EDMOND, Okla. — May 6, 2026 (The Oklahoma Post)
Now that right there? That just bumped you up a few notches in my little black book. Put you on the VIP list, no questions asked. Gov. Stitt just showed us all, he is fighting for the everyday citizen while his term nears the end. President, I mean Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed House Bill 3278 on May 5, 2026, blocking legislation that would have given Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond new authority to investigate Open Meetings Act violations, issue civil penalties, and haul non-compliant public bodies into district court.
I am referring to Oklahoma House Bill 3278 (2026), which amends 25 O.S. § 314 of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. In its final form, the bill “lets” the Attorney General investigate alleged violations and resolve them through either consent orders or formal findings, with tools that include training requirements, civil penalties, and, if necessary, enforcement through district court. This just happens to be an authority he already has but refuses to use.
Supposedly, a judge, hopefully not related to the A.G., still has the supposed last word, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, and may impose injunctions, costs, penalties, and attorney fees as allowed by statute. In short, the law adds a new enforcement layer, legal layer, to Oklahoma’s transparency failing conduct in transparency.
Drummond, who is running to be Oklahoma’s next governor, called the veto a betrayal of taxpayers and immediately called on the Legislature to override it. Stitt said the bill handed the attorney general unchecked power, which in government terms is a bit like handing your neighbor your house key and saying, “Just water the plants,” then returning from your trip noticing he’s rearranged the furniture and renamed your dog.
Stitt is right about one thing: the people getting the least attention in this argument are the ones with the most at stake us citizens, who are mostly standing in the doorway holding the mail, wondering if anyone plans to explain what just happened while cronies escape all responsibility.
What the Bill Woulda, Coulda, Didn’t, Do
HB 3278, authored by Rep. John Pfeiffer, R-Mulhall; Rep. Michelle McCane, D-Tulsa; and Sen. Brent Howard, R-Altus, amended Section 314 of Oklahoma’s Open Meeting Act. Under current law, a citizen who witnesses a public body violate the act can file a criminal complaint, which may or may not go anywhere, or sue in civil court at their own expense. Criminal fines max out at $500. There is no intermediate enforcement mechanism.
The bill would have created one big mess. The AG could now magically investigate, enter into a consent order, or issue a formal finding of violation. For first-time offenders, the remedy was mandatory training. This millionaire is way out of touch. For repeat offenders, civil penalties up to $150 per violation under a consent order, up to $300 per violation under a finding of violation. To actually collect, the AG would still have to go to district court, give the public body a chance to cure the violation first, and convince a judge the AG had not abused discretion.
The penalties are not large. The process is not fast. It is, in many ways, government’s version of a polite but firm note left on the fridge.
Loading Viewer…
Example: The Data Center Problems and the Speechless Citizen
Oklahoma is in the middle of a data center construction boom. Billions of dollars in deals are moving through local governments right now. Many of them began as code-named mystery projects with unnamed end users, approved by public bodies before the public knew who was actually involved.
In November 2024, Stillwater voters approved a power agreement for an unnamed company’s data center development. It was not until months later that Google announced it would be running the facility. In Tulsa County, two projects by developer Beale Infrastructure, known as Project Clydesdale and Project Anthem, the latter recently linked to Meta for its first phase, have not fully disclosed their end users or long-term development plans. In Claremore, city leaders are in active talks on a project called Project Mustang, with residents packing public hearings to demand transparency about the mystery tenant.
The Oklahoma Senate passed HB 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, on a 46-0 vote, adding requirements that large energy users give 60 days’ notice before buying land for a project, with that notice going to the Corporation Commission, local county commissioners, property owners within five miles of the site, and publication in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks. That bill addresses ratepayer costs and land-use notice. It does not address what happens when a public body votes to approve incentives, tax agreements, or zoning changes in a meeting that was not properly noticed, not properly open, or not properly recorded.
That is where the Open Meetings Act applies. Without enforcement teeth, it is also where violations tend to nap comfortably. Rule 49 of Power: Nobody cares. This is not always true, but it is frequently acted upon as if it were. Use this to your advantage or disadvantage at will.
The Problem with Giving This Particular AG This Particular Power
Here is the part Drummond’s press release left out.
HB 3278 does not create a neutral enforcement agency. It gives enforcement authority to one elected official who is currently a declared candidate for governor, over public bodies and officers he would supervise if he wins that race. The consent order and finding of violation process begins and ends with his office’s judgment. The district court, or even a “Special” judge like Lexi Norwood reviews only whether he abused his discretion, not whether his decision was correct. The triangulation method of gaslighting.
That structure works fine if the AG is a disinterested referee. It works less well if the AG has political relationships, campaign contributors, or personal litigation interests that intersect with the public bodies he is investigating or choosing not to investigate, e.g., Moyer V. Murary. Whole lotta “Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive…and Dodge!”, going on with Drummond in this case.
