The Oklahoma State Capital

With Oklahoma's politicians set to receive significant compensation increases later this year, State Rep. Molly Jenkins, R-Coyle, says that Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's refusal to respect her request for an attorney general's opinion leaves unanswered whether the Oklahoma Legislative Compensation Board violated the state’s Open Meeting Act before approving the increases last November.

Jenkins, who has said she will not accept the pay increase on principle, argues that the dispute could leave legislators’ compensation in legal limbo, with uncertainty over whether the raises were lawfully approved, and will further erode public trust in the unique process by which they were granted.

Jenkins, who provided The Capital with a copy of a written refusal from Drummond’s deputy general counsel, said the decision not to issue an opinion has allowed the new spending to proceed despite unresolved questions about its legal foundation.

Under the board’s Nov. 18, 2025, order, the base salary for Oklahoma’s rank-and-file legislators will rise by $7,400—from $47,500 to $54,900 annually—beginning Nov. 18. That represents an increase of approximately 15.6%.

The order also sets additional annual compensation of $27,450 for the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate, bringing their total annual legislative compensation to $82,350. Legislators holding certain other leadership positions will receive an additional $18,117, bringing their total annual compensation to $73,017.

The raises followed an unusual three-meeting sequence conducted by the legislative compensation board. The board, which is required by law to convene once every two years but may hold additional meetings, voted Oct. 21 and again Nov. 12 to leave rank-and-file legislators’ base pay unchanged. Before the board reconvened Nov. 18, four of its nine appointed members were replaced by their appointing authorities. The reconstituted board then spent approximately 50 minutes in executive session before rescinding its earlier actions and approving the raises.

Jenkins contends that the executive session was not authorized under the Open Meeting Act.

Oklahoma law generally requires public bodies to conduct their business in public, with executive sessions permitted only under specifically defined exceptions. One exception allows closed-door discussions of certain confidential personnel matters. It's that exception, that the board relied on, when it met behind closed doors.

Jenkins argues that exception was not intended to allow a public board to privately discuss a broad compensation policy affecting elected officials who are neither board employees nor under the board’s supervision.

Rather, Jenkins believes the exception was tailored narrowly, allowing a governing board to discuss sensitive personnel matters of an employee who works for their government entity.

Jenkins formally asked Drummond to issue an attorney general’s opinion following the board’s action. Oklahoma law allows legislators to request such opinions, and the attorney general’s published policy cites a statutory requirement to respond to a legislator’s request with a written opinion determining the applicable law.

However, Drummond’s office still declined to issue the requested opinion.

Jenkins contrasted that refusal with a public statement Drummond's office made after she submitted her request. At the time, the attorney general’s office told KOCO that the law had been followed and suggested that lawmakers who disagreed with the outcome pursue legislation.

If the attorney general’s office was confident enough to tell the news media that the law was followed, then it should be willing to put that conclusion in an official opinion and show the people of Oklahoma the law and legal reasoning that supports it,” Jenkins said. “That is exactly why the opinion process exists.”

Jenkins said an informal assertion that the board complied with the law is no substitute for a formal opinion addressing the specific legal question she submitted.

She called the dispute a straightforward legal question with significant consequences for taxpayers and said Drummond should issue an opinion explaining why the board acted lawfully—or say that it acted unlawfully before the raises take effect.

Jenkins said she intends to continue challenging the increases regardless of whether Drummond revisits her request. She does not believe Oklahoma should have one of the nation’s highest-paid part-time legislatures and has pledged not to benefit personally from the increase. Instead, she plans to donate the additional compensation to a crisis pregnancy center serving House District 33.

Jenkins also filed legislation to stop the raises and a separate proposal intended to make clear that the compensation board may not enter executive session to consider broad increases in legislative pay. Neither measure received a committee hearing.

She said she will refile both proposals during the upcoming legislative session.