While I thought the term "new math" was forgotten. Our Mayor and Chief of staff keep inventing new ones.
About 5 years ago, the mayor's office had a roughly $1M budget and paid for Lafortune and staff.
Kathy Taylor took office and refused her salary. The office kept the same roughly $1M budget and used the unused salary money to hire some higher salary staffers. When the economy was tanking she cut back on her staff so the FY09/10 budget wouldn't go over.
Dewey Bartlett took over and hired some of the best paid staff in the history of the city as well as took his own salary. Now we are near the end of the year and to no-one's surprise, his office is broke. He says he needs $120,000 and that is "because this mayor is taking a salary"
Lie #1 - The $120,000 is needed to pay Dewey:
Dewey's salary started in the middle of the fiscal year, and he took an 80% pay cut which means his salary only accounts for about $65,000
Lie #2 - The budget should be increased because the Mayor is taking a salary:
The budget was not DECREASED when KT refused the salary so there is no justification to increase it.
Lie #3 - He has to pay his staffers the large salaries to get them to work there:
His highest paid staffer is earning double what his last job paid and his second-highest paid is earning 20% more than he was paid at the last job he was fired from.
Lie #4 - The City Council cannot refuse the request due to the city charter:
The city charter requires the Mayor's office to be funded, but it still has a budget. There is no "pay people as much as you want" clause.
Lie #5 - The City Council has no choice, they can't just work people unpaid:
the Mayor's office has known they were burning money too fast for months and tried to get an increase months ago to cover for it. The Council's hand is not forced due to a man-made crisis. Waiting until the last minute like this is a bad poker move and the last poker move they tried (with the FOP and the federal grant money) didn't turn out well either.
Lie #6 - The Mayor's office still has open spots, which means they have cut back:
The Mayor can hire up to 16 people and has a $1.1M budget for salaries. It's like a 3yr/36,000mile warranty, your limit is whichever number you hit first.
Thanks Scott, that's just the type of factual info I expected someone from here to share, it's the truth and I'm glad the council voted NO toinght. The reality is EVERY department was underfunded this year, and EVERY department did what they had to do to meet budget, paycuts or layoffs, it was across the board. I'm so sick of the lies . . . .
Story on the rejection:
http://krmg.com/localnews/2010/05/tulsa-city-council-rejects-may.html
Quote of the day:
A clarification was also given by Councilor Bill Christiansen about calling Bird and two other members of the mayor's staff "Sidewinders." Christiansen says he was referring to left handed baseball pitchers and not the snake.
Really wish I could have made it for this one
What is really sad about this situation is that we are only in month five of a four year term! I am tired of this mayor trying to throw Mayor Kathy Taylor under the bus every chance he gets - she kept a balanced budget - Mayor Bill LaFortune kept a balanced budget! And have you noticed that every time a city issue comes up - this guy is out of town. How many trips has he taken since he has come into office? I think he has taken a trip once a week since December. How can I find out??
Could Mark Perkins honestly have done a worse job? Is anyone else finally convinced that Bartlet (sic) was a proxy for Terry Simonson and that he's a part-time mayor? Anyone else pissed off at the size of the salaries the GOP cronies are getting out of this?
We didn't want Simonson as mayor, that's why he FAILED in two mayoral campaigns.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 21, 2010, 08:09:43 AM
Could Mark Perkins honestly have done a worse job? Is anyone else finally convinced that Bartlet (sic) was a proxy for Terry Simonson and that he's a part-time mayor? Anyone else pissed off at the size of the salaries the GOP cronies are getting out of this?
We didn't want Simonson as mayor, that's why he FAILED in two mayoral campaigns.
Bingo! I met Simonson when he was assistant to Dick Crawford back in the mid-1980s. It was a similar situation. Some of you will remember that Crawford was never very sure about what city he lived in. He was kind of a good-natured bumbler. Simonson ran the place but never accomplished anything. Perhaps I expect too much.
Since I'm sure he is not the only reliable party member available, I've always wondered why Republican office-holders keep him around. It is obviously not for his legal expertise. Can anyone closer to the Republican establishment shed some light on this?
It's a shame Tom Adelson wasn't elected. Hope he runs again as well as Mark Perkins.
No one is looking at the "big picture"..
The little "Bird child" needs some new shoes. With the absence of the $120K they will have to go barefoot and their Daddy will have to continue working in the Brownfields.
Have a little mercy for "Skeet" won't you?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 21, 2010, 08:09:43 AM
Could Mark Perkins honestly have done a worse job? Is anyone else finally convinced that Bartlet (sic) was a proxy for Terry Simonson and that he's a part-time mayor? Anyone else pissed off at the size of the salaries the GOP cronies are getting out of this?
We didn't want Simonson as mayor, that's why he FAILED in two mayoral campaigns.
Frankly, none of this surprises me.
Bartlett is another in a long line of so-called conservatives who do conservative things ... except when it actually has to apply to him.
Quote from: SXSW on May 21, 2010, 08:37:40 AM
It's a shame Tom Adelson wasn't elected. Hope he runs again as well as Mark Perkins.
I was a supporter of Adelson when he announced. I also voted for him in his Senatorial campaigns. His mayoral campaign rapidly became a train wreck when he got sucked into the mud-slinging. I think he proved he did not have the temperament to be mayor. As well, there are now sound bites with him claiming to be a proud liberal Democrat. Tulsa has no problem voting for Democrats when it comes to city and state level office, but Democrats in this state would be Republicans in most any other. Tulsa voters will never elect someone who is so openly liberal, by their own account. I was incredibly disappointed how his campaign turned out.
I've not heard anything out of Perkins, whom I voted for, since right after the election. They sent out an email saying he wasn't done by a long shot and to expect to hear more from him.
KT tired of taking the blame . .
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0510/738309.html
Out of curiosity I wanted to look up the procedures for recalling the mayor, if the public was so inclined, and I can't find anything in the charter for this. DId someone forget to include this when the charter was written or am I just not looking in the right area?
Article VII, Section 1.2, City Charter:
GROUNDS FOR RECALL.
Any elected officer may be recalled as provided in this article for any of the following reasons:
A. Willful failure or neglect to diligently and faithfully perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by law;
B. Intoxication in any public place within the city produced by any substance or combination of substances voluntarily taken;
C. Commission of any act constituting a violation of any penal statute involving moral turpitude. Such an act has been committed, within the meaning of this Section, when the officer involved has been convicted thereof by a court of record;
D. Habitual or willful neglect of duty;
E. Gross partiality in office;
F. Oppression in office;
G. Corruption in office;
H. Extortion or willful overcharge of fees in office;
I. Willful maladministration;
J. Habitual drunkenness; or
K. Failure to produce and account for all public funds and property in his hands, at any settlement or inspection authorized or required by law.
SECTION 2.1 PROCEDURE FOR RECALL. If the officer sought to be recalled was elected from the city at large, a preliminary petition for recall of the elected officer must contain the signatures of qualified electors residing in the city equal in number to five percent (5%) of all those voting for the affected office in the last preceding general election.
I have a petition that is already being circulated. Now that the citizens can see if this isn't just about "greedy police" maybe its time to close the deal and get the recall going. If nothing else, I hope it would send a message to DB. Of course, I'm naive enough to believe he wants to be a good mayor, each day that passes, I'm proven wrong. PM me, I'd be happy to mail you a copy for you to sign and others if interested. One of these days I'll be collecting signatures at the driller's game. Wish I'd had it at Bedlam, the mayor was just a few rows behind me, how funny would that have been to be collecting signatures and come upon him. I feel sorry for him, but I can't let that stop me for pursuing change before its too late.
of course, I was looking at the ordinances instead of the charter (Mental note, click the link that says "charter" above the ordinances next time). So it would take a pitition of 3342 signatures to get the process started. How many are you up to there tf?
Quote from: tulsa_fan on May 21, 2010, 01:59:32 PM
I have a petition that is already being circulated. Now that the citizens can see if this isn't just about "greedy police" maybe its time to close the deal and get the recall going. If nothing else, I hope it would send a message to DB. Of course, I'm naive enough to believe he wants to be a good mayor, each day that passes, I'm proven wrong. PM me, I'd be happy to mail you a copy for you to sign and others if interested. One of these days I'll be collecting signatures at the driller's game. Wish I'd had it at Bedlam, the mayor was just a few rows behind me, how funny would that have been to be collecting signatures and come upon him. I feel sorry for him, but I can't let that stop me for pursuing change before its too late.
Feel sorry for him? Didn't we have a warning of how Mayor Bartlet (sic) conducted his fiscal affairs via his divorce documents which were aired during the campaign? Why did we think he'd run the city any different than his personal finances. He's used to being able to spend all he likes then hit the well for a little more.
I'm also tired of his deft demeanor. "I'm not quite sure of that..." seems to be his standard response.
I guess he comes across as such as whimp, I feel badly for him. People who are bully, strong willed, I can get pissed at them. I don't know why I just keep thinking he is in over his head and I bet he wishes he had a way out. I am finally believing he is a follower and is being driven by others, but he is fully aware of what he is doing and doesn't care. Trust me, I'm not a very good person to piss off. :)
I actually laughed about the Wade/Ms. Bartlett deal, I confronted Bartlett's daughter once and mentioned she might want to keep her voice down in public places while discussing politics, not everyone things her dad is so wonderful (she had been trash talking the FOP and the police) well, Victoria piped up and spouted things that weren't true. I just told her I didn't come over to intrude on their family dinner, I just asked they be more respectful of people around them in the future. Victoria likes to run her mouth but is drinking the same koolaid as DB. DB didn't say a word. That was wise of him, I would have wiped the table with him, I can actually argue with him, because I know fact and not the spin he puts in the media.
Anyway, long response to why I feel sorry for him . . . ha ha
Where would i verify this? His budget was 1.1 million right? So he's saying without the extra money the mayor's office will only spend roughly, $900,000? This came from kotv.com:
Even with the new spending money, the mayor's office would be taking a 9.2% cut for the year, while other departments averaged 8.7%.
Without new spending money, the mayor's office will take an 18.6% cut - more than twice as much as everyone else.
From what I can understand they spent all 1.1 million and needed another 120k, which is total BS from what he said above.
so, exciting reading for a friday night, anyone know what a "personal services account" means? ? Here for February shows the Mayors office overspent its estimate by 20k
Fund estimate actual over/est cumulated (over)
MAYOR $76,417 $97,885 ($21,468) ($55,753) February
MAYOR $76,417 $96,674 ($20,257) ($34,285) January
MAYOR $76,417 $90,554 ($14,137) ($14,027) December
MAYOR $76,417 $70,781 $5,636 $110 November
MAYOR $82,167 $78,246 $3,921 ($5,527) October
Looks to be the new mayor has spent significantly more per month than the previous mayor, even with several less staff members . . . also looks to me like KT lived within her budget, she left him with $110 credit when he took office.
Remind me why the newspaper doesn't report this kind of stuff?
Quote from: tulsa_fan on May 21, 2010, 10:14:19 PM
so, exciting reading for a friday night, anyone know what a "personal services account" means? ? Here for February shows the Mayors office overspent its estimate by 20k
Fund estimate actual over/est cumulated (over)
MAYOR $76,417 $97,885 ($21,468) ($55,753) February
MAYOR $76,417 $96,674 ($20,257) ($34,285) January
MAYOR $76,417 $90,554 ($14,137) ($14,027) December
MAYOR $76,417 $70,781 $5,636 $110 November
MAYOR $82,167 $78,246 $3,921 ($5,527) October
Looks to be the new mayor has spent significantly more per month than the previous mayor, even with several less staff members . . . also looks to me like KT lived within her budget, she left him with $110 credit when he took office.
Remind me why the newspaper doesn't report this kind of stuff?
They did report he might open a fireworks stand to raise money.
Didn't they endorse him?
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 22, 2010, 02:19:22 PM
They did report he might open a fireworks stand to raise money.
Didn't they endorse him?
Sale of firework within city is prohibited by ordnance so city sales taxes would not be collected on out of city sale. Still one might say he has plenty of fire works going off every day.
;D
I'm hearing rumors of pay-to-park on the downtown streets until 8pm and controlled by American parking. Is there truth to this?
Ah, nevermind. It's true. Super
Talk about buzzkill. Is there any limit to the depth of poor decisionmaking this city is capable of?
Isn't that nice. Is the private company also going to be maintaining the streets, or are we once again privatizing income and socializing costs?
The price increase is the only part of this I don't find ridiculous. I buy the argument that it's necessary to prevent people from parking at a meter all day. I don't see the good in either privatizing the parking or extending the hours.
I have a question based on an assumption. How is letting American parking manage the meters and taking a cut cheaper then managing them ourselves? If using this private company is cheaper I want to know why we aren't more effective.
The price increase I don't care about, but the idea street parking is now going to make a private company money bothers me to an extent.
I also want to know what a private company can do to enforce this.
It is absolutely not cheaper, but that doesn't matter. Outsourcing looks good whether it delivers the goods or not. A great many of the outsourcing deals we've seen in private enterprise cost more than they save, but shareholders don't dig that deep. Why do you think that the health insurance industry feared the public option so much? It is because they can't compete with it in terms of price or service. But ideology trumps all.
Most of this was not only predictable but was predicted before the city elections. Tulsans vote for members of the oligarchy, not that I would ever suggest anyone vote for a vacuous grandstander like Chris Medlock. But aside from Medlock there were other, smarter options. Tulsa voters chose Dewey Bartlett and instead got Terry Simonson.
Quote from: godboko71 on May 23, 2010, 11:37:51 PM
I have a question based on an assumption. How is letting American parking manage the meters and taking a cut cheaper then managing them ourselves? If using this private company is cheaper I want to know why we aren't more effective.
The price increase I don't care about, but the idea street parking is now going to make a private company money bothers me to an extent.
Quote from: godboko71 on May 23, 2010, 11:37:51 PM
I have a question based on an assumption. How is letting American parking manage the meters and taking a cut cheaper then managing them ourselves? If using this private company is cheaper I want to know why we aren't more effective.
The price increase I don't care about, but the idea street parking is now going to make a private company money bothers me to an extent.
A private company would actually replace the batteries in the meters.
P.S. Free parking next to the PAC directly across the street from City Hall.
If I went DT to one of the bars or restaurants for happy hour at 5:30 and found out I'd have to pay $2.50 to park on the street and that money was going to American Parking, I'd have to pass and go to Brookside or Cherry Street. I'm not saying every time but it'd dissuade me from going to downtown businesses on many evenings.
I've wanted the removal of American Parking ever since I'd noticed how terrible all their parking lots looked and how much they charge for events. I'm assuming the 8:00pm push is so that their lots will be used more often which I think is crap.
AP is notoriously cheap in the upkeep of their properties- bare minimum only.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2010, 01:52:39 PM
AP is notoriously cheap in the upkeep of their properties- bare minimum only.
Does AP run the 100 West garage (the one just east of the BOK autobank)? It's usually in pretty good shape, although it is fairly new.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2010, 01:52:39 PM
AP is notoriously cheap in the upkeep of their properties- bare minimum only.
I used to park at the old Tulsa Auto Hotel. I was leaving one morning and there was a homeless guy taking a wiz in the corner by the big bay door in front of a couple of cars. I told the "security" guard (who was sitting in the office not 20 feet from the homeless guy) about it and he says "what do you want me to do about it?" So I called American's office and told them what happened and got just the same response from them about the "guard".
Buck and hour means a addition to where it will be two bucks and one half an hour. Seem that the city is building another main street mall with all the different non producing city planners. The increase parking fee will be reflected in the shopping malls with increased sales and free parking. If the private operation of the parking causes increase of parking citations, which the citizens are being prepared for, that will be another problem. Some one should float a petition for the IDL group de-annex the city and let the citizens hire a city managers to operate the city. Privatizing cannot operate functions of a city cheaper that even with its bloated duplication of duties of the departments that go unchallenged.
I'm sure all the other departments are happy about this:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100525_11_0_hrimgs270073&allcom=1
Quote
Mayor Dewey Bartlett announced Tuesday that he will reassign his Mayor's Office staff to other city departments with fund balances so that they can be paid through the end of the fiscal year.
The council last week unanimously refused to give him an extra $120,000 to make his executive office payroll through June 30, saying he needed to live within the $1.1 million budget originally allocated.
Bartlett informed councilors of his decision during the council's morning committee meetings. The power to reassign employees by executive order is given to him by the City Charter.
The action will ensure that the Mayor's Office will not suffer a shut down, he said.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 25, 2010, 12:03:11 PM
I'm sure all the other departments are happy about this:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100525_11_0_hrimgs270073&allcom=1
Well it'll give all the other departments a reason to ask for budget increases next fiscal period. "We might have extra employees to pay for."
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 25, 2010, 12:03:11 PM
I'm sure all the other departments are happy about this:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100525_11_0_hrimgs270073&allcom=1
So going to steal from Peter to pay Paul. Hmmm... since they are going to be in the other departments, does that mean that the department heads can give them pay cuts so that the department budgets can be met?
Dewey Bartlett is an donkey. He overspends, but rather than tighten his belt like everybody else is having to do, he forces the other departments to pay for the mayor's overpaid employees.
Previously, I just thought he was a moron. I now think he's malicious.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2010, 01:57:51 PM
Dewey Bartlett is an donkey. He overspends, but rather than tighten his belt like everybody else is having to do, he forces the other departments to pay for the mayor's overpaid employees.
Previously, I just thought he was a moron. I now think he's malicious.
Were we not warned about this pattern in his personal and professional life? I hope he and
Mayor er Chief of Staff Simonson enjoy their one term as mayor. Gawd this is a horrible and arrogant administration.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 02:59:35 PM
Were we not warned about this pattern in his personal and professional life? I hope he and Mayor er Chief of Staff Simonson enjoy their one term as mayor. Gawd this is a horrible and arrogant administration.
One term? Are you sure he is going to make it that far? I think that petition is going to start seeing even more signatures on it.
Should've elected Adelson...
The budget situation wouldn't be any rosier but I have confidence Tom would've handled this much better.
Where do I sign the petition?
Tom's, one mistake, was taking the advice to start slinging cr@p..
Pass the petition this way!
Quote from: SXSW on May 25, 2010, 04:54:20 PM
The budget situation wouldn't be any rosier but I have confidence Tom would've handled this much better.
Well, we'd probably have somewhere in the ballpark of $300,000 more than we have now, since we wouldn't have done the police department shuffle. And it's possible Adelson wouldn't have hired more people than his office could afford on its budget, thus saving the $120,000 now being looted from other city departments.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2010, 05:39:13 PM
Well, we'd probably have somewhere in the ballpark of $300,000 more than we have now, since we wouldn't have done the police department shuffle. And it's possible Adelson wouldn't have hired more people than his office could afford on its budget, thus saving the $120,000 now being looted from other city departments.
Hopefully voters remember this in 2013, if not sooner...
I am still surprised Dewey won over Adelson. And very happy how many votes upstart Mark Perkins received. That's an interesting question, how would Mark Perkins be running the city right now? Better than Dewey I bet.
Quote from: SXSW on May 25, 2010, 10:59:06 PM
Hopefully voters remember this in 2013, if not sooner...
I am still surprised Dewey won over Adelson. And very happy how many votes upstart Mark Perkins received. That's an interesting question, how would Mark Perkins be running the city right now? Better than DeweySimonson I bet.
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 26, 2010, 06:48:59 AM
Fixed it for you.
It's likely trained monkeys could run the ci....wait a minute....
Quote from: SXSW on May 25, 2010, 10:59:06 PM
Hopefully voters remember this in 2013, if not sooner...
I am still surprised Dewey won over Adelson. And very happy how many votes upstart Mark Perkins received. That's an interesting question, how would Mark Perkins be running the city right now? Better than Dewey I bet.
I started out as an Adelson supporter and moved over to Perkins after Tom had his public melt-down. I suspect Tom would have retained some of Mayor Taylor's staff and kept her fiscal policies pretty much intact.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
I started out as an Adelson supporter and moved over to Perkins after Tom had his public melt-down. I suspect Tom would have retained some of Mayor Taylor's staff and kept her fiscal policies pretty much intact.
Of course, Perkins also had a bit of a meltdown the week before the election. Remember that awful video he made to address criticism leveled at him? ... the video that was so bad and disheveled that it was pulled?
And what has Perkins even done since November? Anything?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 26, 2010, 10:06:43 AM
Of course, Perkins also had a bit of a meltdown the week before the election. Remember that awful video he made to address criticism leveled at him? ... the video that was so bad and disheveled that it was pulled?
And what has Perkins even done since November? Anything?
He went on vacation. In politics it's best to lay low and keep your mouth shut and wait for the recent winner to do stupid things. Of course, not sure what he's waiting on in this case.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 26, 2010, 10:06:43 AM
Of course, Perkins also had a bit of a meltdown the week before the election. Remember that awful video he made to address criticism leveled at him? ... the video that was so bad and disheveled that it was pulled?
And what has Perkins even done since November? Anything?
