http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/councilor-asks-ag-to-remove-mayor-from-office
How many more years does his honor have before the term ends? I wonder if he will run again?
Quote from: carltonplace on March 02, 2011, 02:45:44 PM
How many more years does his honor have before the term ends? I wonder if he will run again?
He's 14 months in.
<shudder>
Quote from: carltonplace on March 02, 2011, 02:47:50 PM
<shudder>
Just another reason why I do not live in Tulsa anymore.
We need a strong campaign to flush everyone in the next election.
Thousands of hours have been billed to embarrassing pissing matches to be paid for with our money.
My clients from St. Louis have been here this week, and asked me today during a break what the squabble with our mayor was. Apparently it made interesting discussion for them in the hotel last night.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 03, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
We need a strong campaign to flush everyone in the next election.
Thousands of hours have been billed to embarrassing pissing matches to be paid for with our money.
My clients from St. Louis have been here this week, and asked me today during a break what the squabble with our mayor was. Apparently it made interesting discussion for them in the hotel last night.
The current council is a joke...I would like to do away with it all together.....
Quote from: Breadburner on March 04, 2011, 12:43:27 PM
The current council is a joke...I would like to do away with it all together.....
Dewey needs gone as well.
Quote from: Breadburner on March 04, 2011, 12:43:27 PM
The current council is a joke...I would like to do away with it all together.....
Agree. At-large is the way to go, IMO. I also think Dewey needs to be ousted, and should've never been elected in the first place. Tom Adelson was clearly the best option and hopefully he runs again in 2013.
Who would take Bartlett's place if he is ousted, Simonson? Or would there be a special election?
Has there been a formal recall petition circulated yet?
Quote from: SXSW on March 04, 2011, 01:08:13 PM
At-large is the way to go, IMO.
I thought at-large is what Tulsa used to have. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.
I am going to work to make sure ALL of them go. Even if my councilor was a saint or not directly involved in the bs, they are all involved to the extent that they are the only ones who can it stop. If my councilor is incapable of stopping all the squabbling and nonsense, in my book, they are incompetent.
They all have to go, period.
I am sick and tired of listening to all this crap, and its making a lot of people mad as heck. Clean slate is the only way to go.
Quote from: SXSW on March 04, 2011, 01:08:13 PM
Agree. At-large is the way to go, IMO.
Well, well, well the intelligent ones again step forward to re-change again the re-changes, of '88/89 when big brother said" overall selection of councilors violate the voting right of the minority. You change it or we will come change it for you".
The building where many high dollar meeting were held to change is now boarded up and the city wants its torn down.
We need less governing and a smaller city hall for it has been tried on failures .
Quote from: shadows on March 04, 2011, 04:12:03 PM
Well, well, well the intelligent ones again step forward to re-change again the re-changes, of '88/89 when big brother said" overall selection of councilors violate the voting right of the minority. You change it or we will come change it for you".
The building where many high dollar meeting were held to change is now boarded up and the city wants its torn down.
We need less governing and a smaller city hall for it has been tried on failures .
Seriously...Is someone just messing around here?
Quote from: Townsend on March 04, 2011, 04:36:26 PM
Seriously...Is someone just messing around here?
I'm waiting for the 'I have the blood of tiger, the dna of Adonis' moment from him.
Quote from: Townsend on March 04, 2011, 04:36:26 PM
Seriously...Is someone just messing around here?
Unfortunately, just skimming this, you can get the jist of what he trying to say.. sometimes.
Then, other times.....
Quote from: SXSW on March 04, 2011, 01:08:13 PM
Agree. At-large is the way to go, IMO. I also think Dewey needs to be ousted, and should've never been elected in the first place. Tom Adelson was clearly the best option and hopefully he runs again in 2013.
Who would take Bartlett's place if he is ousted, Simonson? Or would there be a special election?
Has there been a formal recall petition circulated yet?
John Eagleton has started the petition, according to the news pundits.
What is the procedure once Dewey is gone? Who runs the city, other than the "shadow government" and the Kaisers? ;D
Quote from: Gonesouth1234 on March 05, 2011, 08:35:34 AM
John Eagleton has started the petition, according to the news pundits.
"Make me city attorney or else"?
Quote from: Gonesouth1234 on March 05, 2011, 08:35:34 AM
What is the procedure once Dewey is gone? Who runs the city, other than the "shadow government" and the Kaisers? ;D
I get your sarc. But in case I'm wrong, or if others actually believe you, please visit this site.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Quote from: Gonesouth1234 on March 05, 2011, 08:35:34 AM
John Eagleton has started the petition, according to the news pundits.
