State ex rel. Board of Regents v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State ex rel. Board of Regents v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission

2001 OK 17, 19 P.3d 865, 72 O.B.A.J. 639, 2001 Okla. LEXIS 16

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 12, 2001

DocketNo. 95,619

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2001 OK 17 (State ex rel. Board of Regents v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Board of Regents v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission, 2001 OK 17, 19 P.3d 865, 72 O.B.A.J. 639, 2001 Okla. LEXIS 16 (Okla. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

T1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue to prohibit the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission, a legislatively created agency, from exercising jurisdiction over petitioners (the Board of Regents for Oklahoma State University and the Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges and Langston University and its President, Ernest L. Holloway), who, gua constitutional entities, stand empowered by Art. 6 § Sla, Art. 18-A §§ 1 and 2 as well as Art. 18-B §§ 1 and 2, OK.

[866]*866Const., to conduct the internal affairs of their subordinate institutions of higher learning free of any imterference by the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission. The Legislature is powerless to delegate the petitioners' constitutional control over the management of their institutions to any department, commission or agency of state government.

12 Any provisions found in 74 O.8.$upp.2000 § 840-2.5 (popularly referred to as the whistle blower act) which may appear to contravene or abridge the petitioners' fundamental-law power clearly offend the exclusive authority granted them by the terms of Art. 6 § 31a, Art. 13-A and Art. 18-B of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Commission is without jurisdiction over the grievance tendered by the instant controversy between a subordinate institution and one of its employees. It is hence prohibited from proceeding further in that pending matter. See, e.g., Workers' Compensation Court v. Merit Protection Commission, 1993 OK 145, 863 P.2d 1226, 1227.

11 3 Respondent Simpson's motion for sane-tions, which invokes the terms of 12 0.8.ChL. 15, App. 1, Rule 1.191(j), is denied.

{4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2001.

¶5 HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, OPALA, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU and WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. T6 KAUGER, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

T1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Let the writ issue to prohibit the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission, a legislatively created agency, from exercising jurisdiction over petitioners (the Board of Regents for Oklahoma State University and the Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges and Langston University and its President, Ernest L. Holloway), who, gua constitutional entities, stand empowered by Art. 6 § Sla, Art. 18-A §§ 1 and 2 as well as Art. 18-B §§ 1 and 2, OK.

[866]*866Const., to conduct the internal affairs of their subordinate institutions of higher learning free of any imterference by the Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission. The Legislature is powerless to delegate the petitioners' constitutional control over the management of their institutions to any department, commission or agency of state government.

12 Any provisions found in 74 O.8.$upp.2000 § 840-2.5 (popularly referred to as the whistle blower act) which may appear to contravene or abridge the petitioners' fundamental-law power clearly offend the exclusive authority granted them by the terms of Art. 6 § 31a, Art. 13-A and Art. 18-B of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Commission is without jurisdiction over the grievance tendered by the instant controversy between a subordinate institution and one of its employees. It is hence prohibited from proceeding further in that pending matter. See, e.g., Workers' Compensation Court v. Merit Protection Commission, 1993 OK 145, 863 P.2d 1226, 1227.

11 3 Respondent Simpson's motion for sane-tions, which invokes the terms of 12 0.8.ChL. 15, App. 1, Rule 1.191(j), is denied.

{4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2001.

¶5 HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, OPALA, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU and WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. T6 KAUGER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 OK 17, 19 P.3d 865, 72 O.B.A.J. 639, 2001 Okla. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-board-of-regents-v-oklahoma-merit-protection-commission-okla-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack