The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

According to Dewey Bartlett, who was caught with his pants down over the JAG grant when the fed shut down due to weather, they HAD to layoff the officers in order to use the JAG grant money. (Which he repeated again to the city council YESTERDAY.

However, in DECEMBER he was told by Ron Palmer they could use the JAG money to retain jobs.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11739678

Also in that same time frame, the FOP was ALSO saying the JAG grant could be used to retain jobs:
http://www.tulsafop93.org/Layoffs.asp

And a document verifying that both Ron Palmer and the FOP were correct was found in Terry Simonson's email
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100310_11_A1_Acopyo754204


So... is Dewey/Terry just completely out of touch with reality or lying?

I say we take the $300k we wasted out of the Mayor's staff's budget.. You know, the one whose budgets numbers are currently "missing" from the budget he is asking the city council to approve.

According to the e-mail, the layoffs had to be a certainty in order to be eligible for the grant funding to be used. It had to be documented in official meeting minutes.

The layoffs were not a certainty while the FOP was deciding whether to accept the same pay cuts as other city employees. The FOP decided for the layoffs instead of paycuts during this time period.

I don't think the administration was lying or out of touch. I think they were hoping the police union would do what I consider the right thing and accept the pay cuts. They didn't.

The money you refer to was owed the officers through accrued leave. It had to be paid upon the officers being laid off or retired.

The Bartlet (sic) Administration isn't off to a great start. I understand they inherited some problems which were coming regardless of who became mayor and regardless of who the previous mayor was.  They've created some serious PR issues with some visible, high-paid executive staff and the pissing match with the FOP.

Simonson was on KRMG this morning and spoke candidly (I assume so anyhow) about what's going on and said he had no problem being forthright about what happened.  I did not hear him address anything that Chief Palmer might have said back in December.  He laid the blame on the feds shutting down in early Feb. due to the record amount of global warming that was on the ground in D.C.  I can understand the city wanting to move cautiously in wanting to know how federal grant money could be applied to keep from running afoul of the feds or wind up having to pay back something which was misapplied or committing payroll, then finding out there's no funds forthcoming from the fed.  If, in fact, they knew in December this could have been used but refused to follow up in the face of impending police layoffs, they have done us a great disservice.

There were probably some transition issues in administration here which did not help matters, but I also think our current mayor isn't as comfortable at being decisive like our past mayor was.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2010, 10:39:10 AM
The Bartlet (sic) Administration isn't off to a great start. I understand they inherited some problems which were coming regardless of who became mayor and regardless of who the previous mayor was.  They've created some serious PR issues with some visible, high-paid executive staff and the pissing match with the FOP.

Simonson was on KRMG this morning and spoke candidly (I assume so anyhow) about what's going on and said he had no problem being forthright about what happened.  I did not hear him address anything that Chief Palmer might have said back in December.  He laid the blame on the feds shutting down in early Feb. due to the record amount of global warming that was on the ground in D.C.  I can understand the city wanting to move cautiously in wanting to know how federal grant money could be applied to keep from running afoul of the feds or wind up having to pay back something which was misapplied or committing payroll, then finding out there's no funds forthcoming from the fed.  If, in fact, they knew in December this could have been used but refused to follow up in the face of impending police layoffs, they have done us a great disservice.

There were probably some transition issues in administration here which did not help matters, but I also think our current mayor isn't as comfortable at being decisive like our past mayor was.

I still think it's Bush's fault.

Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2010, 11:07:35 AM
I still think it's Bush's fault.

Well there is that to consider too

Quote from: Gaspar on March 10, 2010, 11:07:35 AM
I still think it's Bush's fault.

It is time to move on. I say blame the Bush daughters.

Dewey/Terry are both lying and out of touch! The e-mail proves it - they have been saying from day one that they are going to smash the union - well they did it with our tax money!! I agree they need to reimburse the city out of the mayors office budget!

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 10, 2010, 10:25:54 AM
The money you refer to was owed the officers through accrued leave. It had to be paid upon the officers being laid off or retired.

Yes, but had they never been formally laid off, the city would still have that 300k in the bank and a few more officer on the street.

Yes.

Lying and out of touch.

So the officers were laid off and given a severance (unused vacation + unused comp and two weeks pay.)

They automatically get reinstated with vacation and comp time again?    Or do they have to repay that portion of their severance?

They start over as if they were on the first day of their job.

The officers wanted to give the severence money back to the city in exchange for their Vacation and comp time back. The money that was paid out was for their vacation and comp time only. The administration said no. They did not want the officers to pay it back.  However the administration gave their sick time back to the officers.

How disgusting can it get??  That is beyond despicable to take those officers jobs like that and then treat them that way!

And Tulsa just keeps on loving the clowns they elect to city office!  Unbelievable!

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 11, 2010, 09:41:56 PM
How disgusting can it get??  That is beyond despicable to take those officers jobs like that and then treat them that way!

And Tulsa just keeps on loving the clowns they elect to city office!  Unbelievable!

If you elect a conservative to office, you shouldn't be surprised if he does conservative things, such as busting unions.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 09:27:16 AM
If you elect a conservative to office, you shouldn't be surprised if he does conservative things, such as busting unions.

You don't think this show-down wasn't coming even with Mayor Taylor?  I could be entirely wrong, but I think this might have more to do with trying to merge some city and county services, especially law enforcement, not busting unions.  Why else would Mayor Bartlet (sic) have brought in Jordan and Simonson from the county, screwed with the PD, but pretty much left the FD alone?  I know, total troofer stuff.

Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 10:00:32 AM
You don't think this show-down wasn't coming even with Mayor Taylor?  I could be entirely wrong, but I think this might have more to do with trying to merge some city and county services, especially law enforcement, not busting unions.  Why else would Mayor Bartlet (sic) have brought in Jordan and Simonson from the county, screwed with the PD, but pretty much left the FD alone?  I know, total troofer stuff.

You knew this was coming:
(http://regmedia.co.uk/2005/02/22/warning_black_helicopters.gif)


But in all actuality, you may be right, esp considering your comment about the fire department when you take into account this story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100107_11_A1_Cityof473546

Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 10:00:32 AM
You don't think this show-down wasn't coming even with Mayor Taylor?  

I doubt it, considering that she gave big raises to the police and fire unions a couple of years ago. That doesn't sound like union-busting to me.

I should add that I'm not always against union-busting. I sort of take it on a case-by-case basis. If you have a union such as the Tulsa FOP that's squandered a ton of goodwill and good faith, then you're ripe for the hammer.

I just find it ironic that two police officers who post on this forum say they're conservative, then whine when a conservative mayor does conservative things such as busting up a bloated and arrogant union. Talk about voting against your own interests ...

Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 11:02:24 AM
I doubt it, considering that she gave big raises to the police and fire unions a couple of years ago. That doesn't sound like union-busting to me.

She had the money to spend for raises then, as did LaFortune.  Bartlet (sic) was faced with revenue cuts...supposedly.  I truly do believe her decision not to run again had a lot to do with being tired of having a target painted on her back, but I also suspect she saw this coming and didn't want to have to be a party to more abuse in a difficult economic and political climate with the council and the FOP.

Sgrizz- Interesting as I don't think merging the FD's really does a whole lot due to increasing exposure on all the new facilities and as well, ambulance service.  I'm rather skeptical about taking on responsibility for what is essentially a municipal service (fire/ambulance) in other cities in the county.  Do we really need to pick up the payroll and facility costs in outlying communities? Seems like combining the TCSD and TPD would offer the best cost-savings arrangement in terms of merging public safety looking for savings, but what do I know?  I can say for certain though that Commissioner Keith is real big on cutting costs via merging services if at all feasible.

Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 12, 2010, 11:02:24 AM
I doubt it, considering that she gave big raises to the police and fire unions a couple of years ago. That doesn't sound like union-busting to me.

rwarn--Are you sure KT gave raises to the PD and FD?--I thought LaFortune negotiated the new contracts with the raises just before the 2006 election.  I thought that was a major reason both unions endorsed him. Dewey has the same contact restrictions that KT did.  I could be wrong, but.............

Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 11:42:28 AM
She had the money to spend for raises then, as did LaFortune.  Bartlet (sic) was faced with revenue cuts...supposedly.  I truly do believe her decision not to run again had a lot to do with being tired of having a target painted on her back, but I also suspect she saw this coming and didn't want to have to be a party to more abuse in a difficult economic and political climate with the council and the FOP.

Sgrizz- Interesting as I don't think merging the FD's really does a whole lot due to increasing exposure on all the new facilities and as well, ambulance service.  I'm rather skeptical about taking on responsibility for what is essentially a municipal service (fire/ambulance) in other cities in the county.  Do we really need to pick up the payroll and facility costs in outlying communities? Seems like combining the TCSD and TPD would offer the best cost-savings arrangement in terms of merging public safety looking for savings, but what do I know?  I can say for certain though that Commissioner Keith is real big on cutting costs via merging services if at all feasible.

TCSD and TPD should be merged IMHO which would end a lot of jurisdictional and city/county bickering (re: DL MOSS imbroglio) as well as save some bucks.

It also makes sense (to me) to break our contract with EMSA and put EMR under the TFD with EMVs located in fire houses instead of roaming around/waiting for an emergency call at the local QT. Every utility bill has an emergency services charge of around $4 per month...that seems like a heck of a lot of money that TFD could use to provide a better comprehensive first responder service (instead of dispatching both TFD and EMSA like we do in most cases today).

But I could be wrong.

Quote from: Bledsoe on March 12, 2010, 12:10:06 PM
rwarn--Are you sure KT gave raises to the PD and FD?--I thought LaFortune negotiated the new contracts with the raises just before the 2006 election.  I thought that was a major reason both unions endorsed him. Dewey has the same contact restrictions that KT did.  I could be wrong, but.............

Taylor hammered out raises of 7 percent for firefighters and 8 percent for police in September and October of 2006. She was well into office by then.

Quote from: Bledsoe on March 12, 2010, 12:10:06 PM
I thought LaFortune negotiated the new contracts with the raises just before the 2006 election.  I thought that was a major reason both unions endorsed him.

They didn't endorse him even after he gave them big pay raises and take home cars to the burbs.

They endorsed Randi Miller in the primary, then switched their endorsement to Kathy Taylor for the general election.

The FOP never endorses an incumbent Mayor. Never. No matter how much the Mayor gives in to them during the negotiatons, they always campaign against them. Always.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 12, 2010, 03:16:17 PM
They didn't endorse him even after he gave them big pay raises and take home cars to the burbs.

They endorsed Randi Miller in the primary, then switched their endorsement to Kathy Taylor for the general election.

The FOP never endorses an incumbent Mayor. Never. No matter how much the Mayor gives in to them during the negotiatons, they always campaign against them. Always.

Who did they endorse in the election just past?  I can't remember now and can't seem to Google it up.

Not Eric Gomez and Not Bill Martinson

Quote from: Conan71 on March 12, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
Who did they endorse in the election just past?  I can't remember now and can't seem to Google it up.

The FOP did not endorse any candidate. TFD endorsed Adelson.

 http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0310/717691_video.html


Neither one of these fellows is bright enough to get away with much of anything.

I would have thought the point was to impress the feds on our expertise in using the JAG money.

More in depth coverage of this by Ms Lasseck in the Whirled.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100319_11_0_hrimgs174520

Mayor's Office employee backs police claims about grant  

By BRIAN BARBER AND P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writers
Published: 4/7/2010 

A Mayor's Office employee backs up the claim of three deputy police chiefs that Chief of Staff Terry Simonson knew long ago about the availability of federal grant money to prevent some officer layoffs and chose not to act on it, the Tulsa World has learned in an investigation. Governmental Affairs Director Stuart McCalman, one of the mayor's at-will employees, passed along information secretly via e-mail to Councilor Bill Christiansen to help guide the councilor through a situation that has triggered a City Council investigation into whether Simonson lied to U.S. Department of Justice officials and councilors.

The World examined hundreds of council e-mails obtained through an open records request.

McCalman claims in one e-mail to Christiansen that he is being set up by Simonson to take the fall and that Simonson was boasting about working closely with Council Chairman Rick Westcott to emerge from the investigation unscathed. "It's not often you get somebody to tell you that they are going to throw you under a bus before they do it," he said in the March 25 e-mail to Christiansen. McCalman told the World on Wednesday that he wrote the e-mails out of "anger and frustration" and intended them to be private.

"The differences I may have with Terry on this particular issue should in no way reflect upon the mayor," he said, adding that Mayor Dewey Bartlett's leadership is what the city needs. "It is my regret that I put Mayor Bartlett in a position of having to address an issue of which he had no personal knowledge because of my failure to address it with him."

Grant knowledge:
McCalman's e-mails claim that Simonson told him he would contend he never heard of the Justice Assistance Grant until January, and that McCalman never provided him the grant information sent by the deputy chiefs in early December.

A City Hall source backs up McCalman's assertion.

"I briefed the mayor and Terry in a budget meeting in their FIRST day in office as to JAG availability and it was made very clear by them at that time that there would be no hiring of officers with any monies, federal or otherwise, at any time in the near future. There are quite a number of witnesses to this," a e-mail by McCalman claims. McCalman's e-mail also states that Simonson told him that he would say the December briefing by the deputy chiefs was not about JAG, but about the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS grant. But the deputy chiefs said this week that no COPS funding was available. Former Mayor Kathy Taylor used it all in the rehiring of 18 police officers last fall.

The deputy police chiefs accused Simonson last month of lying to Justice Department officials about having knowledge of the JAG funding and how it could be used. At issue is whether the grant could be used to retain officers rather than having to lay them off and then rehire them. In his e-mail exchange with Christiansen, McCalman wrote: "I can't imagine a scenario short of his job being at stake that Terry will publicly admit any culpability on JAG whatsoever."

Mayor reacts:
McCalman informed Bartlett on Wednesday afternoon about the e-mails after he was approached by the World. Bartlett said it is part of McCalman's job to interact with the council. "It's unfortunate that if he was going to say something about the investigation that he didn't do it face-to-face or in a more private situation. He should know better," he said. But Bartlett declined to comment about the content of the e-mails and said Simonson would not talk to the World because of the council inquiry. "I am very worried that this so-called (council) investigation is now going to be tried in the media," he said. "That would be unfair to all parties. Unfortunately that's probably what's going to happen. This is going to take on a life of its own." Bartlett said he would not fire nor has any intentions of accepting resignations from either Simonson or McCalman. "I have nothing to say against Stuart," he said. "He's a good man. I know Terry is a good man, too."

'Put the fix in':
In McCalman's e-mail to Christiansen, he states that Simonson and Westcott talked about the scope and membership of the council investigative committee. McCalman wrote that Simonson revealed at the mayor's March 22 morning directors meeting that he and Westcott would like the committee to consist of four councilors including Westcott, Christiansen and John Eagleton. A City Hall source corroborated that Simonson made the comment during the meeting.

"Make no mistake, Westcott views his role in this as creating a situation as favorable as possible to Terry and to protect Terry through the committee's actions and council deliberations," McCalman wrote. "As much as they can get away with without being obvious, they are trying to put the fix in," McCalman wrote. Probe will be about facts: Westcott said that no one has tried to exert pressure on him about the probe, and that if Simonson told anyone that, "it's absolutely not true."

"If anyone from the Mayor's Office made those sort of overtures to me, I would probably go public with it," he said. "What is contained in this e-mail goes toward my integrity and my character, and I won't compromise those for anyone." When the deputy chiefs' letter was made public March 19, Westcott told the Tulsa World that the council would launch an investigation because of the "seriousness of the allegations."

Over the following weekend, Westcott said, he exchanged e-mails with Bartlett and Simonson about the inquiry. In response to a question from Simonson about the committee's makeup, Westcott said involving four councilors could expedite the process and bypass the open meeting law. Westcott said he told Simonson and Bartlett that he hadn't discussed the committee with the rest of the council and the details still needed to be resolved. On March 23, a day after Simonson announced details of the committee in the directors meeting, Westcott sent an e-mail to all councilors about his proposal for the four-member committee and said Christiansen agreed to serve.

The council met in executive session March 25 and decided all councilors would participate in a probe conducted by an independent investigator. Westcott said he agreed with the decision because it would "take politics out of it completely." He declined to comment about the other allegations in McCalman's e-mails. "I don't want to make any comments that could lend credence or take away from Stuart's e-mails. I do not want to slant the investigation," he said.

Validated suspicions:
Christiansen, who had voiced concerns about the use of the federal grant money, said McCalman's e-mails to him "validated my suspicions." "The JAG money was clearly being used as a card in their deck to negotiate concessions from the FOP," he said. Christiansen said he found it strange that someone from the Mayor's Office was coming forward to covertly direct him to what was really going on.

"And yet I admired that he contacted me. I think fundamentally he's concerned about the welfare of the city and its public safety," Christiansen said. "I mean, he's in the Mayor's Office where these things are being discussed behind closed doors. He is in a position to know the truth." Christiansen expressed "grave concern" about what could happen to McCalman.

"I would hate to see him retaliated against," Christiansen said. "I hope he can continue to serve. To my way of thinking, he was simply trying to make sure everything was aboveboard." Christiansen said he has "always tried to give the administration the benefit of the doubt." "When they tell us what's going on, I'd like to believe that's the best information they have to give us," he said. "But it appears as though they are sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out what story to tell. That bothers me a lot. We need to be transparent and not all sitting in a back room smoking fat cigars and plotting what to do next."

Terry Screwy needs to go. Immediately.

Stupid GOP spooners..it's always about busting the unions. Creeps.

The gang of five was right after all!! Its time for Terry to go before Tulsa taxpayers are swindled out of anymore of our hard earned money!! Question - if Mayor Bartlett was in the first meeting - how is he not to blame along with Terry? ( LIEmonson )
Its time for this to stop - 1,000 jobs lost in the last two days - unemployment in Tulsa 8.1% and OKC 6.7% - these guys need to start caring about Tulsa!!!!

Quote from: T-town girl on April 08, 2010, 08:19:35 AM
The gang of five was right after all!! Its time for Terry to go before Tulsa taxpayers are swindled out of anymore of our hard earned money!! Question - if Mayor Bartlett was in the first meeting - how is he not to blame along with Terry? ( LIEmonson )
Its time for this to stop - 1,000 jobs lost in the last two days - unemployment in Tulsa 8.1% and OKC 6.7% - these guys need to start caring about Tulsa!!!!

You're just a hater Mrs.Adelson.....

Oh Breadburner - you are my type of guy!! Julie Adelson is such a lovely women - thank-you for your compliment, it was very flattering. Now boys come on - you know I am right! Its time for Terry to go....

Yes it is....but you do have to appreciate how they are ignoring the council.

Would Tom have had it in him to turn them off?

Quote from: fotd on April 08, 2010, 10:55:38 AM
Yes it is....but you do have to appreciate how they are ignoring the council.

Would Tom have had it in him to turn them off?

Tom would have never let matters reach this point.

His one costly mistake was "slinging mud". If he had taken the high road and not let that become the campaign we would not have this bunch of brazen crooks at City Hall.

Compliments to PJ for standing toe to toe with these pansies.

Quote from: carltonplace on March 12, 2010, 01:32:12 PM
TCSD and TPD should be merged IMHO which would end a lot of jurisdictional and city/county bickering (re: DL MOSS imbroglio) as well as save some bucks.

It also makes sense (to me) to break our contract with EMSA and put EMR under the TFD with EMVs located in fire houses instead of roaming around/waiting for an emergency call at the local QT. Every utility bill has an emergency services charge of around $4 per month...that seems like a heck of a lot of money that TFD could use to provide a better comprehensive first responder service (instead of dispatching both TFD and EMSA like we do in most cases today).

But I could be wrong.

You are wrong. I am not trying to be rude but you should have the facts before recomending such a disasterous sentence for the citizens of tulsa.
TFD is not ready to run EMS in this city. They do not have enough trained personel, equipment or common sense. The equipment does not belong to the city as everyone seems to think. Some of the personel are trained but only a small amount have actual experience. I would be glad to go on.... but... i harp...

Yeah, our past mayor was decisive enough. The $7 M she "decided" to give to the wealthiest man in Oklahoma (from taxpayers, who didn't owe the money) was enough by itself to have avoided many of the unpopular choices that had to be made. Nobody seriously thinks Taylor could have been reelected, do they? Bartlett has inherited an incredible mess and a ridiculous council. So far he has far exceeded my expectations - look what he gets for it. No good deed goes unpunished!

Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 02, 2010, 10:14:41 AM
Yeah, our past mayor was decisive enough. The $7 M she "decided" to give to the wealthiest man in Oklahoma (from taxpayers, who didn't owe the money) was enough by itself to have avoided many of the unpopular choices that had to be made. Nobody seriously thinks Taylor could have been reelected, do they? Bartlett has inherited an incredible mess and a ridiculous council. So far he has far exceeded my expectations - look what he gets for it. No good deed goes unpunished!

I was never a fan of Taylor, but trying to lay so much of Dewey's mess at her feet is the equivilant of sticking your head in the sand.  Yes, she liked to play fast and loose with the money, but Dewey has been making a lot of decisions that are not in the best interest of Tulsa.  I call foul on trying to say that Dewey is just a victim of Taylor's administration.

Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 02, 2010, 10:14:41 AM
Yeah, our past mayor was decisive enough. The $7 M she "decided" to give to the wealthiest man in Oklahoma (from taxpayers, who didn't owe the money) was enough by itself to have avoided many of the unpopular choices that had to be made. Nobody seriously thinks Taylor could have been reelected, do they? Bartlett has inherited an incredible mess and a ridiculous council. So far he has far exceeded my expectations - look what he gets for it. No good deed goes unpunished!

Are you kidding?  Dewey isn't even running the city, his Chief Of Staff is.  Mayor Bartlet (sic) has been a total disappointment.  He got handed a total pile with the budget problems, but it's not a result of previous administrations.  It's primarily a result of a drop in revenues and no department being willing to streamline voluntarily.

You might also want to co-implicate the council in the $7mm given to the "richest man in Oklahoma".  It was actually given to BOK, but who wants to be technical.  No less than Councilor Eagleton (whose opinion I hold in high esteem) said it was a just settlement.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 10:41:48 AM
Are you kidding?  Dewey isn't even running the city, his Chief Of Staff is.  Mayor Bartlet (sic) has been a total disappointment.  He got handed a total pile with the budget problems, but it's not a result of previous administrations.  It's primarily a result of a drop in revenues and no department being willing to streamline voluntarily.

You might also want to co-implicate the council in the $7mm given to the "richest man in Oklahoma".  It was actually given to BOK, but who wants to be technical.  No less than Councilor Eagleton (whose opinion I hold in high esteem) said it was a just settlement.

I'll blame the person who got the city involved by trying to back a private company's loan.

Quote from: sgrizzle on July 02, 2010, 10:56:05 AM
I'll blame the person who got the city involved by trying to back a private company's loan.

Richard Studenny, aka: Dick Stupidity.  Has he been dis-barred yet?

Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 01:14:50 PM
Dick Stupidity.

Should be a dumb comic book
(http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images2/rifleman.jpg)

That's some log you're carrying there Jimmy.

Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 10:41:48 AM
He got handed a total pile with the budget problems, but it's not a result of previous administrations.  It's primarily a result of a drop in revenues and no department being willing to streamline voluntarily.

Did no one even suggest the city sell the Armored Personnel Carrier?  We need a tank more than we need a helicopter?  Hell, renting it out for kids birthday parties would have made more sense...

Quote from: patric on July 02, 2010, 01:24:42 PM
Did no one even suggest the city sell the Armored Personnel Carrier?  We need a tank more than we need a helicopter?  Hell, renting it out for kids birthday parties would have made more sense...

I see we are scrambling to put cops back on the job, but anyone else notice the homicide rate is actually lower than this time last year and there's not been a major outbreak in violent crime?  Something is telling me we might have had an over-staffing rather than under-staffing problem on the TPD.  They weren't giving a rip about property crime apparently.

Quote from: patric on July 02, 2010, 01:24:42 PM
Hell, renting it out for kids birthday parties would have made more sense...

My wife has a party rental company.  I wonder how much they'll take for it? ;)

Quote from: Gaspar on July 02, 2010, 01:28:39 PM
My wife has a party rental company.  I wonder how much they'll take for it? ;)

Woohoo, can i rent a party? Why have a party when you can rent one instead.

;)

I think you will find a number of legal opinions in complete opposition to the esteemed Councilor Eagleton. Eagleton is probably the best on the council, but the taxpayers were simply not supposed to be on the hook for this crony deal. With every politico in the city involved, including the Lortons, the taxpayer was bound to get screwed, I guess. Come on now, read the history of that deal (that which has been uncovered). This was no fair settlement, this was a scam from the beginning.

The $7M alone would be a very significant amount of money in the current situation. Add to that the acquisition, remodeling, moving costs and lost rent revenue associated with the new city hall, and we simply would not be in this mess. I'll agree that decreased revenues are the last straw in this fiasco, but continuously expanding budgets with no regard for possible shortages caused this. We have now used up essentially every source of revenue the city is likely to find, and then some. The city govt is out of control.

I'll agree too, that the TPD is overstaffed and has been for years. Ditto the TFD. This is what happens with union happy govts.

Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 02, 2010, 03:26:30 PM
I think you will find a number of legal opinions in complete opposition to the esteemed Councilor Eagleton. Eagleton is probably the best on the council, but the taxpayers were simply not supposed to be on the hook for this crony deal. With every politico in the city involved, including the Lortons, the taxpayer was bound to get screwed, I guess. Come on now, read the history of that deal (that which has been uncovered). This was no fair settlement, this was a scam from the beginning.

The $7M alone would be a very significant amount of money in the current situation. Add to that the acquisition, remodeling, moving costs and lost rent revenue associated with the new city hall, and we simply would not be in this mess. I'll agree that decreased revenues are the last straw in this fiasco, but continuously expanding budgets with no regard for possible shortages caused this. We have now used up essentially every source of revenue the city is likely to find, and then some. The city govt is out of control.

I'll agree too, that the TPD is overstaffed and has been for years. Ditto the TFD. This is what happens with union happy govts.

We discussed this at length at the time on here.  Many of us were miffed as to why Studenny's E/O insurance was not tapped for this shoddy legal work.  That's why professionals carry insurance to make those injured or damaged by their negligence whole.  Speculation as to why he was not held accountable has ranged from black helicopter conspiracies about how Studenny knew "where all the skeletons were buried" on the airport trust and Great Plains and that some prominent Tulsans would wind up embarrased or in serious deep smile, or that a previous mayor was being protected, etc.

Honestly, I was shocked when Eagleton came out in favor of the settlement.  They may have simply looked at it and said: "make it go away instead of racking up legal fees to make it go away".

I've not been made privy to specific legal documents regarding the original agreements signed nor the settlements, so it's really hard for me to say whether the settlement was proper and what liability the city actually had.

And seriously, I do want to know if anyone ever moved to get Dick Stupidity disbarred.

Quote from: carltonplace on March 12, 2010, 01:32:12 PM
TCSD and TPD should be merged IMHO which would end a lot of jurisdictional and city/county bickering (re: DL MOSS imbroglio) as well as save some bucks.

It also makes sense (to me) to break our contract with EMSA and put EMR under the TFD with EMVs located in fire houses instead of roaming around/waiting for an emergency call at the local QT. Every utility bill has an emergency services charge of around $4 per month...that seems like a heck of a lot of money that TFD could use to provide a better comprehensive first responder service (instead of dispatching both TFD and EMSA like we do in most cases today).

But I could be wrong.

And you are wrong. TFD has tried multiple times to come up with a plan for emergency medical response that would work as efficiently and more importantly work to the benefit of the patients. They have failed at everyt turn. You might be interested to know that EMSA actually does not cost the city any money at all. Even the water bill money is optional and costs individual water customers. And on top of all the, EMSA paid the city of tulsa more than 1.5 million dollars last year to assist with the "first" responders. Now they did not know where this money went but it ended up in the general fund and ultimatley was lost with all of the other mis-spent money in this city. I do agree both agencies should not be dispatched all the time. TFD "self dispatches" by listen to EMSA's calls. It is not necessary to have a fire truck at every scene.....

I wouldn't vote for Dewey for sanitation officer.  But, hey, he wouldn't be competent to push the little cart around and use the broom.

Yep, the financial crunch was coming no matter what.  It's what is done after the fact that determines the class, or lack thereof in city management.  The officers should have been allowed to undue the severance and go back to the conditions existing before the "layoff".  It may be legal, but it certainly isn't moral the way they were treated.

And isn't it the Neo-Cons who stress appreciation for the police, fire and military SOOO much more than a progressive??  And when push comes to shove we see their true colors.

Come on people; we depend on these people to do the jobs that are nominally a buffer between us and chaos!!  Why be so chicken-s*** to them??  I personally would rather pay the extra penny (half penny?) for THAT than the Crashship!!

Quote from: Jason on August 16, 2010, 06:23:24 PM
And you are wrong. TFD has tried multiple times to come up with a plan for emergency medical response that would work as efficiently and more importantly work to the benefit of the patients. They have failed at everyt turn. You might be interested to know that EMSA actually does not cost the city any money at all. Even the water bill money is optional and costs individual water customers. And on top of all the, EMSA paid the city of tulsa more than 1.5 million dollars last year to assist with the "first" responders. Now they did not know where this money went but it ended up in the general fund and ultimatley was lost with all of the other mis-spent money in this city. I do agree both agencies should not be dispatched all the time. TFD "self dispatches" by listen to EMSA's calls. It is not necessary to have a fire truck at every scene.....

Figure the math on this:

EMSA takes in about $4.8M/yr or $24M over 5 years
It was estimated that TFD doing the ambulance work would cost an additional $3M over 5yrs
Instead of that, we pay EMSA to pay TFD $8M over five years for duplicate service.