...fairly investigate Murphy's no-bid contract with the fair board and get to the bottom of why Bell's lease was allowed to expire?
Just as much as I believe Clark Brewster had a glaring conflict-of-interest in having any opinion or vote on the status of Bell's lease after representing a family in a civil suit against Bell's, I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys.
We should get to the bottom of this for the benefit of all taxpayers, not just one jilted business owner and I believe it demands the interest and attention of all three county commissioners. Now that a few of the principals are out of the way or on their way out, it's time to start digging.
I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.
I also don't know how much of a COI there could be if Bell's relocates and needs variances from the county or other favors to make it happen.
If we are trying to keep personal interests and conflicts of interest out of public office, this should raise legitimate concerns with voters.
I would believe there is a conflict of interest with the Bell's/Murphy/ county commissioners/and boards composed of the county commissioners that have gotten that the "Born to Rule" belief while Sally, with the local family/fair board dealing, over the years, has the experience to blow away the smoke screen which covered these pasted flawed operations of the fair board.
Murphy move in the rides for a 10 day stand where the Bell's furnished a carnival atmosphere, for the children, in a home grown venture, for months at of time.
You can be assured that Sally has been well educated on the operations of what the purpose of a plot of ground set aside for the benefit of the citizen of Tulsa, keeping the money for local usage.
When a voter marks their ballot, he/she decides what is best for Tulsa businesses. The decision lie in the marker that is given to the citizen when issued a ballot.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
...fairly investigate Murphy's no-bid contract with the fair board and get to the bottom of why Bell's lease was allowed to expire?
Just as much as I believe Clark Brewster had a glaring conflict-of-interest in having any opinion or vote on the status of Bell's lease after representing a family in a civil suit against Bell's, I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys.
We should get to the bottom of this for the benefit of all taxpayers, not just one jilted business owner and I believe it demands the interest and attention of all three county commissioners. Now that a few of the principals are out of the way or on their way out, it's time to start digging.
I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.
I also don't know how much of a COI there could be if Bell's relocates and needs variances from the county or other favors to make it happen.
If we are trying to keep personal interests and conflicts of interest out of public office, this should raise legitimate concerns with voters.
I think we should save Sally the trouble and get a grand jury convened to investigate this. I'd love to serve on that one.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
...fairly investigate Murphy's no-bid contract with the fair board and get to the bottom of why Bell's lease was allowed to expire?
Conan, The point is that the situation will be investigated if she's elected and most likely will not if she's not.
Open the books, throw off the covers, let the facts be known and let the chips fall as they may...
Any potential conflict is moot as no commisioner has any indicting or punitive authority. But they can shed light on the problems at the fair.
M
I agree, I think a grand jury is a great idea.
Sally doesn't seem to be a believer in grand juries though. At least she wasn't when she was asked about it at the Republicans After Five meeting. (Paraphrased from shorthand notes)
"The problem with Grand Jury they had the information to indict and they don't always do that. Not always getting results. Let's throw open the books on Rick, the horse show and do what they say. Is the Fair run properly? Are people actually working when they say they are? Grand Jury's don't always work."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
"The problem with Grand Jury they had the information to indict and they don't always do that. Not always getting results. Let's throw open the books on Rick, the horse show and do what they say. Is the Fair run properly? Are people actually working when they say they are? Grand Jury's don't always work."
Whaaaaa?
So she thinks she's a prosecutor now? Or a legal expert?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
"The problem with Grand Jury they had the information to indict and they don't always do that. Not always getting results. Let's throw open the books on Rick, the horse show and do what they say. Is the Fair run properly? Are people actually working when they say they are? Grand Jury's don't always work."
Whaaaaa?
So she thinks she's a prosecutor now? Or a legal expert?
No, probably just a Realist.
I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.
Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?
How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?
Hmmm, that's an interesting point RM.
I guess I'm troubled by some conflicting philosophies I'm starting to see emerge. Sally is about lower taxes and limiting government involvement, yet Bell's essentially benefitted from a rent subsidy from a public trust when they went from paying $257K in rent to $130K the next year, yet they did $700K in ride improvements and were preparing to buy another $700 to $750K ride when the lease was allowed to expire. Those rides would be wholly-owned assets of Bell Enterprises when paid off, not the property of county taxpayers. Seems like a break on rent would help make payments on improvements.
As I also seem to recall, when Bell's first started looking at relocating, they were talking to other cities before they were going to talk to other developers. I don't know what the point would be in that unless they were needing some sort of tax break or public funding to help re-build the park.
Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.
Just seems contradictory to me. Accept tax-payer supported perks when it's providing a means, reject the system when running for office.
If I'm off-base on the benefits Bell's got from renting from the Fairgrounds, someone please feel free to correct me.
Excellent points, Conan.
It appears there are two Sally Bells.
One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.
I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.
Interesting thread and interesting points. Thanks for the read. I think Keith is a no-brainer for November, but I look forward to some of the silly things the tinfoil hat crowd will say.
It's not so much a question as to whether Keith is a good person or good administrator, she very likely is. For sure, she's very likeable and well known as such.
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
Keith represents those currently in control and Sally Bell represents those who might ride a roller coaster.
I am sorry wrinkle, but I must disagree.
You can't simply label these two as inside and outside. That is not fair to either one of them.
I am sure that Sally Bell has many other strengths than "she don't know nobody". I am equally sure that Karen Keith has many other strengths than "rich people like her."
For you to simplify the race between the two like that makes you a simpleton back.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.
Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?
How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?
A Business Plan and "The Books" aren't the same thing. In particular, and in this case, the books are the County's, not Bell's or Big Splash.
The reason Randi Miller demanded a business plan from Bell's, IMO, was for exactly what it was, a Business Plan for running an ammusement park, so the Murphy's could extract one that works.
Glad to help you get it straight.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I am sorry wrinkle, but I must disagree.
You can't simply label these two as inside and outside. That is not fair to either one of them.
I am sure that Sally Bell has many other strengths than "she don't know nobody". I am equally sure that Karen Keith has many other strengths than "rich people like her."
For you to simplify the race between the two like that makes you a simpleton back.
Oh, but it is really pretty much that simple.
You're using comparisons I did not make, however.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.
Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?
How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?
I don't blame them for not wanting to disclose this before they are able to relocate their business. I bet after they get their business back up and running you'll see this made public. You fools sound like Randi Miller. How'd that business plan crap work out for her? Is this the best smear campaign talking points that the Karen Keith Kampaign staff can come up with? What a bunch of slackers, they can't even create their own smear campaign, so they just plagiarize Randi Millers.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Excellent points, Conan.
It appears there are two Sally Bells.
One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.
I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.
First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Excellent points, Conan.
It appears there are two Sally Bells.
One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.
I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.
First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.
"Bell's essentially benefitted from a rent subsidy from a public trust when they went from paying $257K in rent to $130K the next year, yet they did $700K in ride improvements and were preparing to buy another $700 to $750K ride when the lease was allowed to expire. Those rides would be wholly-owned assets of Bell Enterprises when paid off, not the property of county taxpayers. Seems like a break on rent would help make payments on improvements."
That subsidy. What else would you call a rent concession from a public trust? How bad have you screamed about a similar concession on rent for Big Splash?????
Possible subsidy shopping in other municipalities to rebuild Bell's as well. You are not a fan of corporate welfare, as I recall.
Those are known facts from news stories which ran from early November of 2006 until the Bell's vacated the property. Not smear, it just sounds that way to you because now that Randi Miller is out of the race, it's important to vet the candidates and there are facts coming out you don't want to hear.
Over the coming weeks, Karen will prove skeptics wrong. She's a lot tougher and much more independent than some of you are giving her credit for.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.
Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?
How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?
I don't blame them for not wanting to disclose this before they are able to relocate their business. I bet after they get their business back up and running you'll see this made public. You fools sound like Randi Miller. How'd that business plan crap work out for her? Is this the best smear campaign talking points that the Karen Keith Kampaign staff can come up with? What a bunch of slackers, they can't even create their own smear campaign, so they just plagiarize Randi Millers.
Well, legally and technically, a 'Business Plan' is generally accepted to never be made 'public', ever. It's simply not a public document. No company willfully deploys its' Business Plan, formally, to anyone not needed to achieve the plan.
The 'plan' Randi Miller required of Bell's would've been an abreviated version, taylored to the need, not a complete plan, which IS proprietary.
Even then, the plan submitted by Bell's to Randi Miller remains proprietary and held in strict confidence (if you could actually trust Miller, not). If it had been me, I'd have required anyone requiring a viewing to pre-sign a disclosure agreement, for the County to keep a log of its access and require return of the document and a copy of the log once a determination had been made. No copies, of course.
That's how this is normally handled.
Anyone trying to make a issue of Bell's Business Plan is misguided at best, political opportunist more likely.
Besides all that, Bell's is/was operated by Robbie Bell, who constructed the Business Plan.
Sally Bell is his mother and I seriously doubt in legal position to effect anything regarding Bell's Amusement Park.
She might have to recuse herself to vote as a Commissioner on matters relating to Bell's Amusement Park, but that's about it.
Since Bell's Amusement Park no longer has any relationship with the County, that's unlikely.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Excellent points, Conan.
It appears there are two Sally Bells.
One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.
I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.
First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.
"Bell's essentially benefitted from a rent subsidy from a public trust when they went from paying $257K in rent to $130K the next year, yet they did $700K in ride improvements and were preparing to buy another $700 to $750K ride when the lease was allowed to expire. Those rides would be wholly-owned assets of Bell Enterprises when paid off, not the property of county taxpayers. Seems like a break on rent would help make payments on improvements."
That subsidy. What else would you call a rent concession from a public trust? How bad have you screamed about a similar concession on rent for Big Splash?????
Possible subsidy shopping in other municipalities to rebuild Bell's as well. You are not a fan of corporate welfare, as I recall.
Those are known facts from news stories which ran from early November of 2006 until the Bell's vacated the property. Not smear, it just sounds that way to you because now that Randi Miller is out of the race, it's important to vet the candidates and there are facts coming out you don't want to hear.
Over the coming weeks, Karen will prove skeptics wrong. She's a lot tougher and much more independent than some of you are giving her credit for.
I think 'subsidy' would mean a portion of current market value being lifted. In Bell's, case, the argument for rent reduction was in County-caused market impact, reducing revenues, thus less market value and less rent, not 'subsidy'.
To call it a subsidy is a major stretch.
Wrinkle,
I believe you are correct on the business plan being allowed to remain private. There is some confusion over this though between "business plan" and "books".
