation rates in Florida’s school voucher programs.

The American Federation for Children has been the largest nationwide organization pushing the school choice agenda. Their local lobbyist, Jennifer Carter is the wife of Ray Carter, the director for independent journalism for OCPA…the main statewide organization pushing SB 1647.

Jennifer Carter was also the Chief of Staff to former State Education Superintendent Janet Barresi, the superintendent largely responsible to getting Common Core passed in Oklahoma. Though it has since been officially rescinded, it continues in many school districts as Social Emotional Learning (SEL).

OCPA’s influence is likely why even some of the most conservative, pro-homeschooling senators have voted in support support of SB 1647 in committee.

Interestingly enough, the Senators most willing to listen to the arguments from CHEA were Democrats J.J. Dossett (D-Owasso), and Jo Anna Dossett (D-Tulsa). They both voted NO along with Sen. Carrie Hicks (D-Oklahoma City), Sen. Tom Dugger (R-Stillwater), Sen. Brenda Stanley (R-Midwest City), Sen. Blake Stephens (R-Tahlequah), and Sen. Dewayne Pemberton (R-Muskogee).

The senators that voted YES on SB 1674 were as follows:

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow)
Sen. Jake Merrick  (R-Yukon)
Sen. Joe Newhouse (R-Tulsa)
Sen. Marty Quinn (R-Claremore)
Sen. Zack Taylor  (R-Seminole)
Sen. Adam Pugh  (R-Edmond)
Sen. Greg McCortney (R-Ada)
Sen. Greg Treat (R-Oklahoma City)

Ignite Liberty will continue to monitor the status of the legislation mention in this article. If you wish to subscribe to CHEA to receive their legislative updates in order to get updates on every bill that affects homeschooling in Oklahoma click here, then scroll to the bottom of the page.

 

 

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Legislation

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    COPYRIGHT © 2022 · IGNITE LIBERTY · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED