Representative Tom Gann

R

District 8

Hi, I'm Tom Gann and I represent the people of Oklahoma's 8th District.


representative

News & Announcements

Jan 15, 2026
Recent Posts

Gann Announces ‘Open Legislature Initiative’ to Subject Lawmakers to Transparency Laws

OKLAHOMA CITY – Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, on Thursday announced a comprehensive transparency package aimed at bringing the Oklahoma Legislature under the state’s open meetings and open records standards, calling the move "necessary to restore public trust and end a culture of secrecy in state government." House Bill 3842 , which Gann is calling the Open Legislature Initiative, is formally titled the Legislative Transparency, Accountability, and Open Meetings Act of 2026 . In addition to requiring continued public notice and recording of legislative meetings for the Oklahoma House of the state Senate, the measure would mandate disclosure of lobbyist influence tied to legislation and prohibit nondisclosure agreements that interfere with lawmakers’ official duties. “The Legislature cannot demand transparency from every other public body while exempting itself,” Gann said. “If we expect open government, we must lead by example.” Gann said recent events have highlighted the need for reform. He pointed to criticism surrounding the Legislative Compensation Board, which met in executive session before approving pay raises, as well as growing efforts by other government bodies to secure exemptions from open-meeting requirements. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has received an exemption for some discussions, and county commissioners in multiple counties have sought similar treatment, he said. “When the Legislature operates outside transparency laws, it incentivizes others to do the same,” Gann said. “That is how secrecy spreads through government.” Under Gann's proposal, the Legislature and all committees, conference committees, task forces and working groups would be required to: ·      provide advance public notice and agendas; ·      allow public observation and recording of meetings; ·      post meeting records online within seven days; and ·      refrain from taking votes outside Open Meeting Act compliance. Under the bill, any legislative action taken in violation of the act would be invalid. The measure also would require lawmakers to file a Lobbyist Impact Statement if they have received campaign contributions, gifts or other benefits from lobbyists connected to legislation they sponsor. Failure to file the Lobbyist Impact Statement would constitute an ethics violation and carry criminal penalties. Lawmakers are currently required to submit campaign finance and financial disclosures to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. Additionally, the bill would mandate that legislators disclose any nondisclosure agreements they sign, and any agreement restricting communication with constituents or legislative deliberation would be void. “Open meetings and open records are the ethical foundation of representative government,” Gann said. “Secrecy erodes trust, and trust is essential to a functioning republic.” Gann noted that a separate resolution, HR 1001 , is still eligible for consideration. That proposal would further guarantee additional recorded votes on legislation and prevent bills from being blocked without public accountability. “Oklahomans deserve to know who voted, who blocked a vote and why,” Gann said. If enacted, the Legislative Transparency, Accountability, and Open Meetings Act of 2026 would take effect July 1, 2026. It will be eligible for consideration in the Second Regular Session of the 60th Legislature, which convenes Feb. 2.