Miller wanted Bell's "books" looked at by a third party to evaluate a second chance for Bell's. Robby balked at the idea and finally relented, according to news accounts from that time. All Robby would say at the time was their finances were "Rock solid" and that if they were not viable they would not be able to borrow $1.4mm for new rides. Valid points, but it does give you pause that they would pay about 1/2 the rent they paid in a previous year, whilst buying a new ride. The equity paid into a ride via a reduction in rent benefits only the owner of the ride, not the landlord (the taxpayers of Tulsa County).
FWIW, Sally's official title at Bell's was CFO. IOW- she would have handled the books. She was as much an integral part of the business as Bob or Robby and she maintained an office at the park. That was as much a family-owned and operated business as you will ever see.
Very few people dispute that the Bells got a raw deal. Even fewer dispute that there were some dark dealings with the Murphy's, Rick Bjorklund, and Randi Miller, and a former fair board member. I hate that the Bell's got screwed.
I can honestly envision the Murphy Brothers and Big Splash keeping the county and fair board tied up in law suits if Sally Bell is poking her nose into Murphy's affairs in her "official capacity" as county commissioner. The Bell's were a party to the chicanery at the fairgrounds, even if it was on the recieving end of it. I don't feel it's appropriate for any of the principals to be investigating an issue which affects 575,000 or so citizens, not just one family.
Don't get me wrong, the Bell's are good people, IMO. It just goes through me though when someone talks about limiting government benefits when they have been a long-term beneficiary of it.
People are jumping to conclusions about Karen Keith before they've even bothered to learn what her policies and initiatives are.
Quote by Conan21:
quote:
Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.
County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?
Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.
Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.
You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.
You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote by Conan21:
quote:
Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.
County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?
Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.
Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.
You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.
You misinterpreted what I said, Wrinkle.
If the Bells had owned their own parcel of land in Tulsa, or had rented from a private entity in Tulsa, they would have been paying property tax on the dirt their improvements were on top of, in addition to the improvements themselves.
There was the direct benefit of there being no property tax assessed on the dirt by leasing from the county.
I believe she should have released her business plan because her entire business was on government land.
She had exclusive contracts to operate her business, contracts that were constantly changed whenever she wanted to lower her payment. Her business plan was given as the reason why her lease was canceled.
I think it is appropriate to see that business plan. I think the commissioners should ask for the same with Big Splash and others at the end of their leases.
If the government does business with you, it weakens the ability to keep your business private.
Are you saying the public doesn't have a right to know?
Quote by Conan71:
quote:
I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.
Sally Bell has no relationship with the Murphy's or any of their businesses anywhere, including the fairgrounds.
What conflict is it that you presume?
They once were both tenants of the County? But, now, only the Murphy's remain.
That's about the same conflict as anyone who's ever visited the fairgrounds, actually less if someone paid the Murphy's any money to throw darts at balloons or slide down Big Splash.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote by Conan21:
quote:
Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.
County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?
Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.
Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.
You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.
You misinterpreted what I said, Wrinkle.
If the Bells had owned their own parcel of land in Tulsa, or had rented from a private entity in Tulsa, they would have been paying property tax on the dirt their improvements were on top of, in addition to the improvements themselves.
There was the direct benefit of there being no property tax assessed on the dirt by leasing from the county.
Yeah, so?
All that means is you got to ride Zingo for $0.50 instead of $1.00.
They received no benefit other than what any business operating on County land does.
You're trying to create the impression of some cloaked transaction when there is none.
If you want to disolve public trusts and rewrite the tax code, make your case. But, to try to point at the Bell's as benefiting unjustly, you've not only missed the mark, you've attempted to slander them.
Yes wrinkle. It does matter that their landlord was a public trust.
We the people were her landlord. That entitled her to special breaks on her taxes and special scrutiny on her business.
That is what conan and I are saying.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I believe she should have released her business plan because her entire business was on government land.
She had exclusive contracts to operate her business, contracts that were constantly changed whenever she wanted to lower her payment. Her business plan was given as the reason why her lease was canceled.
I think it is appropriate to see that business plan. I think the commissioners should ask for the same with Big Splash and others at the end of their leases.
If the government does business with you, it weakens the ability to keep your business private.
Are you saying the public doesn't have a right to know?
Well, you'd be wrong.
GOVERNMENT transactions are what's supposed to be transparent. Private business has only the IRS to answer, at least in an economic sense.
When private business transacts with government, it's the government side of the transaction which is public. If the County says they charged $100 rent, then there should be $100 in rent income show up in their books. That is the public part, not Bell's books.
You are free to know gross revenues if the lease stipulates a percent of gross revenues as the rental rate. And, the receiving entity, then, would normally have an ability to monitor the leasors' books to the degree required to verify gross revenues. Other than that, not.
If rental rates are negotiated or fixed rate, then no book access is needed or required.
As long as the rent gets paid (which, apparently, we can never be certain), how the business is doing is of little concern, certainly not public.
And, business plans aren't even close to being public no matter whom they're doing business.
Try to get the business plan of one of the Casinos sometime. That should tie you up until after the election.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.
You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote by Conan71:
quote:
I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.
Sally Bell has no relationship with the Murphy's or any of their businesses anywhere, including the fairgrounds.
What conflict is it that you presume?
They once were both tenants of the County? But, now, only the Murphy's remain.
