STILLWATER, Okla. — February 27, 2026 (The Oklahoma Post)
SB 1386’s journey from $73 million transparency overhaul to a 12-courtroom experiment raises questions about what Oklahoma actually intends to deliver
The Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Courtroom Transparency Act last week.
It passed it 7 to 1.
The advocates who showed up for Senate Bill 1386 deserve credit for showing up at all. Teresa Teran of Grand Jury Justice, Clay Spicer of the Focal Point of Accountability Movement, Don Spencer of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, have spent months, in some cases years, pushing Oklahoma’s political establishment to let the public see what happens inside its courtrooms. Whatever questions remain about the bill’s final form, these are people who identified a real problem and pressed legislators to address it. That matters.
It also quietly replaced it with something else first.
This is not uncommon in the Legislature. Bills arrive dressed for a gala and leave wearing gym shorts. Senate Bill 1386, authored by Sen. Christi Gillespie, R-Broken Arrow, entered December 2025 as a 15-page statewide overhaul of Oklahoma’s court recording system. By the time it left committee on February 24, it had been reduced to two pages and a pilot program covering a minimum of twelve courtrooms.
The official committee report, signed by Chair Sen. Brent Howard, reflects the recommendation as “Do Pass As Amended by CS,” with the title struck and replaced. Senators voting yes were Boren, Gollihare, Howard, Jech, Jett, Rosino, and Standridge. The lone dissenting vote came from Sen. Brooks.
Loading Viewer…
What the Original Bill Would Have Done
The introduced version of SB 1386 required every court of record in Oklahoma to audio and video record all public proceedings. It mandated statewide livestreaming wherever technically feasible, required a public access portal through the Oklahoma Court Information System, established a ten-year minimum retention period for recordings, mandated redundant backup systems to prevent data loss, created confidential audio channels for attorney-client communications, and required AI-assisted transcription support across all courtrooms.
It also came with enforcement language that would have given the legislation real teeth. Any judge, court reporter, court clerk, attorney, vendor, or state agent who knowingly altered, deleted, concealed, or failed to report a gap in recorded media with intent to affect the integrity of the official record would have faced criminal referral for evidence tampering. Noncompliant judicial officers could be referred to the Council on Judicial Complaints. Court employees who reported suspected tampering would receive whistleblower protections, with any adverse employment action within one year presumed retaliatory. The bill explicitly stated that lack of funding or equipment would not constitute good cause for noncompliance.
It also came with a price tag.
A Senate fiscal analysis of the introduced version, prepared by Gillian Starkey and based on figures provided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, projected a first-year implementation cost of $28,559,074 and an annual recurring cost of $73,789,974, accounting for hardware, software, live captioning, and the additional personnel required to operate a statewide system.
Loading Viewer…
What Actually Passed
The committee substitute, Request No. 3648, was drafted the evening of February 24, the same day as the vote. It is two pages long.
It requires the Oklahoma Supreme Court to establish a pilot program in a minimum of twelve courtrooms, with preference given to courts currently lacking a court reporter. The Administrative Office of the Courts would promulgate rules for audio and video recording equipment capable of broadcasting and livestreaming, subject to Supreme Court approval. That is the full scope of what passed out of committee.
A separate fiscal analysis of the substitute, based on figures from the District Court rather than the Supreme Court, projects a first-year cost of $1,425,688 and an annual recurring cost of $4,322,283. The gap between the two figures is not a rounding error. It reflects a change in both scope and the source providing the numbers.
None of the enforcement provisions, retention mandates, whistleblower protections, or funding guarantees from the introduced version survived into the substitute.
The bill also returns to language from a 1997 predecessor statute conditioning implementation on the Supreme Court having funds available. The introduced version would have required the Legislature to appropriate sufficient funds annually. The substitute makes no such commitment.
Loading Viewer…
The Reporter Shortage
Gillespie has framed SB 1386 as a response to an urgent staffing problem. Approximately 72 of 197 court reporter positions statewide are currently vacant, a shortage that has delayed or prevented hearings from occurring.
“In this day and age, many public meetings and events are recorded and livestreamed. Yet our courtrooms remain largely shielded from the public,” Gillespie said in a statement released by the Senate. “Senate Bill 1386 will bring greater transparency and accountability to the courtroom by ensuring there is an accurate and undisputable record of all proceedings.”
Tulsa attorney James Wirth echoed the concern. “There’s been a huge problem with the shortage of court reporters in Oklahoma, so much so that it’s prevented hearings from happening at various times because they couldn’t find a court reporter to be present,” Wirth said.
Gillespie has been consistent on one point: the bill is not intended to replace court reporters. Rather, it aims to supplement the system and ensure an accurate record of proceedings when reporters are unavailable. That goal survived the rewrite. The accountability framework did not.
Loading Viewer…
The Celebration Photo
After the vote, Gillespie posted a photograph to social media thanking Teresa Teran, Clay Spicer, and Don Spencer for their help and expertise. The photograph showed smiles. It did not show fiscal spreadsheets.
Don Spencer is president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, who said Oklahoma lags behind the rest of the country on courtroom transparency. “Quite frankly, Oklahoma needs to come into the 21st century so we can see what is going on in our courtrooms,” Spencer said. “It allows us to keep an eye on what’s going on with our elected officials, like judges and district attorneys.”
Clay Spicer of the Focal Point of Accountability Movement pointed to missing and incomplete court records as a driving concern. “There’s a lot of complaints right now across the state in all courts, whether it’s criminal, whether it’s probate or whether it’s family courts, that some of the records are being, they’re not showing up,” Spicer said.
The OKDHS Rosario Chico and Teresa Teran Question
The inclusion of Teresa Teran in the post-vote celebration prompted a basic question: what role did she play, and in what capacity?
Teran is identified on LinkedIn as Director of the Grand Jury Justice Foundation, a Blanchard-based organization with a public-facing website at grandjuryjustice.us. She has been publicly associated with advocacy efforts connected to Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc., a nonprofit incorporated with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on July 3, 2023.
A search of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s public lobbyist disclosure system did not show Teresa Teran listed as a registered lobbyist under that name as of February 27, 2026. That is a “no match returned” result, not a legal conclusion. Oklahoma law provides exceptions to lobbying registration requirements, including for incidental advocacy that is not a significant part of services rendered to an organization. Advocacy and lobbying are not automatically the same thing under Oklahoma law or Ethics Commission guidance.
What is documented in court records is the following: Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc. originated Payne County Grand Jury Petition GJ-2025-1, filed July 21, 2025, seeking investigation into alleged corruption in child welfare agencies and the judiciary. Payne County District Judge Jason Reese ruled on September 4, 2025 that the organization was not properly before the court. Former House Speaker and current gubernatorial candidate Charles McCall’s attorney Robert McCampbell of Gable Gotwals cited that ruling in subsequent filings opposing the petition. Judge Reese quashed the petition on September 18, 2025. That dismissal is currently on appeal before the Oklahoma Supreme Court as Case No. 123495. The Oklahoma Post has reported previously on that matter.
Corporate Filings and Organizational Structure: What the Public Record Shows
As part of reporting on advocacy groups involved in grand jury and courtroom transparency efforts, The Oklahoma Post reviewed publicly accessible corporate and nonprofit databases for two organizations frequently referenced in Oklahoma media coverage: Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc. and Grand Jury Justice.
Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc. was incorporated in early July 2023. News reports consistently identify Mandy Reed as founder and Rosario Chico as co-founder. The organization has been cited in connection with grand jury petitions filed in multiple Oklahoma counties and has appeared in coverage involving legislative allies advocating DHS reform.
Media coverage consistently identifies Teresa Teran as a representative or leading voice associated with Grand Jury Justice. However, no corporate entity titled “Grand Jury Justice Foundation” appears in publicly searchable databases. Two active web domains, grandjuryjustice.com (established 2019) and grandjuryjustice.us (copyright 2024), reference advocacy related to citizens’ grand jury petitions targeting Oklahoma DHS and related oversight matters.
Both organizations operate within the same advocacy sphere, particularly concerning Oklahoma DHS oversight and grand jury petitions, and share some legislative allies. Available public records present them as separate entities with distinct leadership.
What Comes Next
SB 1386 is now eligible for consideration in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Both the introduced version and the committee substitute carry an effective date of November 1, 2026.
Whether the broader accountability provisions from the introduced version are revived through floor amendments or whether the Legislature moves forward with the narrower pilot program is a question the Appropriations Committee will help answer.
Transparency, in Oklahoma, has entered its pilot phase.
It is being beta tested.
And like all beta versions, it comes with limited features and the promise of updates later.
Whether those updates ever download is, as always, subject to available funds.
Writing By: Pete Rashard| Editing by Robbie Robertson
Editor’s Note:
Sources
Primary Legislative Documents
Senate Bill 1386, Introduced Version, 2nd Session of the 60th Oklahoma Legislature (2026), Req. No. 2503, authored by Sen. Christi Gillespie. Filed December 30, 2025.
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1386, Req. No. 3648, authored by Gillespie and Prieto. Drafted February 24, 2026.
Oklahoma Senate Standing Committee Report, Committee on Judiciary, SB 1386, February 24, 2026. Chair: Sen. Brent Howard. Ayes: Boren, Gollihare, Howard, Jech, Jett, Rosino, Standridge. Nay: Brooks.
Fiscal Analyses
Senate Fiscal Summary, SB 1386, Version INT (Introduced), prepared by Gillian Starkey. Agency: Supreme Court. FY27 Impact: $28,559,074. Full Year Impact: $73,789,974.
Senate Fiscal Summary, SB 1386, Version CS (Committee Substitute), prepared by Gillian Starkey. Agency: District Court. FY27 Impact: $1,425,688. Full Year Impact: $4,322,283.
Official Press Release
News Coverage
KJRH, “Approved: Senate Bill advocating for cameras in the courtroom approved,” February 25, 2026.
KRMG, “Oklahoma Senate advances bill to allow cameras in select courtrooms,” February 25, 2026.
FOX23, “Oklahoma Senate advances bill to allow cameras in select courtrooms,” February 25, 2026.
Court Records
Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN), Payne County District Court, Case No. GJ-2025-1. Filed 07/21/2025. Closed 11/03/2025. Judge: Reese, Jason.
Brief of Respondent McCall in Response to Petitioners’ Request for Removal of Names and Signatures, filed September 17, 2025, GJ-2025-1. Counsel: Robert G. McCampbell, GableGotwals.
Formal Motion for Re-Hearing to Disqualify, filed January 22, 2026, Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 123495. Petitioners/Appellants: Justin Humphrey and Darrell Dougherty.
Order Denying Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify, Chief Justice Dustin Rowe, January 20, 2026, Case No. 123495.
Related Background Reporting
Lobbying Registration
Oklahoma Ethics Commission, Lobbyist overview and registration guidance.
Oklahoma Ethics Commission, Lobbyist Public Disclosure System.
Oklahoma Ethics Commission, Guardian filing and disclosure system.
Alliance for Justice, “Practical Guidance: Oklahoma Lobbying.”
Corporate Filings
Oklahoma Secretary of State, Business Entity Search. Certificate of Incorporation, Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc., Not For Profit, filed July 3, 2023.
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2026 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2026 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