What is the procedure once Dewey is gone? Who runs the city, other than the "shadow government" and the Kaisers? ;D
Once Eagleton gets the petition going to oust Dewey, we need to make sure we oust Eagleton and the rest of the fantastic quorum of media whores. We need to start over fresh and send a message that Junior-High politics will not be tolerated!
I think that elections have consequences, and we are learning a great deal from this last one. I voted for Dewey, attended his watch party rejoiced in his victory. I am now deeply sorry for that decision.
Realistically, a petition will most likely be unsuccessful. I think we need to make sure we continue to send the message to the counsel and the mayor that they will be ousted in the next election. All of them, unless they learn to work together and stop wasting money comparing the size of each others Johnsons.
We used to just have an embarrisang city councel, now we have a mayor who is a floppy-dog and a counsel that wants to be the mayor.
I miss the good old days when the counsel provided hours of endless entertainment releasing moronic statements, attacking each other, playing the race card, and trying to figure out how to funnel money into their districts. The mayor used to represent sanity in Counsel meetings, like a kindergarten teacher in a room of unruly children. Today, the teacher doesn't bother to show up, and the children spend the day drawing dirty pictures of him on the chalkboard.
Quote from: SXSW on March 04, 2011, 01:08:13 PM
Agree. At-large is the way to go, IMO. I also think Dewey needs to be ousted, and should've never been elected in the first place. Tom Adelson was clearly the best option and hopefully he runs again in 2013.
Who would take Bartlett's place if he is ousted, Simonson? Or would there be a special election?
Has there been a formal recall petition circulated yet?
Why would you think that an At-large councilor would actually do anything to improve the current situation?
The spin you hear is that the current conflict is due to egos & battles for power--that some of the city councilors are behaving like "mini-mayors." If anything, throwing in another councilor would just up the ante. What happens if the at-large councilor (who very well may have received more votes than the actual mayor) wants to pull the city in a different direction than the mayor? Suddenly you have two people, both elected by the entire city (and both presumably with HUGE egos), who have competing ideas. I suspect that the fighting you see now would be minor in comparison. Right now you have 9 city councilors, each from different parts of the city, all of whom have problems with this mayor. Not all of the councilors have joined Eagleton, but not a single one of them have criticized what Eagleton is doing. Not even Bynum--the closest Bartlett has to an ally. If we had an at-large councilor, do you really think this wouldn't have happened? Or do you think that the at-large councilor would be in the thick of it--looking for an opportunity to become mayor?
Any political system is only as good as the politicians we elect to run them.
I am leaning towards the city manager form of government, though.
FYI, Eagleton is starting an ouster petition, not a recall petition.
I really like the idea of simply throwing everyone out through a recall. It would send a message. I will gladly volunteer for such an effort.
And go back to commisioners.....
Quote from: pmcalk on March 07, 2011, 12:58:21 PM
Why would you think that an At-large councilor would actually do anything to improve the current situation?
The spin you hear is that the current conflict is due to egos & battles for power--that some of the city councilors are behaving like "mini-mayors." If anything, throwing in another councilor would just up the ante. What happens if the at-large councilor (who very well may have received more votes than the actual mayor) wants to pull the city in a different direction than the mayor? Suddenly you have two people, both elected by the entire city (and both presumably with HUGE egos), who have competing ideas. I suspect that the fighting you see now would be minor in comparison. Right now you have 9 city councilors, each from different parts of the city, all of whom have problems with this mayor. Not all of the councilors have joined Eagleton, but not a single one of them have criticized what Eagleton is doing. Not even Bynum--the closest Bartlett has to an ally. If we had an at-large councilor, do you really think this wouldn't have happened? Or do you think that the at-large councilor would be in the thick of it--looking for an opportunity to become mayor?
Any political system is only as good as the politicians we elect to run them.
I am leaning towards the city manager form of government, though.
FYI, Eagleton is starting an ouster petition, not a recall petition.
I vote for the city manager form of government.
It works well in cities much smaller and larger than our home town, as long as the manager is responsible to a council that is composed of members who are each accountable to a home district within the city, and with the mayor's position set up to allow one vote on the council, and a few ribbon cutting ceremonies on the side.
Isn't this the form in OKC now?
Running a city is something that requires a lot of governmental and management experience in today's climate, and we certainly don't have that in place now.
Quote from: Gonesouth1234 on March 08, 2011, 06:58:20 AM
I vote for the city manager form of government.
It works well in cities much smaller and larger than our home town, as long as the manager is responsible to a council that is composed of members who are each accountable to a home district within the city, and with the mayor's position set up to allow one vote on the council, and a few ribbon cutting ceremonies on the side.
Isn't this the form in OKC now?
Running a city is something that requires a lot of governmental and management experience in today's climate, and we certainly don't have that in place now.
No form is really better than the other so long as you have people with deep enough pockets to keep re-electing "their" people to office. When the council form of government was first devised, I believe it really was a fair and representative form of government where each councilor was an average citizen elected by their peers in their geographical area.
Now councilors are recruited to run and receive campaign contributions from people who don't even live in their district. What's happened is the council has morphed into sort of an "anti- or counter- mayor" instead of being a quasi-legislative branch of city government with average citizens.
Developers and the mega wealthy have figured out they can stack the council now and get their appointments to local boards and get favorable council votes on the items which matter to them most.
So long as the city manager is an appointed post, I don't think it will improve our form of governance. They will still be beholden to the whims and desires of those who pushed to get them into the job in the first place. The only way to get around that would be by doing a "blind hire" and that's got it's own pitfalls as well.
Granted, Mayor Simonson and his sock puppet Dewey Bartlet (sic) were a bad choice.
However, it's simply time for the council to make an honest appraisal of itself and realize it's become nothing but an antagonistic chamber which is spending more and more of its time battling the mayor's office instead of working for the citizens in their districts who elected them.
Quote from: Breadburner on March 08, 2011, 12:18:47 AM
And go back to commisioners.....
Why would you want to go back to that system? While that form of government was popular
a century ago, it has by and large been completely abandoned by the rest of the country. Some cities changed under threat of a lawsuit (like Tulsa) by the NAACP, but many changed for the simple reason that it did not work well, especially as their cities grew in population. They found that the various commissions often resulted in huge turf battles, particularly when it came to budgets. Because there was no oversight of one commission over the other, it became fertile ground for corruption. As far as I know, only one major city in the US retained the commission form of government: Portland. And their system really isn't a pure commissioner form--the commissioners don't actually run for specific offices; the mayor assigns them to those offices. While I think Portland is a great city to emulate, Tulsa is too different from that city to truly duplicate its political system.
Quote from: pmcalk on March 09, 2011, 11:32:17 AM
Why would you want to go back to that system? While that form of government was popular a century ago, it has by and large been completely abandoned by the rest of the country. Some cities changed under threat of a lawsuit (like Tulsa) by the NAACP, but many changed for the simple reason that it did not work well, especially as their cities grew in population. They found that the various commissions often resulted in huge turf battles, particularly when it came to budgets. Because there was no oversight of one commission over the other, it became fertile ground for corruption. As far as I know, only one major city in the US retained the commission form of government: Portland. And their system really isn't a pure commissioner form--the commissioners don't actually run for specific offices; the mayor assigns them to those offices. While I think Portland is a great city to emulate, Tulsa is too different from that city to truly duplicate its political system.
What we have now sure as hell ain't working......Just because "everyone changed" does not mean an old way of doing things can't be tweaked and work.....
Quote from: Breadburner on March 09, 2011, 12:14:50 PM
What we have now sure as hell ain't working......Just because "everyone changed" does not mean an old way of doing things can't be tweaked and work.....
Again, everyone changed because it didn't work. And nothing in Tulsa will incite racial division like suggesting we go back to the old form of government. Change--just for the sake of change--is no guarantee of improvement. So I'll ask again, why do you believe we should go back to that form of government? If you are going to argue that we should return to a form of government that the rest of the country abandoned, while stirring up old racial wounds, I think you should at least be able to explain why that system is better.
Quote from: pmcalk on March 09, 2011, 04:31:17 PM
Again, everyone changed because it didn't work. And nothing in Tulsa will incite racial division like suggesting we go back to the old form of government. Change--just for the sake of change--is no guarantee of improvement. So I'll ask again, why do you believe we should go back to that form of government? If you are going to argue that we should return to a form of government that the rest of the country abandoned, while stirring up old racial wounds, I think you should at least be able to explain why that system is better.
I would actually like to see us go to a council-manager style of government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council%E2%80%93manager_government
Quote from: pmcalk on March 09, 2011, 04:31:17 PM
Again, everyone changed because it didn't work. And nothing in Tulsa will incite racial division like suggesting we go back to the old form of government. Change--just for the sake of change--is no guarantee of improvement. So I'll ask again, why do you believe we should go back to that form of government? If you are going to argue that we should return to a form of government that the rest of the country abandoned, while stirring up old racial wounds, I think you should at least be able to explain why that system is better.
What has happened to Tulsa in that time? The north side has supposedly gotten better representation, but as a whole, the city's infrastructure appears to have suffered. Maybe it's entirely coincidental that our streets started to deteriorate a lot faster after we no longer had a street commissioner. We didn't have a star chamber back then and the city seemed to operate a lot more efficiently. Is north Tulsa getting better representation than it was pre 1990? Sure, there's been improvements, but it's still the most blighted region of our city.