Citizens and journalists who currently use the Open Meetings Act to challenge government misconduct and false public records are not just looking for a champion. They are looking for a process that cannot be redirected by whoever holds the office. Concentrating that authority in a single elected position, without legislative oversight, without an independent review board, and without a neutral ombudsman structure, does not guarantee accountability. It guarantees that accountability depends entirely on the character and priorities of whoever the AG happens to be. In fact, they must, or are directed to public records regarding their own private information the Government may hold. This is as illegal as Chinese pot, but this is neither here nor there, Drummond would say. Wink.
Last year, Stitt vetoed HB 2163, a bill designed primarily to strengthen open records enforcement, though the AG’s office has stated the Public Access Counselor Unit it would have created also handles Open Meeting Act complaints, on nearly identical grounds. The Legislature overrode that veto. Drummond praised lawmakers for sending a clear message that they would not tolerate the governor’s obstruction. The Legislature may do the same with HB 3278.
If the Legislature attempts an override, citizens and journalists should understand what they are getting: a real enforcement mechanism, held by one man, accountable to an election, not a standard.
A Note On False Government Records
The Open Meetings Act governs not just attendance, but legitimacy. When decisions are made outside properly noticed meetings, the resulting records; contracts, votes, minutes, reflect a process that did not legally occur. They become official anyway.
Correcting them requires either the cooperation of the body that created them or a court order, both of which can be difficult to obtain, particularly if the body prefers the version of events it has already written down.
Citizens attempting to challenge these records have no meaningful low-cost remedy. HB 3278 would not have fully solved that problem. What would have helped is stronger, more immediate penalties, something with enough weight that it could not be ignored by a Patty, who is caressing the Judges or Agency Directors, inner ego, and told to quietly file away.
Stitt’s veto leaves that gap open. Drummond though, is the wrong potential governor to design such a plan in which his office retains enforcement. Which may be fine to some lobbyists and corrupt government workers. Or it may be one of those decisions every citizen, understands later, usually while standing in a doorway, holding the mail, with no kids, money, or dignity. Well, we laid it out for you to play it out. I’m out fuzz.
Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson
Editor’s Note:
Sources
Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office — Drummond calls Gov. Stitt’s veto of Open Meetings Act bill a betrayal of taxpayers (press release, May 5, 2026) https://oklahoma.gov/oag/news/newsroom/2026/may/drummond-calls-gov-stitts-veto-of-open-meetings-act-bill-a-betrayal-of-taxpayers.html
KOKH FOX 25 — Stitt vetoes Open Meetings Act bill, saying it gave attorney general unchecked power https://okcfox.com/news/local/stitt-vetoes-open-meetings-act-bill-saying-it-gave-attorney-general-unchecked-power
KSWO 7 News — Drummond calls for override on Open Meetings Act veto https://www.kswo.com/2026/05/06/drummond-calls-override-open-meetings-act-veto/
Oklahoma Legislature — Enrolled House Bill 3278, 2026 Session, amending 25 O.S. 2021, Section 314 [Confirm URL at oklegislature.gov]
The Frontier — Fact Check: Are claims about Oklahoma data centers holding up? https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/fact-check-are-claims-about-oklahoma-data-centers-holding-up/
Oklahoma Energy Today — Protection from data centers (HB 2992, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026) https://www.okenergytoday.com/2026/04/protection-from-data-centers/
Oklahoma Farm Report — Senate Passes Data Center Ratepayer Protection Act with Added Transparency Requirements https://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/2026/04/28/senate-passes-data-center-ratepayer-protection-act-with-added-transparency-requirements/
Tulsa Flyer — Could Oklahoma data center boom face new restrictions? https://tulsaflyer.org/2026/02/05/government/post/could-oklahoma-data-center-boom-face-new-restrictions/
KJRH 2 News — In Depth: Data Center Proposals across Green Country (Project Anthem/Meta disclosure) https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/in-depth-data-center-proposals-across-green-country
KRMG / FOX 23 — In Depth: Gov. Stitt vetoes bill creating unit in AG’s office (HB 2163, 2025 precedent) https://www.krmg.com/news/local/depth-gov-stitt-vetoes-bill-creating-unit-ags-office-review-denied-open-record-requests/EV3IPM4PFNB3LOVXU5MKSGUXWA/
Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office — Drummond applauds veto overrides ensuring transparency, accountability (2025 override result) https://oklahoma.gov/oag/news/newsroom/2025/may/drummond-applauds-veto-overrides-ensuring-transparency-accountability-in-state-government.html
Oklahoma Legislature — Enrolled House Bill No. 3278, full text, 2026 Regular Session
Oklahoma-2026-HB3278-Enrolled.pdf
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.