http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100624_11_0_TheCit170755
QuoteThe council also decided Thursday to discuss in the near future of Councilor Roscoe Turner's proposal to change to a council-city manager form of city government.
Turner wants the proposal also to be on the November ballot as a City Charter amendment.
Councilor Jack Henderson said the advantage of having a city manager is that the person would be a professional who knows how to run a city.
He noted that many cities have that form of government.
Henderson said anyone can run for mayor, whether or not they know what they're doing, and "then you get stuck
with that person for four years, and that is who is running the city."
A city manager would be hired on the basis of his or her qualifications, he said. Henderson said a council can fire a city manager if it doesn't like the manger's performance.
"In this form of government the mayor would be a city councilor and the council would have more power than what it has today" under the current strong-mayor system, he said.
A group of about a dozen people gathered in front of City Hall on Thursday to show their support of Mayor Dewey Bartlett and their opposition to changing the city's form of government.
"We want to be able to vote on our officials and not have someone hired by the council," which would allow for no checks and balances, Deborah Sweetin said.
Tulsa changed from a city commission to a strong-mayor form of government in 1989.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100624_11_0_TheCit170755
I'm on the fence on this one based on current experience with how the city is being run. It sounds as if the way the council is conceptualizing the city manager's position is that person would be their personal b!tch. What happens if the citizenry doesn't like the city manager or the city manager is totally incompetent but the council refuses to fire them? That's what makes me uncomfortable with the concept.
The closest thing we have to that now is Charles Hardt and no one is willing to fire him no matter how much scandal and incompetence comes out of Public Works.
There again, what have we gotten with Mayor Bartlet (sic)? He's obviously a shill for Unelected Mayor (Whom I will now bestow the title "UM Simonson" in conversation here) Simonson. At least we can vote them out in another three years and hopefully whomever the successor is won't be so bold as to re-hire UM Simonson.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 09:01:07 AM
I'm on the fence on this one based on current experience with how the city is being run. It sounds as if the way the council is conceptualizing the city manager's position is that person would be their personal b!tch. What happens if the citizenry doesn't like the city manager or the city manager is totally incompetent but the council refuses to fire them? That's what makes me uncomfortable with the concept.
The closest thing we have to that now is Charles Hardt and no one is willing to fire him no matter how much scandal and incompetence comes out of Public Works.
There again, what have we gotten with Mayor Bartlet (sic)? He's obviously a shill for Unelected Mayor (Whom I will now bestow the title "UM Simonson" in conversation here) Simonson. At least we can vote them out in another three years and hopefully whomever the successor is won't be so bold as to re-hire UM Simonson.
I, like you, have not made a decision on this. The facts are not all in.
True, what voice would the Citizens have in this?
The Council, circa Medlock, came up with a proposal to add several Councilors at large. The addition of these Councilors at the time was not well received and was believed to have been the "good ole boys" trying to have full control of the Council.
Changes to the number of Councilors per District could offer a balance to a City Managers post.
Other cities in the area and throughout the country have benefited greatly from having a City Manager.
I honestly believe the current system benefits and represents fewer and is laden with personal preference rather than "The big picture".
There, is absolutely No reason the City of Tulsa could not move forward by leaps and bounds.
Small minded, personal agenda, political punks have had the wheel far to long.
I am done waiting on a miracle prodigal son.
If the City Manager could throw out the trash without naming his social and political crony to some lifelong, well paid position for us to endure I am for it.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/DemoTime.jpg)
Tulsa needs to move ahead. Be done with the "Oil Royalty" ruling class and their agenda to make money for their dynasty through debt paid by the taxes in this town.
If that sounds anything like Friendly Bear I apologize.
Thought a picture would add some relief to a boring political soap opera
I like the Queen for a day concept.
Sell lottery tickets and the winner gets to be Mayor/CityManager/Godfather for that day.
I would buy a ticket.
I concur with Rico. But I would support the change to city manager as long as it is done with some intelligence. That's the rub though. Hard to find common sense, intelligence and non-political thinking around this city. It works for smaller cities but we aren't a smaller city.
The strongest argument for it is the wide sweep of the last few mayors. From gung ho corporate activist style to benign inneffective cronyism, these are just politicians moving through the process. THey may have the vision thing, but they don't have the operations skills that trained city manager's possess.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 25, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
I like the Queen for a day concept.
Sell lottery tickets and the winner gets to be Mayor/CityManager/Godfather for that day.
I would buy a ticket.
You just had to go there...
(http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_arts_john/042509crackedice.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 10:10:36 AM
You just had to go there...
(http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_arts_john/042509crackedice.jpg)
OK, now to find the Pepto....looks like Doctor Frankenfurter goes to the prom.
Quote from: waterboy on June 25, 2010, 10:09:34 AM
I concur with Rico. But I would support the change to city manager as long as it is done with some intelligence. That's the rub though. Hard to find common sense, intelligence and non-political thinking around this city. It works for smaller cities but we aren't a smaller city.
The strongest argument for it is the wide sweep of the last few mayors. From gung ho corporate activist style to benign inneffective cronyism, these are just politicians moving through the process. THey may have the vision thing, but they don't have the operations skills that trained city manager's possess.
My concept of "City Manager" has always centered around towns/cities the size of Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby. I was curious how that would work for a city the size of Tulsa and turns out San Antonio has such a position. This might be a good place to start to see how it's implimented in other areas with similar MSA's or even larger ones.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/manager/
I like the idea, as long as some checks are in place. The problem with most big cities (and companies) is that it's nearly impossible to make executive decisions by committee. Throw in political aspirations, and nothing gets done.
The City Manager concept removes much of the minutiae from the plate of the mayor and counsel, allowing them to focus on what is important rather than arguing over salt purchases and truck tires.
Chamber arguments and grandstanding related to politics, and the embarrassing press that follows, could be greatly diminished.
I'm sure there are some disadvantages that we need to explore, but there are many very successful cities larger than Tulsa that employ this structure. We should probably spend some time interviewing them.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 10:13:42 AM
My concept of "City Manager" has always centered around towns/cities the size of Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby. I was curious how that would work for a city the size of Tulsa and turns out San Antonio has such a position. This might be a good place to start to see how it's implimented in other areas with similar MSA's or even larger ones.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/manager/
Oklahoma City is one too. The mayor there is really only a figurehead. He's an at large city councilor that leads the council, not the head of the city. The council hires a city manager to run the city.
http://www.okc.gov/council/index.html
While I don't argue that something needs to change, I am not sure a city manager hired and fired by the city council is any better.
I have worked for ten different communities that have this form of local government. I have seen very good city managers fired in 48 hours because they said something to one councilor who got a few others to agree to be outraged. I have seen city manager firings used as a campaign promise by council candidates. I have seen city manager firings for political blame for things out of their hands like floods.
Being a city manager for a town with a contentious city council is a terrible job.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 25, 2010, 01:44:32 PM
While I don't argue that something needs to change, I am not sure a city manager hired and fired by the city council is any better.
I have worked for ten different communities that have this form of local government. I have seen very good city managers fired in 48 hours because they said something to one councilor who got a few others to agree to be outraged. I have seen city manager firings used as a campaign promise by council candidates. I have seen city manager firings for political blame for things out of their hands like floods.
Being a city manager for a town with a contentious city council is a terrible job.
Very well said RM, and where I work fits last line of your comment.
That's a good point RM, but that IS the point.
City Manager is a terrible job. It is unlike most other public sector positions in that you have a very good chance of getting fired for poor performance. Politicking or pandering will get you canned too. Show weakness and you're out. Get into a pi$$ing match with a counsel member, and bye bye. It's a lot like a private sector position. . .COO of a public company.
City Managers are typically paid very well making dealing with idiots more tolerable. Good city managers keep their heads down and work very hard. They have to be detached from opinion and politics. They go into the job knowing it's a mine-field. They are goldfish in a blender. Very efficient goldfish.
When they're ineffective they are replaced. No term limits, just a contract.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 02:26:46 PM
That's a good point RM, but that IS the point.
City Manager is a terrible job. It is unlike most other public sector positions in that you have a very good chance of getting fired for poor performance. Politicking or pandering will get you canned too. Show weakness and you're out. Get into a pi$$ing match with a counsel member, and bye bye. It's a lot like a private sector position. . .COO of a public company.
City Managers are typically paid very well making dealing with idiots more tolerable. Good city managers keep their heads down and work very hard. They have to be detached from opinion and politics. They go into the job knowing it's a mine-field. They are goldfish in a blender. Very efficient goldfish.
When they're ineffective they are replaced. No term limits, just a contract.
So basically there's a contract which is either renewed or not at the option of the council, you are ringing some bells now. I don't know why that didn't occur to me. I guess because the way Tulsa is run is so massively screwed up, I automatically assume the worst possible outcome for the average citizen and the most insulation and protection for the idiot bureaucrat. 8)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 02:35:50 PM
So basically there's a contract which is either renewed or not at the option of the council, you are ringing some bells now. I don't know why that didn't occur to me. I guess because the way Tulsa is run is so massively screwed up, I automatically assume the worst possible outcome for the average citizen and the most insulation and protection for the idiot bureaucrat. 8)
Correct. It is also typically set in ink that the CM will not run for public office or accept a similar position in a competitive market. The idea is to eliminate the "bureaucratic" or political nature of the position. Most CMs are closer to analysts than public officials. They bury themselves in data and studies so that every decision they make can be backed up with precedent and firm ROI information.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 02:26:46 PM
Politicking or pandering will get you canned too...It's a lot like a private sector position. . .COO of a public company.
Not even close. The job is constant politicking and pandering. You are the most high-profile person in a community, but can't move without the council approving your every step.
Bixby, Glenpool, Broken Arrow and Sand Springs have had 20 city managers between them in the last 15 years. The job allows the council to look good and yet have a scapegoat in their pocket whenever they want.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 25, 2010, 04:29:13 PM
Not even close. The job is constant politicking and pandering. You are the most high-profile person in a community, but can't move without the council approving your every step.
Bixby, Glenpool, Broken Arrow and Sand Springs have had 20 city managers between them in the last 15 years. The job allows the council to look good and yet have a scapegoat in their pocket whenever they want.
Just like the CEO of a large corporation gets scapegoated by the chairmen.
If the City Manager sticks his head up, it usually gets knocked off. It's not a long term position, but still more efficient than constant chamber bickering and contrarianism.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2010, 04:34:54 PM
Just like the CEO of a large corporation gets scapegoated by the chairmen.
No it is not. A CEO of a large corporation is paid way more money than a city manager. He has many other benefits. A CEO also prepares his own budget, can hire and fire at will, and can control any message, even refusing to talk to the media.
A city manager often cannot even pick his own staff. Last year, the Bixby city council got mad at the city clerk and demanded that the city manager fire her. He said there was no wrongdoing and couldn't fire her without cause. Bixby councilors fired him instead.
You probably shouldn't use Bixby as an example....for anything. Small towns are notorious for their "Boss Hogg" mentalities. And as political and inept as Tulsa is, it has got to have better feed stock than Bixby (no offense Red). We could work on the concept and provide some guidelines for the position that protect it. Think of a city manager as a well paid CFO that has specific abilities and demonstrated success. Like a high quality football player who has a short term, no cut contract that is based on well defined benchmarks. Then if the benchmarks are met, he gets the contract renewed. Simple enough. I think of a particular personality that I knew from Cities Service who was that guy. People feared him because he knew what he was doing and didn't have time for bs.
I am not persuaded that it is any more a terrible job than being Mayor, Football Coach or any other high profile executive position. Pay him well but define the rules.
this has been a long time coming, I just didn't think it would come from Roscoe. This needs to happen for Tulsa. It may be the only way to get rid of Hardt and fix public works. It is also the best avenue to bring planning back under the city. City managers, as has already been mentioned are really analysts....and really chief planners. When this does pass, I don't know of any manager that would take the job without knowing that planning would be under his domain.
You have exhibit A of what the good ole boy network can produce as a leader already in office right now. It is time to break the cycle of million dollar elections that put doofuses in office.
Quote from: waterboy on June 25, 2010, 06:50:45 PM
You probably shouldn't use Bixby as an example....for anything. Small towns are notorious for their "Boss Hogg" mentalities. And as political and inept as Tulsa is, it has got to have better feed stock than Bixby (no offense Red).
None taken. I am aware that Bixby is small town politics.
I would rather do away with the city council and go back to Water & Sewer and Street Comissioners.....
we already have that de facto in Charles Hardt....and you can see how well that is working out for us.
My first thought in hearing about this idea is simple...
It is a power grab by the city council when they have to negotiate with another ELECTED official, with whom a majority of them disagree, and come up with compromise solutions to complex problems.
This is how government is designed to work in this country, from the Federal government on down, a balance of power and with checks and balances is the safest form of government for human beings.
This council seemed very happy while Mayor Taylor was serving, and now when the "other" party has the post they would like to eleminate the job.
It is never a good idea to take the job of electing public servants away from the people and make it more political by giving it to a few people who "represent" the people.
This idea should stop dead right here.
the levels of ineptitude displayed from the mayor's office since January....and it pains me to say this...exceed the levels it took KKT to achieve in 4 years....all the while the real foisters and decievers get to continue tearing down Tulsa piece by piece.
Quote from: wildgoose on June 28, 2010, 06:27:32 PM
My first thought in hearing about this idea is simple...
It is a power grab by the city council when they have to negotiate with another ELECTED official, with whom a majority of them disagree, and come up with compromise solutions to complex problems.
This is how government is designed to work in this country, from the Federal government on down, a balance of power and with checks and balances is the safest form of government for human beings.
This council seemed very happy while Mayor Taylor was serving, and now when the "other" party has the post they would like to eleminate the job.
It is never a good idea to take the job of electing public servants away from the people and make it more political by giving it to a few people who "represent" the people.
This idea should stop dead right here.
What city have you lived in the last 12 years? This one has had pretty much a circus with the last half dozen mayors. They have butted heads with each and every council whether dem or repub.
Beware of simple thinking. Checks and balances have little to do with basic administration. The everyday stuff that keeps street lights on, medians mowed and public pools open. At a federal level this is not done by elected officials. This is hardly a power grab. The mayor could still be a powerful entity to deal with. And, perhaps his/her vision could be easier to define and accomplish with a professional keeping the utilities paid.
This would take some time and require studious planning in order to avoid increasing staff but it is well worth considering.
The difference, inteller, is that if Chas Hardt were Street Commissioner, he would have been thrown out of office years ago. Those old enough to remember the commission form of government in Tulsa know how much better it was and how much more accountable city govt was in general. The city has been in a downward spiral ever since the council form started.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on June 29, 2010, 09:31:14 PM
The difference, inteller, is that if Chas Hardt were Street Commissioner, he would have been thrown out of office years ago. Those old enough to remember the commission form of government in Tulsa know how much better it was and how much more accountable city govt was in general. The city has been in a downward spiral ever since the council form started.
Excelent Post.....
So, Breadburner, how do we get commission govt on the ballot? I can't believe there hasn't been a move to do this before ----
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on June 29, 2010, 09:31:14 PM
The difference, inteller, is that if Chas Hardt were Street Commissioner, he would have been thrown out of office years ago. Those old enough to remember the commission form of government in Tulsa know how much better it was and how much more accountable city govt was in general. The city has been in a downward spiral ever since the council form started.
You make an interesting point. One should note that the flood improvements, which some credit as being Hardt's greatest accomplishment, after the 1984 flood were largely concieved and completed under the old commissioner form of government.
I assume all it would take would be a charter amendment vote to change it back, but you are going to have nine councilors each protecting their own fiefdom who will do anything possible to keep that from happening.
As much as i liked the commissioner system, it reaked of special interests and disproportional representation. That's why we changed it to a councilor system so that each area of the city could have some representation. I think it was the result of a threatened lawsuit.
Quote from: waterboy on June 30, 2010, 02:37:48 PM
As much as i liked the commissioner system, it reaked of special interests and disproportional representation. That's why we changed it to a councilor system so that each area of the city could have some representation. I think it was the result of a threatened lawsuit.
How's that workin for us?
Quote from: waterboy on June 30, 2010, 02:37:48 PM
As much as i liked the commissioner system, it reaked of special interests and disproportional representation. That's why we changed it to a councilor system so that each area of the city could have some representation. I think it was the result of a threatened lawsuit.
Aside from the streets in the street commissioner's neighborhood always being pristine, where's your proof? ;D
The threatened lawsuit was a false threat utilized by Roger Randle for political objectives. They claimed that commission form govts were all going to be shut down. Didn't happen. All that happened was the demise of the city of Tulsa. The council system is completely broken. Penny ante councilors are easily swayed with everything from jet rides to threats from special interest groups like the FOP. Heavens, look at the quality of the council - most are simply amateurs. The results speak for themselves.
I would rather do away with the city council and go back to Water & Sewer and Street Comissioners.....
I agree with this... It is frightening to think of the city being run by or even more power given to the likes of Hendersen and Turner... When these guys dont get their way the get up and walk out of meetings like children. I am not disagreeing with the fact that our last few mayors were "lackluster", but giving the city to a bad council is not any better...
Henderson and Turner are no worse than the rest of them. Seems to me they are all shilling for the FOP, running for mayor themselves or just in COMPLETELY over their heads. NONE of them seem to be acting in the best interest of the city. Can't a great city like Tulsa do better than some of these people? It is pathetic, truly, and a tragedy for the good citizens of Tulsa.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Henderson and Turner are no worse than the rest of them. Seems to me they are all shilling for the FOP, running for mayor themselves or just in COMPLETELY over their heads. NONE of them seem to be acting in the best interest of the city. Can't a great city like Tulsa do better than some of these people? It is pathetic, truly, and a tragedy for the good citizens of Tulsa.
You get what you pay for...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 30, 2010, 03:02:35 PM
Aside from the streets in the street commissioner's neighborhood always being pristine, where's your proof? ;D
Proof? Really? Well, how about this. They were almost all white, middle to upper class men that came from south of 21st street or within the Maple Ridge area. No hispanics, few women (Eagleton is the only one I can recall), no blacks. Same went for the mayors as well. Hmmm.
There were city councils around the country just like ours that were threatened with lawsuits as well. Some changed, some didn't. The lawsuits didn't materialize because most saw the handwriting and the unfairness. As far as their competency, the same argument can be made throughout our legislative branches of government. Democracy just doesn't guarantee competence.
Then by all means, let us have incompetent government. Last time I checked everybody in the city has a vote. Any part of the city can affect the outcome by getting out and voting. Ward politics run by councilors elected by a handful of activists gets us just what we've got. And it is completely broken. I don't think that's good. Life isn't often fair, let's at least consider opting for things that work better, rather than worse.
Incompetent commissioners destroyed nearby north Tulsa and left it vacant for decades because they feared near northside crime. How'd that work for ya? It wasn't until the last few years that OSU Tulsa started redeveloping that area. Do you think a Northside councillor would allow that sort of thing in today's environment? Not likely.
Incompetent commissioners laid the foundation for 61st and Peoria which is now seeing a crime wave by allowing/encouraging intense densities of apartment complexes. Shadows has alluded to the roadbuilding during that period of time that lined the pockets of commissioners.
The system was unfair because the densest portions of Tulsa lay south of 21st street, East of the river and West of Memorial and no matter what the turnout in East Tulsa, North Tulsa or West Tulsa, it wasn't going to affect any election. Nobody on the ballots looked or sounded like anyone from those areas. The result was that those areas just didn't vote.
So, yeah, if it means all areas of the city have some representation but the city isn't quite as well run for South Tulsans as it used to be, then I'm okay with that.
Note: At one time, in the 1980's I think, my neighborhood was represented by the Mayor, the Fire Commissioner and the Streets Commissioner. And that was just a three block by 6 block area of town. They were what we called, "well heeled oilies". If we had just found some way to balance out the representation a little bit we could have made the commission system work. But no one had any way to do that.
Which councilor is it that you feel well represented by? I can't believe anyone is. I never get a response from inquiries to mine. He seems only to be interested in his political career. These people almost all seem to be driven by either some personal agenda or by some special interest behind them.
OSU Tulsa had virtually nothing to do with city govt. What little involvement was came from bond issues passed county wide and is not managed by the city.
61st and Peoria is a giant Federal screw-up and will never recover.
Its good that the council govt has solved the crime problems with north Tulsa and elsewhere and is managing the streets well.
The problem is there is no focus in this govt and no accountability. In the bad old days, we at least new how to effect change in segments of the city govt. I remember many times throwing out incumbent commissioners. It makes NO difference to turn out one fool councilor for another.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 03, 2010, 03:55:37 AM
Which councilor is it that you feel well represented by? I can't believe anyone is. I never get a response from inquiries to mine. He seems only to be interested in his political career. These people almost all seem to be driven by either some personal agenda or by some special interest behind them.
OSU Tulsa had virtually nothing to do with city govt. What little involvement was came from bond issues passed county wide and is not managed by the city.
61st and Peoria is a giant Federal screw-up and will never recover.
Its good that the council govt has solved the crime problems with north Tulsa and elsewhere and is managing the streets well.
The problem is there is no focus in this govt and no accountability. In the bad old days, we at least new how to effect change in segments of the city govt. I remember many times throwing out incumbent commissioners. It makes NO difference to turn out one fool councilor for another.
Like I said before, I guess we've lived in different cities the last 40years.
-Maria Barnes. She doesn't represent all my concerns, but definitely represents those of a disparate demographically diverse district (4 d's...cool). I'm sorry your district elected a regular politician.
-You are being naive to believe that OSU Tulsa just stood back and let others define their path. Obviously they were and are involved with planning in Tulsa. But my point is that it was under the commission system that urban renewal was targeted at near north Tulsa. There was crime there involving prostitution, gambling and drugs fed by the whole city. But they were homes built at the same time as north Maple Ridge and Tracy Park where there was also crime. Yet, The North side buildings were flattened and left fallow for years.
-61st and Peoria is a city legacy. The "biggest screw up" was only fueled by Federally backed low interest loans to greedy builders and developers who promptly ravished the land. The commissioners and mayors could have kept the densities more reasonable but our local govt. system (zoning boards, planning commissions, school boards)were dominated by builders who insisted that it was good for Tulsa to plunk a sewage treatment plant at the base of Turkey Mountain and within yards of the heaviest travelled artery into Tulsa so that they could then build apartments and homes for the baby boom generation. Their planned next step was to carve up Riverside neighborhoods with a high speed expressway to whisk people home from an explosively growing downtown. Some competent planners these guys were, eh? That is when folks started to note a problem with the system, when perfectly fine neighborhoods south of downtown were in jeopardy.
-So, all these problems which were created by mismanagement and failed planning during the commission form of govt. we had for decades who pretty much only listened to apartment builders, road builders, heavy construction companies and real estate companies,....are now the fault of a council form of govt.? Yeah, well, it is probably Bush and Clinton's fault too. ;) If our business cycle was on the upswing nationally many of these current infrastructure problems wouldn't be so obvious.
-As far as your last statement, well, you either believe in representative govt. or you don't. Most of our commissioners back then served at the leisure of the entities listed above. If they kept their social lives clean and served their masters wishes, they were pretty much assured a long career. We change representation now every few years. Many of the commissioners and board members were fine leaders, good at their jobs and quite responsive (if you were someone), but the system they operated in didn't work for the whole city and led us into some severe problems that we may never overcome.
I'm glad you are happy with Maria Barnes. Mine is definitely a politician sliding on the legacy of the Lafortune family in Tulsa govt. I have property all over the city, and I have not yet found a councilor interested in my concerns about anything - most recently blatant waste in road construction projects. Turns out that was a result of criminal activity. The councilor did not care - at all. I very much believe in representative govt. The difficulty with the current system is nobody is responsible for anything, and hence isn't representing anybody but themselves. Kinda keeps it from working. It's more like having no government at all.
Urban renewal was a plague visited upon most cities in the US. It was managed by unaccountable quasi-governmental entities. The latest variety of this disease is Planitulsa. The fact that it happened in commission govt years is hardly due only to that fact. I can say too, that the River Parks, Mohawk Park, the zoo, the PAC, the old convention center, the downtown library, thriving neighborhoods and schools and countless other things that make Tulsa the great city that it is in spite of its leadership today. We can trade points like this forever. The problem is the mess we have today.
The police department is out of control and generally non-responsive, unless one guy holes up in an apt and threatens to kill himself. 33(!) squad cars, an armored car and a swat team showed up and blocked off an entire Brookside neighborhood for half a day. NOTHING came of it. This was recently, during the "understaffed" period The darndest thing is I never found any news coverage on it. The local news seems to be cautious about exposing the pd for what it is. That is NOT understaffed.
The fire department is equally overstaffed.
I defy you to point to a councilor who is not beholden to or afraid of the fire and police unions, and is willing to try to deal with these problems.
The mayor - who was not my choice in the race - is the only one in this game who is trying to get a handle on any of this. Look what the council is doing to him. And in the middle of all the problems in the city, the council finds more energy to argue about gay discrimination and illegal immigration - hardly critical issues to the daily problems of running the city.