I confess I did not see the video. There was no way I could vote for Bartlet (sic) as I could pretty much figure out how the office would be run, I suspected he would spend a fair amount of time tending to Keener Oil & Gas, and I think that's what's happened and why Simonson is pretty much running the city. I think Sen. Adelson has been a good advocate for Tulsa in the state Senate, I seriously started to doubt his administrative skills under pressure. That's a major requirement to be a mayor of a city the size of Tulsa. In Bartlet's (sic) case, he seems oblivious enough that he can lay that pressure off on Mayor Simonson and the rest of the executive staff.
People gave Mayor Taylor a hard time about having a residence in Ft. Lauderdale and spending a fair amount of time there. There was never a point in her administration though that I ever felt her attention was divided. She's probably one of the more driven people I've met in my life. I detested her from before she was elected until about a year into her term when I had the opportunity to actually meet her, attend meetings with her, and have her help with some projects. Her work ethic was amazing and I truly feel like she had Tulsa's best interests at heart even if some things didn't make a whole lot of sense to the average middle class Tulsa citizen.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 26, 2010, 10:17:41 AM
I confess I did not see the video. There was no way I could vote for Bartlet (sic) as I could pretty much figure out how the office would be run, I suspected he would spend a fair amount of time tending to Keener Oil & Gas, and I think that's what's happened and why Simonson is pretty much running the city. I think Sen. Adelson has been a good advocate for Tulsa in the state Senate, I seriously started to doubt his administrative skills under pressure. That's a major requirement to be a mayor of a city the size of Tulsa. In Bartlet's (sic) case, he seems oblivious enough that he can lay that pressure off on Mayor Simonson and the rest of the executive staff.
People gave Mayor Taylor a hard time about having a residence in Ft. Lauderdale and spending a fair amount of time there. There was never a point in her administration though that I ever felt her attention was divided. She's probably one of the more driven people I've met in my life. I detested her from before she was elected until about a year into her term when I had the opportunity to actually meet her, attend meetings with her, and have her help with some projects. Her work ethic was amazing and I truly feel like she had Tulsa's best interests at heart even if some things didn't make a whole lot of sense to the average middle class Tulsa citizen.
I agree with you about Taylor. And I agree with you about Bartlett and Adelson.
As for the video, my God ... you could tell that Perkins seems to be on the verge of a breakdown. I'm sure that one of his supporters begged him to pull it because of reactions like mine. Any thought from me of voting for him vanished when I saw it.
When's the next lunch? I'll do my best to make it and bring thep petition to sign for the recall!!!
I haven't seen it yet, but I am pretty sure money to pay for his staff is going to come from the police department since they are under even their reduced budget, how lovely, we can't bring even one officer back, but we can pay for his staff . . . URGH!
Quote from: tulsa_fan on May 26, 2010, 10:31:57 AM
When's the next lunch? I'll do my best to make it and bring thep petition to sign for the recall!!!
I haven't seen it yet, but I am pretty sure money to pay for his staff is going to come from the police department since they are under even their reduced budget, how lovely, we can't bring even one officer back, but we can pay for his staff . . . URGH!
During the period the Tulsa World was preparing to
demo the Skelly Building..... There was a Forum member that had the "Petition vs. Demolition" posted on the net. Sgrizzle would remember the details.
Why can we not post the Petition to do away with the current regime in the same way?
For the first time, since I moved back to Tulsa, I have been looking at moving.
I don't know that I can stand this fellow over a full term.
I knwo there are a lot of people out there looking for a recall petition to sign. Perhaps a petition signing party would get quiet a few signatures, especially if you can get the word out.
Quote from: Rico on May 26, 2010, 12:41:37 PM
During the period the Tulsa World was preparing to demo the Skelly Building..... There was a Forum member that had the "Petition vs. Demolition" posted on the net. Sgrizzle would remember the details.
Why can we not post the Petition to do away with the current regime in the same way?
For the first time, since I moved back to Tulsa, I have been looking at moving.
I don't know that I can stand this fellow over a full term.
As I understand it, online petitions are not valid in legal matters... nor did they save Firefly.
Twenty years ago the people were so proud of their change of government by a long campaign and two attempts to institute a strong mayor/weak council. You have got the strong mayor who has the authority under charter to hire 16 "at will" employees (patronage rewards) not subject to the civil service department. Now if the council calls his bluff on additional budget changes and he appoints these patronage persons to other departments will their employment be subject to the civil service department? Would they become permanent city employees?