That's about the same conflict as anyone who's ever visited the fairgrounds, actually less if someone paid the Murphy's any money to throw darts at balloons or slide down Big Splash.
Um, except that Robby Bell went public with their conflict with Murphy Brothers and asserted that the Murphys were behind Bell's losing their lease:
""There are people who benefit financially if we're gone," Bell said. "And whoever that is, that's the reason we're out of there."
One of those people could be the Bells' main competitor, Jerry Murphy. Murphy has provided the midway for the Tulsa State Fair since the early 70s. The Murphy family also owns Big Splash. After decades of peaceful coexistence, Robby Bell says things went sour between the two families in 2005.
The Bells say that was a tough year for them, because the Fair Board had converted a parking lot next door into an RV park. The Bells say it hurt their business so much they convinced the Fair Board to lower their rent payment that year. And the Bells didn't stop there. To lure more people to the fairgrounds during the fair Bell's printed discount coupons in the paper, they say even though the whole fair benefited, Jerry Murphy saw it as more competition.
Murphy made his feelings known in a letter to the fairgrounds CEO, saying "Bell's should spend more time taking care of their own, tired equipment and quit blaming everyone else for their demise."
But the Bells think the Murphys did more than just write a letter. Records show Jerry Murphy's wife gave $5,000 to the campaign of Fair Board Chairman Randi Miller in 2004. And Jerry Murphy himself gave $5,000 to the campaign of new county commissioner John Smaligo, four months after he won his seat on the board, and four months after Bell's lease expired. But Fairgrounds CEO Rick Bjorklund says there was nothing more to the Fair Board's decision than just good business. "
http://kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=135092
How closely did you follow all this, Wrinkle?
Can you honestly say, a pre-disposed sentiment toward the Murphys does not exist, nor would be used by the Murphys as a claim of harrassment?
I was just as disappointed as anyone else about what happened to the Bells and it's becoming more obvious the Murphy's have pretty good power with the fairgrounds.
However, this goes way beyond how the Bell family got screwed. This goes much further. It's about how 575,000 county residents are probably getting screwed by the no-bid contract for the midway and how a schlocky tenant like Big Splash has been allowed to remain open.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
She must be an insider in county government because in her job with the city she promoted an countywide tax? Didn't Vision 2025 pass? Are you still upset about that?
Why, I even saw her at a county commission meeting once. I bet she is even a landowner in Tulsa County. She probably even goes to the fair. She is too close and must be stopped.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes wrinkle. It does matter that their landlord was a public trust.
We the people were her landlord. That entitled her to special breaks on her taxes and special scrutiny on her business.
That is what conan and I are saying.
Special breaks and special scrutiny are inherent to any business on public land. That's what keeps you from pulling a hot dog cart onto the fairgrounds.
There's also the 'need to know' basis for that stuff and you don't qualify. That's what your representative government is supposed to do.
And, it only goes far enough to assure a value for the public transaction, be it rent income or F-22 Raptor fighter jets being manufactured for your defense.
Request a set a plans for an F-22 and see how far you get.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote by Conan21:
quote:
Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.
County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?
Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.
Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.
You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.
You misinterpreted what I said, Wrinkle.
If the Bells had owned their own parcel of land in Tulsa, or had rented from a private entity in Tulsa, they would have been paying property tax on the dirt their improvements were on top of, in addition to the improvements themselves.
There was the direct benefit of there being no property tax assessed on the dirt by leasing from the county.
Yeah, so?
All that means is you got to ride Zingo for $0.50 instead of $1.00.
They received no benefit other than what any business operating on County land does.
You're trying to create the impression of some cloaked transaction when there is none.
If you want to disolve public trusts and rewrite the tax code, make your case. But, to try to point at the Bell's as benefiting unjustly, you've not only missed the mark, you've attempted to slander them.
I'm nowhere close to saying the Bells benefitted "unjustly", nor that there were any "cloaked" deals, other than the cloaked deal that got Bell's ejected from the fairgrounds. Nor did I suggest that I want a public trust dissolved. You're the one creating strawman arguments.
I'm simply pointing out that the Bells benefitted financially over the years by renting from the fairgrounds, which is a taxpayer-owned property.
There's nothing wrong with that. I just find irony that one of them is now a candidate and starts talking about fiscal responsibility at the county and getting rid of subsidies, no-bid contracts, etc. when they benefitted from what essentially amounted to a no-bid contract of their own with the county.
Why would we want one of the commissioners to be muted on any potential investigation? There's enough grounds for the Murphys to say that there's a conflict of interest. I want all hands on deck investigating Murphy and Big Splash.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
She must be an insider in county government because in her job with the city she promoted an countywide tax? Didn't Vision 2025 pass? Are you still upset about that?
Why, I even saw her at a county commission meeting once. I bet she is even a landowner in Tulsa County. She probably even goes to the fair. She is too close and must be stopped.
...just stating the facts.
It was suggested there no credible connection between Ms. Keith and the County.
Even you admit there was.
Just curious..
Does anyone, other than me, find it strange that all of these things are falling from the sky just as the City is going to annex the fairgrounds.?
probably just a coincidence...
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Request a set a plans for an F-22 and see how far you get.
Where did that come from? Do you think that her business plan should be considered as top-secret?
Her lease was not extended because her business plan was not viable. That was what was said.
You, and most of Tulsa thinks she got a raw deal and the only way we will know for sure is if we get to see the document she submitted.
She refuses. What do you think was in it that she wants to hide? How much revenue the skee-ball made versus the Zingo?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote by Conan71:
quote:
I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.
Sally Bell has no relationship with the Murphy's or any of their businesses anywhere, including the fairgrounds.
What conflict is it that you presume?
They once were both tenants of the County? But, now, only the Murphy's remain.
That's about the same conflict as anyone who's ever visited the fairgrounds, actually less if someone paid the Murphy's any money to throw darts at balloons or slide down Big Splash.
Um, except that Robby Bell went public with their conflict with Murphy Brothers and asserted that the Murphys were behind Bell's losing their lease:
""There are people who benefit financially if we're gone," Bell said. "And whoever that is, that's the reason we're out of there."
One of those people could be the Bells' main competitor, Jerry Murphy. Murphy has provided the midway for the Tulsa State Fair since the early 70s. The Murphy family also owns Big Splash. After decades of peaceful coexistence, Robby Bell says things went sour between the two families in 2005.
The Bells say that was a tough year for them, because the Fair Board had converted a parking lot next door into an RV park. The Bells say it hurt their business so much they convinced the Fair Board to lower their rent payment that year. And the Bells didn't stop there. To lure more people to the fairgrounds during the fair Bell's printed discount coupons in the paper, they say even though the whole fair benefited, Jerry Murphy saw it as more competition.
Murphy made his feelings known in a letter to the fairgrounds CEO, saying "Bell's should spend more time taking care of their own, tired equipment and quit blaming everyone else for their demise."
But the Bells think the Murphys did more than just write a letter. Records show Jerry Murphy's wife gave $5,000 to the campaign of Fair Board Chairman Randi Miller in 2004. And Jerry Murphy himself gave $5,000 to the campaign of new county commissioner John Smaligo, four months after he won his seat on the board, and four months after Bell's lease expired. But Fairgrounds CEO Rick Bjorklund says there was nothing more to the Fair Board's decision than just good business. "
http://kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=135092
How closely did you follow all this, Wrinkle?
Can you honestly say, a pre-disposed sentiment toward the Murphys does not exist, nor would be used by the Murphys as a claim of harrassment?
I was just as disappointed as anyone else about what happened to the Bells and it's becoming more obvious the Murphy's have pretty good power with the fairgrounds.
However, this goes way beyond how the Bell family got screwed. This goes much further. It's about how 575,000 county residents are probably getting screwed by the no-bid contract for the midway and how a schlocky tenant like Big Splash has been allowed to remain open.
Karma can be cruel sometimes.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Request a set a plans for an F-22 and see how far you get.
Where did that come from? Do you think that her business plan should be considered as top-secret?
Her lease was not extended because her business plan was not viable. That was what was said.
You, and most of Tulsa thinks she got a raw deal and the only way we will know for sure is if we get to see the document she submitted.
She refuses. What do you think was in it that she wants to hide? How much revenue the skee-ball made versus the Zingo?
O.K., let's try something a little less 'Top Secret' (though a company's business plan is considered 'top secret' internally). Quik Trip is building a park on public land, let's get their business plan. And, the place they are building their 500th store was purchased from the City. Shouldn't we have seen the business plan for that store first? You know, highest and best use? How can we know for sure without seeing their business plan?
Those examples are no more silly than what you're suggesting of Bell's.
btw, the Bell's got a raw deal irrespective of any business plan.
You have no rights to their business plan under any circumstance. IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
How much skeetball made vs Zingo is not only irrealavent, it's not the issue. That's BOOKS. I guess you don't know the difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Just curious..
Does anyone, other than me, find it strange that all of these things are falling from the sky just as the City is going to annex the fairgrounds.?
probably just a coincidence...
Guess you hadn't heard about the election.
Let me type this slowly for you, wrinkle.
It matters because Sally Bell is running for county commissioner. She wants our vote. When you run for office, there are different standards for openness. If she wasn't running, I would agree with you.
It ain't a convenience store or a fighter plane manufacturer. If their owners were running for public office, I would want to see any deals they have with any government agency.
Sally Bell can't get our trust, or our vote, without making this document between her business and the county available to us.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let me type this slowly for you, wrinkle.
It matters because Sally Bell is running for county commissioner. She wants our vote. When you run for office, there are different standards for openness. If she wasn't running, I would agree with you.
It ain't a convenience store or a fighter plane manufacturer. If their owners were running for public office, I would want to see any deals they have with any government agency.
Sally Bell can't get our trust, or our vote, without making this document between her business and the county available to us.
Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?
There is no current contractual relationship of Bell's with the County. Nothing to attempt to get your blessing. I guess you can just take Randi's claim of it being inadequate, like we do all of Randi's stuff.
You are welcome to see the 'deals' between the Bell's and the County. Just file a FOI on the contracts and read them. That's public information. You're demanding access to a company's Business Plan, another matter entirely, and none on your business.
I think what you may have meant to say is you "can't make an election issue of it unless we try".
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?
I disagree. It's clearly a case in which the local GOP completely lost confidence in Randi Miller.
Its voters didn't vote FOR Sally Bell as much as vote AGAINST Randi Miller.
I live on the west side, which was considered a Randi Miller stronghold. The disillusionment with her was strong. It certainly wasn't a case in which Sally Bell was setting the world on fire with enthusiastic supporters.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?
I disagree. It's clearly a case in which the local GOP completely lost confidence in Randi Miller.
Its voters didn't vote FOR Sally Bell as much as vote AGAINST Randi Miller.
I live on the west side, which was considered a Randi Miller stronghold. The disillusionment with her was strong. It certainly wasn't a case in which Sally Bell was setting the world on fire with enthusiastic supporters.
A vote for Sally Bell was a vote against Randi Miller.
Choice.
Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?
I disagree. It's clearly a case in which the local GOP completely lost confidence in Randi Miller.
Its voters didn't vote FOR Sally Bell as much as vote AGAINST Randi Miller.
I live on the west side, which was considered a Randi Miller stronghold. The disillusionment with her was strong. It certainly wasn't a case in which Sally Bell was setting the world on fire with enthusiastic supporters.
A vote for Sally Bell was a vote against Randi Miller.
Choice.
Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?
Isn't there a Godwin's law for invoking Tay's name into a conversation on here?
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?
No, because Sally Bell doesn't ride her bicycle around on the Broken Arrow Expressway with a giant inflatable penis.
Voters won't replace an incompetent politician with an insane one. No sense in replacing one big liability with another big liability.
It doesn't change the fact that enthusiasm for Sally Bell isn't very high, but disgust for Randi Miller was VERY high.
Now, could Sally Bell boost enthusiasm for her candidacy before the general election? Maybe. But it pays to remember that Karen Keith has plenty of enthusiastic supporters of her own, where Randi Miller had nearly zero.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let me type this slowly for you, wrinkle.
It matters because Sally Bell is running for county commissioner. She wants our vote. When you run for office, there are different standards for openness. If she wasn't running, I would agree with you.
It ain't a convenience store or a fighter plane manufacturer. If their owners were running for public office, I would want to see any deals they have with any government agency.
Sally Bell can't get our trust, or our vote, without making this document between her business and the county available to us.
Do you hold Kathy Taylor to the same standard? Do you demand the same amount of openness from her?
I'll be anxiously awaiting for your public declaration demanding she release the records of where she has flown City Councilors on Mare Force One.
Personal attack removed. Make your point and move on without going into character insults on other members. If you have a problem with a public figure or authority figurehead who posts here, take that up with the appropriate authorities instead of continuing a public vendetta on these boards.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?
I disagree. It's clearly a case in which the local GOP completely lost confidence in Randi Miller.
Its voters didn't vote FOR Sally Bell as much as vote AGAINST Randi Miller.
I live on the west side, which was considered a Randi Miller stronghold. The disillusionment with her was strong. It certainly wasn't a case in which Sally Bell was setting the world on fire with enthusiastic supporters.
A vote for Sally Bell was a vote against Randi Miller.
Choice.
Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?
Isn't there a Godwin's law for invoking Tay's name into a conversation on here?
[}:)]
Yeah, probably. Thirty lashes.
Just trying to make the point in easily understood terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
People are jumping to conclusions about Karen Keith before they've even bothered to learn what her policies and initiatives are.
Oh, I've seen enough of what KK's policies, priorities and initiatives are to know all I need to know and know better than to trust with the reigns of County government.
You do bring up a good point, though. KK's had all primary season to lay out her platform on the issues and has not taken a public stand on much of anything at all, at least with Sally Bell you know what she stands for, because it's out there for all to see. The Karen Keith Kampaigners are out there calling for openness and for Bell's Amusement Park to release their business plan. Maybe KK should practice what her Kampaigners preach and provide the similar openness by making public where she stands on the issues, instead of just trying to get by as an unknown political quantity with her name recognition from her T.V. days and her tenure as vodoo spin doctor svengali for the Lafortune administration and Vision 2025?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.
You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?
I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.
You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.
She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.
You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?
I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.
You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.
She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.
O.K., let me get this straight, you claim Ms. Keith is NOT aligned with those currently running the County, the fairgrounds and Vision2025 even though she was seen almost daily on TV, at debates as the spokesperson in support of the Vision and worked for the Mayor as the primary City representative to the County for the Vision project?
No, I have no dilusions of her being the embodyment of the County or Vision2025, just a major player in the "collection of many individuals" who designed, pumped and promoted the project, and who now administor to it. I don't think just voting for V2025, or putting a sign in your yard qualifies you by itself, but if you know the handshake, they might let you sit in on some of the lesser, public meetings required by law.
As for Ms. Bell, why would she need to recuse herself with regard to a Federal Grand Jury? That makes no sense at all. Nobody is recused from a Grand Jury investigation. The Bell's company was contracted with the County, as are the Murphy's. There's no contractual relationship between the Bell's and the Murphy's.
And, the Bell's business plan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Murphys. How Randi Miller may have leveraged the situation in Murphy's behalf could be a major consideration of a Grand Jury in determining if Bell's was mistreated. That has nothing to do with Bell's business plan.
Are you suggesting because Randi Miller said she
couldn't understand didn't like the Bell's business plan, she allowed Big Splash free rent for last year and a half...and it's Bell's fault for whatever is in their plan?
Even more ludicrous is you feel reading the Bell's plan will clear it all up for you, if not us. Sure.
At most, a Grand Jury may request a brief on the Bell's business plan to acquaint themselves with the operations, but it would never be made public even under those circumstances.
Talk about throwup not sticking.
Here's a dare. I'll swallow a dozen goldfish live in the
Bartlett Square fountains Pool-Thing-II in the middle of the intersection of 5th & Main (which seems to attract drunken school girls) if in the next 24 hours you can post here on the TulsaNow forum a complete business plan, from any currently operating Tulsa corporation, which is being used now to attempt to initiate any kind of new contract and produced within the last 6 months, with their certification and written permission for you to do so, executed by an officer of the corporation.
...ain't gonna happen.
You can't even get SemGroup's business plan.
If you can't produce one, then you have to stop calling for the Bell's business plan. There's no way it's going to be made public anyway, nor should.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.
Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.
The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.
You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.
Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).
Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?
I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.
You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.
She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.
O.K., let me get this straight, you claim Ms. Keith is NOT aligned with those currently running the County, the fairgrounds and Vision2025 even though she was seen almost daily on TV, at debates as the spokesperson in support of the Vision and worked for the Mayor as the primary City representative to the County for the Vision project?
Yes. You confuse the role of a press spokesman, a pr function with active decisionmaking and policymaking. She was their face, not their go to braintrust. I work for a lab Dr., but his CPA doesn't consult with me. Knowing them and being part of the "bunch" is two different things.
No, I have no dilusions of her being the embodyment of the County or Vision2025, just a major player in the "collection of many individuals" who designed, pumped and promoted the project, and who now administor to it. I don't think just voting for V2025, or putting a sign in your yard qualifies you by itself, but if you know the handshake, they might let you sit in on some of the lesser, public meetings required by law.
I disagree. You are delusional (sp) and are the embodiment (sp) of anger at the rest of Tulsa for strongly approving of V2025. By your standards we are all just fools being manipulated.
As for Ms. Bell, why would she need to recuse herself with regard to a Federal Grand Jury? That makes no sense at all. Nobody is recused from a Grand Jury investigation. The Bell's company was contracted with the County, as are the Murphy's. There's no contractual relationship between the Bell's and the Murphy's.
You tell me. You brought up the subject of her recusing herself earlier in this thread. If she can both serve as commissioner and potential witness in an investigation on practices of a board she sits on well then you're the man.
And, the Bell's business plan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Murphys. How Randi Miller may have leveraged the situation in Murphy's behalf could be a major consideration of a Grand Jury in determining if Bell's was mistreated. That has nothing to do with Bell's business plan.
It does if she required one of Bell's and found it deficient but didn't require one of Murphy or did and found it sufficient. YOu think they'll just take Sally's word for it?
Are you suggesting because Randi Miller said she couldn't understand didn't like the Bell's business plan, she allowed Big Splash free rent for last year and a half...and it's Bell's fault for whatever is in their plan?
Even more ludicrous is you feel reading the Bell's plan will clear it all up for you, if not us. Sure.
Diversionary. Didn't say or imply either. I'm speaking of her tactics in saying she was treated unfairly and that their plan was a good one. She expects us to take her word for that? I wouldn't show my business plan to anyone but an investor and she isn't legally required to show her plan to anyone unless it goes to court and she is forced to, but why bring it up if she isn't going to show it?
At most, a Grand Jury may request a brief on the Bell's business plan to acquaint themselves with the operations, but it would never be made public even under those circumstances.
Talk about throwup not sticking.
Here's a dare. I'll swallow a dozen goldfish live in the Bartlett Square fountains Pool-Thing-II in the middle of the intersection of 5th & Main (which seems to attract drunken school girls) if in the next 24 hours you can post here on the TulsaNow forum a complete business plan, from any currently operating Tulsa corporation, which is being used now to attempt to initiate any kind of new contract and produced within the last 6 months, with their certification and written permission for you to do so, executed by an officer of the corporation.
...ain't gonna happen.
Nor do I expect them to or demanded such. I have a dare for you. Accuse Miller of having sex with dogs and you have the pics but you're not going to show them to anyone because you were there and it might tend to incriminate you but you just want people to know. See how far that gets you with the public.
You can't even get SemGroup's business plan.
If you can't produce one, then you have to stop calling for the Bell's business plan. There's no way it's going to be made public anyway, nor should.
Thanks. That's what I thought. You can't answer the questions so you dodge, weave, obfuscate, interpolate and otherwise use your skills to change the subject.
I'm tired of hearing how badly Bell's was treated. The county treats most of their concessionaires badly from conversations I've had with them. It has nothing to do with how well Ms. Bell will do as a commissioner. If indeed there is fire behind the smoke on the fairgrounds I would rather someone with no axe to grind, no appearance of conflict of interest and lots of political savvy would oversee the operation.
I honestly could care less if Sally shows Bell's business plan. I don't personally think it should be a job pre-requisite, I simply said I found it ironic someone who values secrecy is promising transparency, that's all.
Wrinkle keeps adding imaginary arguments.
Originally what I said about the conflict-of-interest issue has to do with an investigation by the commission to review the various contracts the Murphys have with the fairgrounds.
My exact words were:
"I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys."
No mention of a grand jury. A grand jury cannot void any contracts, yet the county commission has oversight of the fair board and can demand such an investigation. The county commission answers to the citizens of Tulsa County. If we are, in fact, only making 1/3 of what we should be making off a midway contract, this is a priority issue for the citizens, especially if we want government to pay more of it's own way with less taxes. If we are allowing a different amusement park to continue operating without the same stipulations the Bells operated under, while being rent scofflaws and opening without completing repairs deemed necessary by the ODOL, that's a serious issue to the county.
All we get out of a grand jury is possible criminal indictments. I don't believe that would cover any civil remedy for the taxpayers of Tulsa County. If there has been fraud and malfeasance, I want it prosecuted, but I also want any financial wrongs corrected.
I envision civil remedies to include finding what our out is on the midway contract and put it out for bid. Whomever the successful vendor is, they have no right handling fair money and being trusted to honestly give the fair board it's take.
The conflict-of-interest is obvious: Murphy was given a new contract with first right of refusal on the Bell's property, should Bell's ever happen to vacate. In short order, Bell's lease was not renewed. The Bells have publicly stated they believe Murphy was behind all of this. It sure looks and smells that way, but Sally Bell doesn't even remotely have the appearance of a neutral party on such an investigation.
The Bells are but one family of taxpayers who have a right to know what happened along with the rest of us Tulsa County citizens.
Wrinkle, usually your arguments are much more cogent and not stretching. You've thrown a lot into your replies on this which was not there initially. You are right, there is nothing to keep Sally Bell from testifying before a grand jury, but she would need to recuse herself from any investigation by the commission of the fair board business dealings with the Murphys.
I must not be too far off the truth if one of your replies only conjured up a "karma's a b!tch" comment (or close to it).
I stated Ms. Bell might have to recuse herself if a matter of Bell's ever came before the Commission. I also stated it would be very unlikely that would ever happen since there's no contracts between them at this point, and none likely to come up anytime in the next decade or so. Not the same for the Murphy's. There's no conflict.
Not only is she, or anyone else, not allowed to recuse from a Grand Jury investigation, she wouldn't possess the authority to do so.
A Grand Jury investigation and the normal business of the Commission are descrete things which do not compromise each other. There is no conflict.
As for Ms. Keith, you contend she was handed scripts to read, kind of like a newscast. Is that right?
If so, then we should probably get back to basics and ask what makes her qualified for the job. We've been led to believe her wide and varying input to Vision2025 was the basis of her experience. If she were just reading scripts, then what qualifies her to be a Commissioner for the County?
I've been assuming both candidates were qualified for the job and that the differences were primarily new vs existing. If we now require new evidence of a candidates qualifications, then it's premature to base campaigning on new vs existing arguments at all.
If this is going to be a thread about qualifications to be commissioner, someone should start a new one.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I honestly could care less if Sally shows Bell's business plan. I don't personally think it should be a job pre-requisite, I simply said I found it ironic someone who values secrecy is promising transparency, that's all.
Wrinkle keeps adding imaginary arguments.
Originally what I said about the conflict-of-interest issue has to do with an investigation by the commission to review the various contracts the Murphys have with the fairgrounds.
My exact words were:
"I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys."
No mention of a grand jury. A grand jury cannot void any contracts, yet the county commission has oversight of the fair board and can demand such an investigation. The county commission answers to the citizens of Tulsa County. If we are, in fact, only making 1/3 of what we should be making off a midway contract, this is a priority issue for the citizens, especially if we want government to pay more of it's own way with less taxes. If we are allowing a different amusement park to continue operating without the same stipulations the Bells operated under, while being rent scofflaws and opening without completing repairs deemed necessary by the ODOL, that's a serious issue to the county.
All we get out of a grand jury is possible criminal indictments. I don't believe that would cover any civil remedy for the taxpayers of Tulsa County. If there has been fraud and malfeasance, I want it prosecuted, but I also want any financial wrongs corrected.
I envision civil remedies to include finding what our out is on the midway contract and put it out for bid. Whomever the successful vendor is, they have no right handling fair money and being trusted to honestly give the fair board it's take.
The conflict-of-interest is obvious: Murphy was given a new contract with first right of refusal on the Bell's property, should Bell's ever happen to vacate. In short order, Bell's lease was not renewed. The Bells have publicly stated they believe Murphy was behind all of this. It sure looks and smells that way, but Sally Bell doesn't even remotely have the appearance of a neutral party on such an investigation.
The Bells are but one family of taxpayers who have a right to know what happened along with the rest of us Tulsa County citizens.
Wrinkle, usually your arguments are much more cogent and not stretching. You've thrown a lot into your replies on this which was not there initially. You are right, there is nothing to keep Sally Bell from testifying before a grand jury, but she would need to recuse herself from any investigation by the commission of the fair board business dealings with the Murphys.
I must not be too far off the truth if one of your replies only conjured up a "karma's a b!tch" comment (or close to it).
You make a good case. And, your concerns are limited to commission instigated investigations which may occur.
That point could be argued, and you've done that well. While there remains no direct relationship of the Bell's with the Murphy's, it's not exactly non-descript either.
I really wasn't approaching this from a civil standpoint. I want County business done properly, openly and transparently. That's what Sally Bell would bring to the table.
If the Murphy's and/or other County officials have irregular arrangements which affect taxpayer benefit, then the practice should stop no matter who initiates the change.
I agree Sally Bell should not be directly involved in any formal investigation by the County of the Murphy's which may result in civil or criminal proceedings. But, evaluation of County business and contractual arrangements are a normal function of the Commission, actually the Board of County Commissioners, a 5-member board. So, those things aren't up to any one Commissioner.
Good business and what's currently being done may not be the same thing, especailly as it relates to public benefit.