I'm sorry. You will not convince me. This is not working.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 03, 2010, 10:42:35 AM
The mayor - who was not my choice in the race - is the only one in this game who is trying to get a handle on any of this. Look what the council is doing to him. And in the middle of all the problems in the city, the council finds more energy to argue about gay discrimination and illegal immigration - hardly critical issues to the daily problems of running the city.
So someone who demands every department make budget cuts, then demands that his departments budget is increased is doing what is best for the city and not his own self interests? While I could sit here all day rehashing everything that he has done that has been counterproductive, this is one of the most blaring examples of how he will spite Tulsa just to make sure his good ole boys are taken care of. Yes, the Mayor/council bickering is getting old, but trying to lay this all at the feet of the council is dellusional, to say the least.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 03, 2010, 10:42:35 AM
I'm glad you are happy with Maria Barnes. Mine is definitely a politician sliding on the legacy of the Lafortune family in Tulsa govt. I have property all over the city, and I have not yet found a councilor interested in my concerns about anything - most recently blatant waste in road construction projects. Turns out that was a result of criminal activity. The councilor did not care - at all. I very much believe in representative govt. The difficulty with the current system is nobody is responsible for anything, and hence isn't representing anybody but themselves. Kinda keeps it from working. It's more like having no government at all.
Urban renewal was a plague visited upon most cities in the US. It was managed by unaccountable quasi-governmental entities. The latest variety of this disease is Planitulsa. The fact that it happened in commission govt years is hardly due only to that fact. I can say too, that the River Parks, Mohawk Park, the zoo, the PAC, the old convention center, the downtown library, thriving neighborhoods and schools and countless other things that make Tulsa the great city that it is in spite of its leadership today. We can trade points like this forever. The problem is the mess we have today.
The police department is out of control and generally non-responsive, unless one guy holes up in an apt and threatens to kill himself. 33(!) squad cars, an armored car and a swat team showed up and blocked off an entire Brookside neighborhood for half a day. NOTHING came of it. This was recently, during the "understaffed" period The darndest thing is I never found any news coverage on it. The local news seems to be cautious about exposing the pd for what it is. That is NOT understaffed.
The fire department is equally overstaffed.
I defy you to point to a councilor who is not beholden to or afraid of the fire and police unions, and is willing to try to deal with these problems.
The mayor - who was not my choice in the race - is the only one in this game who is trying to get a handle on any of this. Look what the council is doing to him. And in the middle of all the problems in the city, the council finds more energy to argue about gay discrimination and illegal immigration - hardly critical issues to the daily problems of running the city.
I'm sorry. You will not convince me. This is not working.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just as unhappy with our current state of affairs in this city as most anyone else on this forum. I just see it as having happened over a long period of time and not by partisan politics, firemen or police. Perhaps it is coincidental with past organizational systems and leadership or maybe it is just the nature of the maturation of a city in the time period it is growing. I couldn't say for sure. But our problems now are neither the fault of, nor can they be cured by, this council system. It is pitting control oriented sophomoric mayoral leadership against laymen councillors. Neither has a long term view tempered with government experience. They get mired in details and find it easier to blame each other and work towards the next election. Barnes may not be the best councillor I ever had but she was better than Gomez for my interests. The only councilor who ever actually visited me was a Republican from West Tulsa. That impressed me alot.
The missing piece here is the competence that long term mayors and commissioners got from experience or that a well trained competent city manager might possess. That is why I am open to the suggestion.
Quote from: waterboy on July 03, 2010, 11:36:08 AM
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just as unhappy with our current state of affairs in this city as most anyone else on this forum. I just see it as having happened over a long period of time and not by partisan politics, firemen or police. Perhaps it is coincidental with past organizational systems and leadership or maybe it is just the nature of the maturation of a city in the time period it is growing. I couldn't say for sure. But our problems now are neither the fault of, nor can they be cured by, this council system. It is pitting control oriented sophomoric mayoral leadership against laymen councillors. Neither has a long term view tempered with government experience. They get mired in details and find it easier to blame each other and work towards the next election. Barnes may not be the best councillor I ever had but she was better than Gomez for my interests. The only councilor who ever actually visited me was a Republican from West Tulsa. That impressed me alot.
The missing piece here is the competence that long term mayors and commissioners got from experience or that a well trained competent city manager might possess. That is why I am open to the suggestion.
I think OTT and Shadows must be related...
Good Lord, I'm scared now. The Tulsa World appears to agree with me today.
They are encouraging Bartlett to block the council budget using executive authority to keep the council from plunging the city into another budget crisis. That should engender harmonious relations with the council.
Somehow I don't think this gambit would work with a city manager controlled by the council. This is a really great system.
The change of charter (called an amendment) was preformed over several years. Roger was to resign as speaker of the house in OC (where he was known to be able to move any legislation forward) and if one retrieves the filing of expenses and his resignation as Mayor it is quite evident it was a well planned move of men and mice. In the finial draft $23,000 dollars was paid a former city attorney for a few words to be changed as well as reducing the council numbers to 9. The cry of "we don't want ward rule" turned out to where we have ward rule sitting in the background.. In order to avoid ward rule it was discussed that the councilor be appointed from the specified districts according to their knowledge of city operations. It is like the new city hall where possible over 90% of the citizens will be in their graves before it is paid for. Still an elected council is seated without any knowledge on the function of the city needs to be addressed.
The police academy should be abounded and the vacant building be used as a councilor academy requiring so many hours before they are allowed to cast a vote.
The archives record that every nation, country or city has eventually returned to a monarch system of rule after the rebellions. Do you want sugar in your tea?
;D
Could you be a long lost brother, Shadows? Hoss seems to think so.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 07, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Could you be a long lost brother, Shadows? Hoss seems to think so.
Believe it or not, that wasn't meant to be complimentary...
:o
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 03, 2010, 10:40:53 PM
Good Lord, I'm scared now. The Tulsa World appears to agree with me today.
They are encouraging Bartlett to block the council budget using executive authority to keep the council from plunging the city into another budget crisis. That should engender harmonious relations with the council.
Somehow I don't think this gambit would work with a city manager controlled by the council. This is a really great system.
Why do you think a city manager would be controlled by the council alone? Why is this being framed as a Mayor vs Council battle anyway? Did the World support Bartlett in the election?
Bartlett is a figurehead for the local republican powers represented by Simonson. They insisted on breaking the fire and police unions and did their job. Now they have created enemies out of supporters and concerns about their competency. Where a vacuum exists, air will tend to rush in.
A city manager position is worth investigating.
Quote from: OldTimeTulsan on July 07, 2010, 09:49:06 PM
Could you be a long lost brother, Shadows? Hoss seems to think so.
Hoss seems to have already missed his flight while he was playing Pac-Man in a non-existing arcade. Seem I was there during the constant effort to change the charter of which in the end it was called amending it only in order to get it to pass. The chronicles record among the species that control reverts to those in wealth in the passing of only a minimum of generations. Not one system in all recorded history has overcome rebellion of which we are seeing more of today as we point our finger to the upcoming generation. Jefferson in his threat of "mob rule" cannot overtake the rule of "follow the worthless dollar" Appointment of city managers does not and will not end corruption in following the money. The cause is in defeat even before the race to follow the dollar begins.
Quote from: shadows on July 08, 2010, 11:17:52 AM
Hoss seems to have already missed his flight while he was playing Pac-Man in a non-existing arcade. Seem I was there during the constant effort to change the charter of which in the end it was called amending it only in order to get it to pass. The chronicles record among the species that control reverts to those in wealth in the passing of only a minimum of generations. Not one system in all recorded history has overcome rebellion of which we are seeing more of today as we point our finger to the upcoming generation. Jefferson in his threat of "mob rule" cannot overtake the rule of "follow the worthless dollar" Appointment of city managers does not and will not end corruption in following the money. The cause is in defeat even before the race to follow the dollar begins.
I guess the 'lucid moments' are over for Shadows....
Quote from: Hoss on July 08, 2010, 12:02:42 PM
I guess the 'lucid moments' are over for Shadows....
No; it is just pointing out you are playing "leap frog" on the brim of the canyon without knowing how far the drop it. ;D
Drop it like it's hot!
Quote from: shadows on July 08, 2010, 12:57:30 PM
No; it is just pointing out you are playing "leap frog" on the brim of the canyon without knowing how far the drop it. ;D
My point made.
Believe it or not, I took it as a compliment.
Back to subject - who would control a city manager? Somebody elected, I hope.