And adding to shenanigans:
Some City Councilors on Tuesday questioned the timing of the Legal Department's analysis of the city's personnel policy that allowed for the hiring of Interim City Attorney David Pauling.
At issue is whether the Legal Department changed the policy definition that otherwise might have prohibited Pauling's hiring because his wife, Nancy McNair, is also an assistant city attorney.
The current personnel policy states that "immediate family members" cannot work in the same city unit with or under the direct supervision of each other.
Personnel Director Erica Felix-Warwick told councilors that prior to the legal analysis, any time a promotion or employment application would put a married couple in the same department, "we would have raised issue with that."
When the administration considered hiring Pauling, the issue arose again, but it was determined that the policy's definition of immediate family members being "by blood or marriage" no longer meant spouse.
The councilors are now being asked to add the term "spouse" to the policy's list of immediate family members and to agree to a grandfather clause that would be effective at the time of council approval of the change.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110308_11_0_SomeCi679180
Excuse me, but wouldn't the most obvious example of a family member by blood or marriage be a spouse? What the Hell are they smoking down at City Hall?
I move to make me, or any number of persons really, the benevolent dictator of Tulsa. Criteria in order of importance:
1) Ability to lead (preferably with a positive vision)
2) Understanding of urban needs including: a) zoning, b) basic services, c) education, and infrastructure
3) Working kowledge of business/economics
4) not stupid, petty, or purposefully ignorant
5) has once been to Tulsa
Honestly, our current government is totally worthless. We get nothing done, have no leadership, no vision, and don't address BIG needs. No wonder frikken Little Rock and Springfield are passing Tulsa in many catagories.
I'm voting against everyone possible.
Hell, Paul Tay for Mayor.
For that matter Biker Fox for... well, maybe we aren't there yet.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 09, 2011, 06:00:36 PM
I move to make me, or any number of persons really, the benevolent dictator of Tulsa. Criteria in order of importance:
1) Ability to lead (preferably with a positive vision)
2) Understanding of urban needs including: a) zoning, b) basic services, c) education, and infrastructure
3) Working kowledge of business/economics
4) not stupid, petty, or purposefully ignorant
5) has once been to Tulsa
6) has never met a member of Tulsa's oligarchy and wouldn't know George Kaiser from Kaiser Willhelm.
Honestly, our current government is totally worthless. We get nothing done, have no leadership, no vision, and don't address BIG needs. No wonder frikken Little Rock and Springfield are passing Tulsa in many catagories.
I'm voting against everyone possible.
Hell, Paul Tay for Mayor.
For that matter Biker Fox for... well, maybe we aren't there yet.
Added a condition to your list.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 04:38:53 PM
What has happened to Tulsa in that time? The north side has supposedly gotten better representation, but as a whole, the city's infrastructure appears to have suffered. Maybe it's entirely coincidental that our streets started to deteriorate a lot faster after we no longer had a street commissioner. We didn't have a star chamber back then and the city seemed to operate a lot more efficiently. Is north Tulsa getting better representation than it was pre 1990? Sure, there's been improvements, but it's still the most blighted region of our city.
I don't think its coincidental that our streets started to deteriorate, but I don't think it has anything to do with having a street commissioner. I think it has to do with the fact that, beginning in the late 60s, Tulsa went on an annexation binge, basically doubling its total land area, and correspondingly seeing only very modest population growth. Suddenly, the ratio of tax payers per square mile of pavement plummeted. That was followed quickly by one of the worst economic downturns in the country (ie the oil bust of the 80s). And just when the city seemed to be regaining some steam, we had the tech bubble burst. Now we are seeing yet another economic downturn. So, basically, for the past 30 years we have more roads than we can afford to maintain. Why do you think that having a street commissioner would have made any difference (keeping in mind that it was the commission form of government that chose to overextend the city so drastically)?
All cities have areas of blight. The question is whether people on the North side believe they have more of a voice in government now vs. under the old system. And I would add that, in some cases, the roads on the north side are actually better today than they were back in the 80s.
Quote from: pmcalk on March 10, 2011, 10:00:25 AM
I don't think its coincidental that our streets started to deteriorate, but I don't think it has anything to do with having a street commissioner. I think it has to do with the fact that, beginning in the late 60s, Tulsa went on an annexation binge, basically doubling its total land area, and correspondingly seeing only very modest population growth. Suddenly, the ratio of tax payers per square mile of pavement plummeted. That was followed quickly by one of the worst economic downturns in the country (ie the oil bust of the 80s). And just when the city seemed to be regaining some steam, we had the tech bubble burst. Now we are seeing yet another economic downturn. So, basically, for the past 30 years we have more roads than we can afford to maintain. Why do you think that having a street commissioner would have made any difference (keeping in mind that it was the commission form of government that chose to overextend the city so drastically)?
All cities have areas of blight. The question is whether people on the North side believe they have more of a voice in government now vs. under the old system. And I would add that, in some cases, the roads on the north side are actually better today than they were back in the 80s.
Some good points, PM. Granted, they've at least got two resident advocates now though one is getting addled and the other who isn't overly bright constantly complains about his district constantly getting the short end of the stick to the point I think others tune him out. I'd love it if someone like Jabar Shumate would finally beat Henderson. Unfortunately the rest of the councilors are acting less and less like advocates for their districts, they seem to exist soley for the purpose of antagonizing the unelected mayor and his sock puppet.
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14226838 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14226838)
Tulsa Mayor Sends Letter To Governor Disputing Allegations Against Him
QuoteTULSA, Oklahoma -- Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett has formally responded to allegations of wrongdoing by city councilor John Eagleton.
In a letter and supporting documents sent to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin this week, Bartlett said he strongly denies he engaged in "misconduct, malfeasance and criminal behavior," as claimed by Eagleton.
Bartlett sent the material to the governor after Eagleton asked her to order the attorney general to review the councilor's allegations against Bartlett.
In the letter, Bartlett responds to each of Eagleton's 10 allegations. He says "Mr. Eagleton's allegations contain misstatements and omission of facts and have no legal validity."
The governor's office provided a copy of the letter and supporting documents to News On 6.
Read Mayor Dewey Bartlett's letter and supporting documents.
In the letter, Bartlett requests Fallin "decline to accept any further action in this matter." Fallin's office has indicated she will be making her decision by Friday.
Quote from: Townsend on March 10, 2011, 01:22:38 PM
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14226838 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14226838)
Tulsa Mayor Sends Letter To Governor Disputing Allegations Against Him
No wonder he sent a letter, didn't his cell phone burn up?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 10, 2011, 01:32:00 PM
No wonder he sent a letter, didn't his cell phone burn up?
"What's that burning smell?"...LOL. +1
I can't believe the Governor is making the decision barely more than 24 hours after receiving Bartlett's response.
Quote from: Nik on March 10, 2011, 01:57:53 PM
I can't believe the Governor is making the decision barely more than 24 hours after receiving Bartlett's response.
I believe I read she was going to respond on Friday before she received the letter.
Her handlers most likely told his handlers he needed to do something before she could make her decision. This way she'd look informed.
Thank god she is, instead of dicking around with this ignorant $hit......
I don't think she needed a response, it's not her job to determine whether Eagleton's claims are true or not, just that they require further investigation. I believe she should push them on to the AG. Awaiting response from Bartlett reflects that she is weighing both sides. I think Eagleton pointed out more than enough cause for a formal invesigation. ESPECIALLY when one of the biggest issues is Bartlett's lying . . . why would you decide not to investigate because he says its not true . . . .
It keeps on keepin' on...
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14235893 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=14235893)
QuoteTULSA, Oklahoma -- A letter from a Tulsa pastor appears to validate one of the "official misconduct" claims made against Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett.
Councilor John Eagleton says Bartlett is guilty of "official misconduct" in part because he encouraged people to sue the City Council.
Reverend Warren Blakney has signed an affidavit that says he met with Mayor Bartlett and his Chief of Staff Terry Simonson in December and he was encouraged by Simonson at that meeting to sue the Council.
Read the affidavit
Eagleton claims Bartlett personally encouraged the lawsuit, which Bartlett has denied.
Blakney is President of Tulsa's NACCP Chapter.
Fallin's out.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110311_11_0_GovMar386295 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110311_11_0_GovMar386295)
QuoteGov. Mary Fallin will not call for the Attorney General's Office to investigate an ouster complaint against Mayor Dewey Bartlett.
Instead, she is going to let the public force the probe through an effort under way by City Councilor John Eagleton to collect voter signatures.
'These local issues should be resolved locally," Fallin said in a letter released shortly before 5 p.m. Friday. "The constant discord and conflict between the City Council and Mayor's Office are a clear impediment to the day-to-day business of governance and an obstacle to attracting new jobs to the city of Tulsa and the state of Oklahoma."
About three weeks ago, Eagleton sent Fallin a formal letter requesting an investigation into 10 claims involving alleged misconduct, malfeasance and criminal behavior by the mayor.
Eagleton added an 11th claim to his ouster complaint when he presented his case to the City Council last week, but it was not included in the letter or documentation he sent the governor.
The councilor has said he is busy collecting the 1,100 signatures needed to trigger an investigation.
Earlier today, the Rev. Warren Blakney issued a signed statement that he was in a meeting with Bartlett and Mayoral Chief of Staff Terry Simonson when Simonson asked him to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City Council. Blakney declined the request.
One of the 11 allegations in an ouster complaint against Bartlett is that he solicited citizens to file lawsuits against the city, one of which concerns a council effort to change the city attorney post to an elected position.
While Bartlett and Simon confirmed the meeting with Blakney, he denied that any solicitation occurred. Simonson also said he never asked Blakney to join the council lawsuit.
Blakney is also the local chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, although in his statement he was not speaking on behalf of the organization.
On Thursday, former Mayor Kathy Taylor sent a letter to Fallin rebutting part of Bartlett's answers to the ouster complaint he sent the governor.
Taylor states that Bartlett's response involving the $7,028 travel donations contains "certain allegations regarding me, which are inconsistent with my recollection of the facts."
Bartlett responded to Fallin on Thursday, outlining his answers to ouster claims against him. "Mr. Eagleton's allegations contain misstatements and omission of facts and have no legal validity," Bartlett wrote in his seven-page letter, which was accompanied by 25 pages of supporting documents.
The rancor began shortly after Bartlett took office and has continued to escalate, creating unresolved issues, including a council investigation into whether the mayor and his chief of staff lied to the council.
"The City Council voted 8-1 on Thursday to overturn a mayoral veto of a council resolution that repealed a previous, legally challenged council resolution that had sought a Feb. 8 special election."
Got that?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110325_11_A11_CUTLIN63931&rss_lnk=439 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110325_11_A11_CUTLIN63931&rss_lnk=439)
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2011, 09:14:17 AM
"The City Council voted 8-1 on Thursday to overturn a mayoral veto of a council resolution that repealed a previous, legally challenged council resolution that had sought a Feb. 8 special election."
Got that?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110325_11_A11_CUTLIN63931&rss_lnk=439 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110325_11_A11_CUTLIN63931&rss_lnk=439)
Biggest "Captain Obvious" quote in that?:
"This is really getting kind of stupid - goofy" ... Councilor Rick Westcott.
Biggest Rat Pack I have ever seen.
Quote from: DolfanBob on March 25, 2011, 10:55:59 AM
Biggest Rat Pack I have ever seen.
"pack" was not the 4 letter word that came to my mind
Wish I owned a large chunk of land in the town I live in. They greatly overpay for land while they scream budget shortfall.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2011/03/11/20110311gilbert-posts-zinke-land-deal-documents-online.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2011/03/11/20110311gilbert-posts-zinke-land-deal-documents-online.html)
Tulsa still can't compete on this.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2011/04/01/20110401gilbert-land-deal-red-flags.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2011/04/01/20110401gilbert-land-deal-red-flags.html)
Conan brought up a good point with the attention that DT Tulsa is getting nationally from MSNBC and Man v Food.
Has anyone heard from Maria about how her district is doing with all the extra attention?
She is still our councilor right?
One certain former D-4 councillor and I were chatting about that at a party last week. He suggested I run for the bucketofshit er city council. I don't think he wants any more of it either, I think he's getting more help for the contituents than she is based on the number of calls he still gets.
I thought she did rather well first time around, but it's like she's been AWOL this entire term other than trying to usurp the RFP process on the old fire station off the BA frontage road near Cherry St.
Haha.."Contituents"...I see what you did there Conan..... ;D
Quote from: Townsend on April 07, 2011, 11:05:08 AM
Conan brought up a good point with the attention that DT Tulsa is getting nationally from MSNBC and Man v Food.
Has anyone heard from Maria about how her district is doing with all the extra attention?
She is still our councilor right?
She was one of the celebrity judges for the Back Alley side search last weekend, but she came, ate cobbler, and left two hours before she was supposed to judge.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 07, 2011, 02:33:04 PM
She was one of the celebrity judges for the Back Alley side search last weekend, but she came, ate cobbler, and left two hours before she was supposed to judge.
That's strange. She used to show up to everything having to do with the neighborhoods in D4...but that was the her first term.
Sounds like she's just enjoying that $1500 a month check for showing up at council meetings and not much else.
This is just thrilling:
http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14407373%26clienttype%3drssstory
Quote from: ZYX on April 07, 2011, 09:54:18 PM
This is just thrilling:
http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14407373%26clienttype%3drssstory
Kick 'em all out and begin again. With a new form of government, preferably.
Can anyone explain how Pauling is still on the city dole considering his hiring was explicitly against city hiring policies? His wife was already employed in the city legal department, which (if I understood correctly) means he's her boss which is against nepotism rules. I believe this is one of the other causes of action brought up in Eagleton's investigation/petition/manifest/screed.
I heard that yesterday they were all calling each other poo poo heads and throwing spit wads.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 08, 2011, 10:30:18 AM
I heard that yesterday they were all calling each other poo poo heads and throwing spit wads.
It went poorly.
Per GT Bynum's FB post:
QuoteToday for 1st time in a long time collaboration btwn Mayor & Council prevailed over infighting.Good results for Tulsa on budget.#hallelujah
Nothing more to add yet
Looks like all that is down the drain....
From the latest proposal on redistricting, it looks like District 4 may be getting a lot bigger, growing south into District 9.
Since the D4 councilor has tended to focus on downtown in the past, it seems like more people will be less represented by increasing the fence line.
What was the reasoning behind that?
The rational is the population of the existing districts in midtown & north Tulsa has decreased. The districts have to roughly represent the same amount of people. In addition, certain racial classifications are protected and the district cannot "squeeze" them out by diluting the percentage of the race. As a result district one boundary was moved east, district four boundary was moved south (& west in some areas) and district nine boundary was moved south and east.
I don't think the proposed districts are perfect, however, I like that Owen Park is lumped with downtown and the neighborhoods just south of downtown are now a part of the district that covers downtown. District four should end up being one of the most diverse districts in the city.
From a Bynum FB post:
QuoteJudge rules 2011 Council district boundaries apply for Fall elections-not 2001 boundaries
Quote from: Townsend on June 22, 2011, 04:18:45 PM
From a Bynum FB post:
I saw that in one of Bynum's tweets.
Done deal I guess.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2011, 04:24:22 PM
I saw that in one of Bynum's tweets.
Done deal I guess.
Sounds like it.
Quote from: Townsend on June 22, 2011, 04:39:15 PM
Sounds like it.
So I guess I'm a D3 instead of a D5. Damn.
Quote from: Hoss on June 22, 2011, 06:35:27 PM
So I guess I'm a D3 instead of a D5. Damn.
We need good people in district 3 as well. I will try to think of some city board that you could represent district 3.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 22, 2011, 10:27:31 PM
We need good people in district 3 as well. I will try to think of some city board that you could represent district 3.
When I hand delivered my volunteer paperwork for the Sign Advisory Board to Mayor LaFortune's office, I didnt get so much as an acknowledgment. Sometimes a willingness to serve just isnt enough.
I need to double check mine now. With the old alignment, parts of the neighborhood are D-5 and part is D-4. I've seen both Blake and Trail signs.
Just a suggestion to Blake: While the small signs look cool, it's are hard to figure out they are a campaign sign when driving past. I can figure it out pedaling along and as well I'm aware he's running, but I doubt more than a handful of my neighbors outside the 18-45 age range have a clue who "Blake" is. Those in that age bracket who never venture downtown likely wouldn't recognize the name either.
The residents of Lortondale that I've spoken with are none too happy with this realignment. In the past they were district four and were excited about working hard to elect Blake Ewing. Now they find themselves represented by the district five councilor, of which the current seat holder has no opponent on the horizon.
Okay, the current map which is up on the city council web page shows I'm still in D4. Does anyone know if this is the new alignment or not? It looks like the one I was familiar with and when I plug in my address, it shows I'm still in D-4 as is all of Lortondale I and Hoover. It appears the boundary is Maybe Hudson or Joplin on the east.
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/district-finder/map.aspx
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 10:04:23 AM
Okay, the current map which is up on the city council web page shows I'm still in D4. Does anyone know if this is the new alignment or not? It looks like the one I was familiar with and when I plug in my address, it shows I'm still in D-4 as is all of Lortondale I and Hoover. It appears the boundary is Maybe Hudson or Joplin on the east.
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/district-finder/map.aspx
From the article I read yesterday you are now 5. I believe it cut off at Yale. This is the 2001 map if the article was correct. I'll see if I can find it.
Modified:
This is what I saw yesterday.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/20110622_finalmap0606060606022.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 10:04:23 AM
Okay, the current map which is up on the city council web page shows I'm still in D4. Does anyone know if this is the new alignment or not? It looks like the one I was familiar with and when I plug in my address, it shows I'm still in D-4 as is all of Lortondale I and Hoover. It appears the boundary is Maybe Hudson or Joplin on the east.
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/district-finder/map.aspx
Here is the final map:
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/a23graphicmap052211.jpg)
Source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110531_334_0_hrimgs324241
I saw this little nugget in this morning's Tulsa World story concerning the city council's budget.
QuoteThis budget is by far the largest in Tulsa's history.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110623_334_0_hrimgs460349
If this is correct, can someone explain to me how a group of "small government" Republicans are approving the largest budget in history on the heels of a privately funded efficiency study? Even more so, can you explain how they are doing so when our sales tax revenue numbers are still below what they were pre-recession?
Quote from: rdj on June 23, 2011, 10:15:51 AM
If this is correct, can someone explain to me how a group of "small government" Republicans are approving the largest budget in history on the heels of a privately funded efficiency study? Even more so, can you explain how they are doing so when our sales tax revenue numbers are still below what they were pre-recession?
Military Spending?
We've been eye balling the area South of Tulsa that Jenks claims as their own. I believe a few of the councilors see the area as truly Tulsan since they speak the same language.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 10:04:23 AM
Okay, the current map which is up on the city council web page shows I'm still in D4. Does anyone know if this is the new alignment or not? It looks like the one I was familiar with and when I plug in my address, it shows I'm still in D-4 as is all of Lortondale I and Hoover. It appears the boundary is Maybe Hudson or Joplin on the east.
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/district-finder/map.aspx
Looks like you got moved into D5 as I got moved out of D5 to D3. Chris Trail will be your current councilor. I guess Roscoe Turner is now mine, but someone indicated to me at our last lunch he thinks he's not running for another term.
Quote from: Townsend on June 23, 2011, 10:24:38 AM
Military Spending?
We've been eye balling the area South of Tulsa that Jenks claims as their own. I believe a few of the councilors see the area as truly Tulsan since they speak the same language.
Would this be another Trojan War?
Quote from: Hoss on June 23, 2011, 10:37:32 AM
Looks like you got moved into D5 as I got moved out of D5 to D3. Chris Trail will be your current councilor. I guess Roscoe Turner is now mine, but someone indicated to me at our last lunch he thinks he's not running for another term.
Dude, I think Roscoe is hiding his own Easter eggs these days.
I like Chris Trail and know him personally. I'm disappointed in the change as I truly feel my neighborhood has more in common as far as issues with the rest of mid-town rather than east Tulsa.
Who thinks I should run against Chris just so there's at least some opposition, kind of like Grizzle did in D-8? If the A-hole he replaced (Martinson) runs again, I'd seriously consider running just to dilute votes for Martinson.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 12:05:58 PM
Dude, I think Roscoe is hiding his own Easter eggs these days.
I like Chris Trail and know him personally. I'm disappointed in the change as I truly feel my neighborhood has more in common as far as issues with the rest of mid-town rather than east Tulsa.
Who thinks I should run against Chris just so there's at least some opposition, kind of like Grizzle did in D-8? If the A-hole he replaced (Martinson) runs again, I'd seriously consider running just to dilute votes for Martinson.
Run anyhow. I would run myself even though I'm now in Grizz's district but I didn't change my address when I moved back in december. Kinda messes up the whole "must be registered to vote in the district for 90 days thing". Which, technically speaking, wouldn't that mean that you couldn't run either since it changed on you?
Quote from: custosnox on June 23, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
Run anyhow. I would run myself even though I'm now in Grizz's district but I didn't change my address when I moved back in december. Kinda messes up the whole "must be registered to vote in the district for 90 days thing". Which, technically speaking, wouldn't that mean that you couldn't run either since it changed on you?
Wow. That's an interesting quandry. What if the district changed? You would think there's a provision for the district changing so long as you could prove you've lived in the same home for 90 days or longer.
From TW:
Council upset over delayed delivery of trash documents to mayor
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20111108_334_0_CuclCa276772&rss_lnk=439
QuoteCouncil Chairwoman Maria Barnes claimed Tuesday that the City Council's amended trash regulations were delivered on time to the Mayor's Office last week but that the formal acceptance was purposefully delayed.
This caused the council to miss by one day the time frame for which they could override a presumed mayoral veto of the changes before a majority of the members leave office the first week in December.
Barnes, who declined to reveal her sources during the council's committee meetings, said she has come to "learn what some people are all about."
"When I leave here in a few weeks, I can say my opinion of a lot of people has changed," she said. "I have lost respect for them."
Councilor Roscoe Turner seemed to agree, noting: "The Legal Department works for the mayor. The clerk works for the mayor. This didn't happen as it was directed by the council."
But City Clerk and Finance Director Mike Kier said that, in fact, it did happen as the council officially directed.
Kier showed a video from last week's special meeting during which the trash regulation changes were approved in a 6-2 vote.
During the meeting, Councilor Rick Westcott, who spearheaded the effort, made the motion for approval and included the direction that it be prepared by the Legal Department and delivered to the city clerk and the Mayor's Office before the close of business the next day.
Kier noted Tuesday that no mention was made of same-day delivery.
Councilor Bill Christiansen said Barnes and Council Secretary Dana Burks hand-delivered the documents to the clerk later that day and that they were stamped at 2:17 p.m. with a note asking for rush delivery to the mayor before 5 p.m.
"It troubles me that there were specific directions given to make sure this got delivered to the mayor," Christiansen said. "Evidently that didn't happen."
It was turned over to the mayor Wednesday morning.