Dec 19, 2025
Recent Posts

Reps. Contend OCC Let College Dropout Perform Utility Audits, Challenge Another $1.5B of Customer Charges with Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – An employee of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) who is believed to have dropped out of college as a sophomore has been performing audits of utility companies collectively worth more than a billion dollars, a brief filed Thursday at the Oklahoma Supreme Court reveals. Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, are challenging OCC orders approving some $1.5 billion of 2023 fuel and purchased power costs incurred by monopoly public utilities ONG, OG&E and PSO. Their brief asks the Court to overturn the OCC’s approval orders and require new, lawful fuel audits and prudence reviews by outside, independent auditors and experts, instead of the OCC’s Public Utility Division (PUD) staff. “Fuel adjustment clause charges are passed through directly onto customers’ bills, so the utilities have already collected this money from us,” said Gann, a customer of ONG, OG&E and PSO. “State law requires audits of the utilities’ fuel charges every year. It also requires the OCC to make sure those costs were fair, just, reasonable and prudent before approving them. These laws exist to protect ratepayers, but the OCC doesn’t seem to care whether the people conducting these audits and prudence reviews are qualified or not.”  The representatives’ brief includes an email from the University of Central Oklahoma confirming that the OCC PUD staff member in question does not have a degree from the university and has not been enrolled since 2015. A resume attached to his testimony shows he has been employed by the OCC PUD since 2019 and served as the OCC’s lead analyst in 2022 and 2023 fuel cases for PSO. At that staff member’s recommendation, the OCC approved more than $1.2 billion of PSO’s fuel costs passed through to customers in those cases.  The brief shows the staffer also testified in recent rate cases for PSO and OG&E that resulted in almost $400 million in rate increases for customers. The representatives filed briefs at the court challenging those OCC-approved orders in August and November. All were approved by the OCC with votes by embattled OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett. Gann, Kevin West and Rick West’s newest brief accuses the OCC of violating state laws about audits and prudence reviews, and of violating ratepayers’ due process rights by permitting Commissioner Hiett to participate. ONG, OG&E and PSO were represented in these cases by attorneys who hosted a 2023 party where Hiett allegedly sexually harassed two female OCC employees and drove home drunk. ONG also was represented by an attorney whom the brief describes as “an outcry witness” to Hiett’s alleged sexual assault of a ONE Gas employee at a 2024 conference in Minnesota. The representatives argue that State Ethics Rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit Hiett from participating in OCC cases involving victims/witnesses of his alleged criminal conduct.  Thursday’s brief says the OCC’s disregard for the law has shielded more than $10 billion of utility fuel charges from lawful, required audits and prudence reviews since 2021. OG&E, PSO and ONG paid some of the highest natural gas prices in U.S. history during a two-week cold snap in February 2021, incurring some $2.8 billion in fuel costs during the storm and another $1.8 billion for the rest of the year. The representatives already have challenged more than $1.4 billion in 2021 Winter Storm bonds for OG&E and PSO authorized by the OCC, with an appeal of ONG’s $1.3 billion in bonds pending. Thursday’s brief says they also plan to challenge the OCC’s fuel approval orders for 2021 and 2022 in their appeals of the agency’s 2024 fuel approval orders, two of which were filed the first week in December.  “Not everyone has to graduate from college,” Rick West said. “But state employees being paid with taxpayer dollars have to be qualified for the jobs they’re hired for. This situation is not only an assault on the household budgets of utility customers; it is an insult to thousands of qualified public servants who are legitimately earning their paychecks.” The representatives’ last appeal brief, filed just before Thanksgiving, said OG&E “unduly (and possibly unlawfully) influenced” the hiring of the OCC’s financial advisor in the Winter Storm bond cases, Hilltop Securities. It also questioned how OG&E and PSO’s lender, RBC Capital, was hired to underwrite both utilities’ bond deals, when RBC’s bid was 25% higher than JP Morgan’s. (Hilltop Securities advised the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority on the bond underwriters’ bidding process.) The most recent brief describes “accounting shell games” and $100 million of OG&E’s 2021 fuel costs that remain unaccounted for.  “There are serious concerns about how the Corporation Commission is operating,” Kevin West said. “We have asked the Supreme Court to intervene regarding flawed audits and due process issues, but its role is necessarily limited.” In September, the OCC’s director of administration told House members that recent challenges stemmed from staffing shortages. “In order to protect ratepayers and maintain public confidence and transparency, the Legislature will have to step in and ensure proper procedures are being followed,” Kevin West said. All told, Gann, Kevin West and Rick West’s filed and pending appeals challenge more than $11 billion in utility charges for ONG, OG&E and PSO. The full Brief in Chief for the combined 2023 fuel cases appeal can be read online here: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1063627122&cn=CU-122991&fmt=pdf ONG, OG&E, PSO, the OCC and the Attorney General’s Office have 40 days to respond. The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website: PSO rate case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861 OG&E rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123021 ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122991 ONG rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG CY2024 fuel case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588 OG&E CY2024 fuel case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123608

Dec 1, 2025
Recent Posts

More Rate Increases, $1.4B of OG&E, PSO 2021 Winter Storm Bonds Challenged at OK Supreme Court

OKLAHOMA CITY – Just before Thanksgiving, Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, Kevin West, R-Moore, and Rick West, R-Heavener, filed a new brief asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn a $127 million rate increase for OG&E as well as some $760 million of the utility’s ratepayer-backed bonds. Both were approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) with votes by embattled Commissioner Todd Hiett.  The rate increase has been in effect since July 2024. Payments for the bonds, issued to cover costs incurred by OG&E during February 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, have been collected as “Winter Event Securitization (WES)” charges on customers’ bills since July 2022. If not overturned, the rate increase will continue in perpetuity; the monthly WES charges are scheduled to continue for another 25 years. Wednesday’s brief was the second such request to the court last month. On Nov. 10, Gann filed a similar brief asking the court to overturn $250 million in rate increases and some $700 million in ratepayer-backed bonds the OCC had approved for Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO). To date, this brings the totals officially challenged to $377 million in rate increases and more than $1.4 billion in bonds. The appeals ask the court to order everything wrongly collected to be refunded to OG&E and PSO customers. Both briefs tell the court that the OCC failed to provide a required audit of the bonds in OG&E and PSO’s most recent rate cases. They also argue the utilities’ original 2021 Uri costs that were securitized into the bonds were never lawfully audited either. The briefs assert the audit failures make the OCC’s orders void.  Oklahoma utilities OG&E, PSO, ONG and CenterPoint/Summit paid some of the highest natural gas prices in U.S. history during a two-week cold snap in February 2021, incurring some $2.8 billion in debt. Interest and other expenses added another $2 billion, bringing the total cost of the bonds being paid by Oklahoma utility customers close to $5 billion. The appeal briefs focus on a report by former Oklahoma Accountancy Board Chairman David Greenwell filed at the OCC in July 2024. In it, Greenwell said the OCC’s audit activities with respect to the winter storm costs and bonds “do not appear to comply with state law.” Former OCC Commissioner Bob Anthony also repeatedly criticized the one-page audits the OCC was putting forward to meet statutory requirements. “When Oklahoma law requires an audit, the Accountancy Act says it has to be done by independent, licensed CPAs following nationally recognized standards,” said Gann, who is a former internal auditor for Tulsa International Airport. “That did not happen.”  “Although all three of us voted against the securitization legislation in April 2021, we do not believe that our colleagues who voted for it meant for the utilities to audit themselves, or for the Corporation Commission to make up its own definition of the word ‘audit,’” Kevin West said. “The apparently fraudulent audits are inexcusable. The law requires real audits, and the Accountancy Act defines auditing standards for a reason.” Gann, Kevin West and Rick West argue the effect of the OCC’s audit failures “has been to cover up significant wrongdoing during and after the 2021 Winter Storm.” The brief in the OG&E appeal (p.3) says the utility “unduly (and possibly unlawfully) influenced” the hiring of the OCC’s financial advisor in the bond cases, Hilltop Securities. It also questions how OG&E and PSO’s lender, RBC Capital, was hired to underwrite both bond deals, when RBC’s bid was 25% higher than JP Morgan’s. (Hilltop Securities advised the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority on the bond underwriters’ bidding process.) The OG&E brief (p.35) cites a January 2025 filing by then-Commissioner Anthony alleging that a representative of Hilltop was responsible for “fraudulent language surreptitiously inserted” into the OCC’s bond financing orders. Anthony said that fraudulent language made the bonds hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive for OG&E and PSO customers. The appeal brief says it also makes the OCC’s bond orders void. The state representatives also are challenging the rate increases based on OCC Commissioner Todd Hiett’s participation in the cases, saying he violated utility customers’ due process rights.  “Hiett cast the deciding vote to approve all the rate increases, even though we believe state ethics rules say he should not have participated,” Rick West said. Both OG&E and PSO were represented in the appealed cases by attorneys who hosted a 2023 party where Hiett was publicly accused of alleged sexual harassment and drunk driving. Even though no charges were filed, the state representatives’ brief says Hiett’s behavior has made him subject to improper influence and possible extortion by those attorneys and others.  In May 2025, the Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against Hiett, citing the so-called “rule of necessity” and finding in this particular instance, state Ethics Rule 4.7’s prohibition against conflicts of interest was not an issue. The Ethics Commission stated at the time that their decision took into account the constitutional requirements for the Corporation Commission, the legislative nature of the rate hikes and Oklahoma case law, including the well-recognized Rule of Necessity. The appeal briefs argue the “rule of necessity” does not apply to conflicted OCC commissioners and asks the Supreme Court to say so. “Fundamentally, these appeals are about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law,” Rick West said. “State ethics rules say if a reasonable person would question Hiett’s impartiality in these cases, he must not participate. But Hiett continues to cast votes approving billions of dollars of increases for these utility companies without performing the required audits. We expect the court to overturn these votes and to order Hiett and the OCC to follow the law.” In addition to the cases against OG&E and PSO, a similar Supreme Court appeal was filed against ONG’s most recent rate increase by Reps. Gann and Kevin West in August. Their brief in that case is not due until April 2026. They also have filed appeals against four OCC orders approving annual fuel purchases for ONG, OG&E and PSO, the fourth filed just Monday.  All told, Gann, Kevin West and Rick West's filed and pending appeals challenge more than $10 billion in utility charges for ONG, OG&E and PSO. The full OG&E appeal Brief in Chief can be read online here: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1063629594&cn=CU-123021&fmt=pdf OG&E, the OCC and the Attorney General’s Office have 40 days to respond. The progress of all the appeals can be followed on the Oklahoma Supreme Court website: PSO rate case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122861 OG&E rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123021 ONG, PSO & OG&E CY2023 fuel cases: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=122991 ONG rate case: https://oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123348 ONG CY2024 fuel case: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=123588