‘Nothing was held back': Former state forester speaks out after firing
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The now former head of Oklahoma Forestry Services is speaking out after he was fired by Governor Kevin Stitt.
Mark Goeller was criticized over his agency's response for the March 14 wildfires.
'He's the head of the forestry department and we had a horrible, horrible wildfire in the state of Oklahoma and, you know, didn't think they did a really good job,' said Stitt.
Goeller says he's shocked, angry and anxious over the decision and says he is being falsely accused.
Governor Stitt told News 4 in a statement 'At the forestry director's direction, firefighting resources were delayed, unused, or even called back during critical moments.'
Goeller responded to that claim on social media, 'Preparations were made well in advance, the public was notified of the impending fire danger, firefighting resources were ordered and in place. Nothing was held back as the events of the 14th and following days unfolded,' said Goeller.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who is running for governor, also weighed in.
'I think it is an absolute lie and an overstatement, the director deployed every available resource in a remarkably challenging environment,' said Drummond.
Questions surround resignation of state forester weeks after devastating wildfires
Drummond says as a cattle rancher he has first hand fought fires and knows what it's like.
'I have inhaled a lot of smoke and it's clear to me the governor has not done that. I think his ranch burned up and he's angry and has to vent and as a consequence the state of Oklahoma is injured and that is not acceptable behavior by our governor,' said Drummond.
He also believes it's similar to what happened during the California wildfires.
'When I first heard it, it was almost like he was following Governor Newsom's lead who fired his DEI fire chief. Mark Goeller is a professional, he is not a DEI appointment, he has been doing this every year for 40 years, it's just a huge act of disrespect,' said Drummond.
Firefighters have also been showing their support and standing with Goeller.
'Unfortunately the one that we have to blame is Mother Nature. That's the only one we have to blame for this event,' said Jason Dobson, Olive fire chief.
News 4 reached out to the Governor's Office for examples of what resources weren't used and was told to submit an Open Records Request.
We are waiting to hear back.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. Drummond said in a news release that the evidence still implicates Glossip in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while on death row for almost three decades. While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices agreed, as Drummond put it, that "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial." Drummond said Monday that he would ensure Glossip now receives an impartial trial. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond said in a statement. "After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction." Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried. Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he added. The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts. But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an independent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder." The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses. Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004. At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he had killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty. Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired. The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here." "Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added. After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge. A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but he welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber. "He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words." This article was originally published on
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal. The funding provisions 'reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,' Tigar wrote. He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, 'it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.' The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president's executive orders. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must 'immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts' that promote DEI or gender ideology. President Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to 'align government funding and enforcement strategies' with his policies. Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights. Har writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal. The funding provisions 'reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,' Tigar wrote. He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, 'it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.' The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president's executive orders. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must 'immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts' that promote DEI or gender ideology. President Donald Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to 'align government funding and enforcement strategies' with his policies. Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
