It’s a turnabout from the state’s founding, which feared autocratic rule. That philosophy led early Oklahomans to vote on everything from dozens of state agency heads down to three assistant mine inspectors.

Times change, and voters figured centralizing state government authority was more efficient and made it easier to track accountability. Recently, lawmakers continued shifting authority to give the governor more ability to enact a vision he or she was elected to do.

That doesn’t mean handing over all power or eliminating voices that ought to be represented on crucial public issues.

Under Gov. Mary Fallin, voters approved abolishing the citizen oversight board of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and putting the director under the governor, following a similar change at the state Health Department.

In 2019, Stitt signed five bills passed by the Legislature that gave him the power to hire and fire the heads of five large state agencies — those dealing with highways, mental health, juvenile justice, prisons and Medicaid.

Previously, those departments were overseen by citizen oversight boards. Current panels approve policy changes mainly for public transparency.

Currently, a series of proposals from Sen. Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, would give the governor even more authority in selecting judges and members of several health care licensing boards.

In these instances, that’s a reactionary move that doesn’t serve the greater good.

Oklahoma’s system of selecting nonelected judges is among the nation’s best. The state has a Judicial Nominating Committee of attorneys appointed by different government branches to vet candidates and forward a list of finalists to the governor for selection.

The proposal would allow the governor to make appointments just with Senate consent, and no mention of the committee.

The other proposals would largely eliminate professional organizations such as the Oklahoma Medical Association from the process of choosing members for boards overseeing licensing and conduct of physicians, nurses, behavioral health professionals and psychologists.

That smacks of revenge.

Several prominent physicians, including two presidents of the OMA, have been sharply critical of Stitt’s pandemic approach, the State Health Department’s lack of information and the state’s public health laboratory move.

After the board overseeing the state’s Medicaid agency voted last year to postpone his plan for private managed care, Stitt removed the board’s only two physicians.

The proposals from Daniels may help Stitt avoid conflict, but he won’t always be in office. Are Republican lawmakers willing to give future governors, of possibly a different party, this authority?

Conflict in government isn’t always bad. In some cases, it can lead to better solutions. Eliminating dissenting voices doesn’t create unity; it deepens divides.

Featured video: