The following is the link to the Council agenda item.
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Administration was trying to get Airport land to deed to BOk, but FAA said "no way."
Not confirmed yet if Council approval is necessary, but new councilors woefully unaware of particulars, the decision is expected immediately and the timing around the holiday seems designed to minimize public fallout.
For more, Bates will be on my show at 2:30.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
The following is the link to the Council agenda item.
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Administration was trying to get Airport land to deed to BOk, but FAA said "no way."
Not confirmed yet if Council approval is necessary, but new councilors woefully unaware of particulars, the decision is expected immediately and the timing around the holiday seems designed to minimize public fallout.
For more, Bates will be on my show at 2:30.
Moral obligation is correct. It's about integrity.
Has BOK given equal amounts if not more for so many other causes and public services they support in this town?
Medshlock, beat off.
Wow. I don't appreciate people writing "moral" checks that draw from my tax money. It was a business deal and it went south - the City lost money, investors lost money, and BOk lost money. As a commercial lender, they reap profits when deals go well and suffer losses when they don't.
It's business - unless the city did something unheard of in this deal... fill me in if I'm missing something.
$7mil is $20 for every man woman and child in Tulsa. $60 from my family. I'd feel more moral giving that money to river parks, the zoo, for public art, or a random church. Sheesh.
Looks to me like this needs lots of oversight. On first take, it looks like pay back time. It will be interesting to see if the World tries to brow beat us into supporting this? You, know, calling critics "naysayers," and all that.
I would think the Federal Regulators might have a problem with BOK just saying "forget about it".
And, they put the belt and suspenders on the original deal that was Savagely thought out.
I bet BOK has to take a write down. The banks affiliates as you know do a handsome job supporting education and social services throughout the city. I bet it more than balances out.
Sorry CF it's costing you $60 and us taxpayers even more. But it's not coming directly out of your pocket. Far more waste out of public works has cost you much more. I guess you better think twice about letting the government pour money into private enterprise capitalism.
Your other option is to welch on the city somehow in protest.
Explain your point of view to me FOTD - where does this moral obligation come from?
Also worth noting that I oppose most programs that filter public money to private companies AND would oppose waste brought to my attention in any level of government. So shrugging and saying "they waste lots of money" seems a lousy reaction.
What about a Race Riot Memorial - is that not more of a "moral obligation" than paying off the bad debt of a corporation?
(note: I like BOk and do business with them, I understand their perspective. It's all business and if they can sucker us into giving them $7mil, so be it)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What about a Race Riot Memorial - is that not more of a "moral obligation" than paying off the bad debt of a corporation?
Yes.
Sucker may not be the right term.
Suck her (Suckretary of State that is) might be....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What about a Race Riot Memorial - is that not more of a "moral obligation" than paying off the bad debt of a corporation?
Yes.
+1
Sorry can't listen at 2:30. The headline of the thread and Chris' message doesn't specify whether it's city money or her personal funds. I know which one to guess, but it's still a little cryptic. Can she make decisions like this w/o full council approval?
Why all the gripping? The Mayor is working for nothing and loves to give away money. Your money that becomes more worthless each day.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sorry can't listen at 2:30. The headline of the thread and Chris' message doesn't specify whether it's city money or her personal funds. I know which one to guess, but it's still a little cryptic. Can she make decisions like this w/o full council approval?
Curiously, in advance of the recent city council election, BOK principal shareholder George Kaiser, his sister Ruth Kaiser, and BOK executive personnel were VERY generous in their contributions to various city councilors, who generally won their races.
Will these self-same city councilors now be beholden to vote for BOK's financial interest to repay them for their $7 million Great Plains Airlines loan??
Hmmmmmh?
[:O]
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sorry can't listen at 2:30. The headline of the thread and Chris' message doesn't specify whether it's city money or her personal funds. I know which one to guess, but it's still a little cryptic. Can she make decisions like this w/o full council approval?
Curiously, in advance of the recent city council election, BOK principal shareholder George Kaiser, his sister Ruth Kaiser, and BOK executive personnel were VERY generous in their contributions to various city councilors, who generally won their races.
Will these self-same city councilors now be beholden to vote for BOK's financial interest to repay them for their $7 million Great Plains Airlines loan??
Hmmmmmh?
[:O]
FB, what if I own stock in BOK? What should my position be?
Sorry I could not listen to Medshlock and Bates on Fix Radio. I did not want to get damaged goods on a so-called "fair and balanced" radio channel. Did they have a representative from the city or BOK?
Why don't we do this in the future. Let's not let city funds go towards anything outside of citizen protection, education and public works. Let economic development go through the private sector.
How come these radio magnets aren't up in arms about the Areema which will be a far greater disaster than Great Plains? And what institution seems to be shoring up that financial loser?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposedly, land around the Air Force Plant #3 was pledged.
However, the Tulsa World reported that maybe the bank neglected to file a proper lien entry........
Hence, NO collateral on the loan.
Ooops!
How about asking former TAA/TAIT attorney Mr. Moneybags Studenny for the $7 million.
Didn't he have E&O insurance?
Hmmmmmmh?
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposedly, land around the Air Force Plant #3 was pledged.
However, the Tulsa World reported that maybe the bank neglected to file a proper lien entry........
Hence, NO collateral on the loan.
Ooops!
How about asking former TAA/TAIT attorney Mr. Moneybags Studenny for the $7 million.
Didn't he have E&O insurance?
Hmmmmmmh?
[:O]
Good point.
Would love to see the original manipulators held accountable. Especially the lieyers should be called out for shenanigans.
But to try to capitalize politicaly like Medschlock et al are doing indicates their unwillingness to move on to more important issues. He's either running for office or trying to get a better job within the worst MSM organization in the world. I bet he'll be like a little attack dog. The people may not like the issue and the tax loss but it pales compared to the other waste that Councilor Medlock failed to see going on during his tenure. After all, under his "leadership" our streets ended up in their current condition and we got 2025 passed. Talk about shenanigans. But dare he try to remove inept civil servants?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sorry can't listen at 2:30. The headline of the thread and Chris' message doesn't specify whether it's city money or her personal funds. I know which one to guess, but it's still a little cryptic. Can she make decisions like this w/o full council approval?
Curiously, in advance of the recent city council election, BOK principal shareholder George Kaiser, his sister Ruth Kaiser, and BOK executive personnel were VERY generous in their contributions to various city councilors, who generally won their races.
Will these self-same city councilors now be beholden to vote for BOK's financial interest to repay them for their $7 million Great Plains Airlines loan??
Hmmmmmh?
[:O]
FB, what if I own stock in BOK? What should my position be?
Sorry I could not listen to Medshlock and Bates on Fix Radio. I did not want to get damaged goods on a so-called "fair and balanced" radio channel. Did they have a representative from the city or BOK?
Why don't we do this in the future. Let's not let city funds go towards anything outside of citizen protection, education and public works. Let economic development go through the private sector.
How come these radio magnets aren't up in arms about the Areema which will be a far greater disaster than Great Plains? And what institution seems to be shoring up that financial loser?
The bank appears to be doing reasonably well.
Their Net Income for 2007 was a mere $217 million.
So, $7 million from the Tulsa Taxpayers would amount to about 3% of their net income for last year.
Mr. Kaiser, at last estimate, was worth between $8 - 11 BILLION dollars.
He won't starve one way or the other.
Tulsa city tax payers would get hammered a bit more, on top of their disposable income being vacumned from their pockets to pay for much higher fuel, heating, electricity, and food costs.
But, heh, easy come, easy GO.
Maybe we'll have already forgotten about the $7 million when the BOK Arena opens in September 2008.....
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposedly, land around the Air Force Plant #3 was pledged.
However, the Tulsa World reported that maybe the bank neglected to file a proper lien entry........
Hence, NO collateral on the loan.
Ooops!
How about asking former TAA/TAIT attorney Mr. Moneybags Studenny for the $7 million.
Didn't he have E&O insurance?
Hmmmmmmh?
[:O]
Good point.
Would love to see the original manipulators held accountable. Especially the lieyers should be called out for shenanigans.
But to try to capitalize politicaly like Medschlock et al are doing indicates their unwillingness to move on to more important issues. He's either running for office or trying to get a better job within the worst MSM organization in the world. I bet he'll be like a little attack dog. The people may not like the issue and the tax loss but it pales compared to the other waste that Councilor Medlock failed to see going on during his tenure. After all, under his "leadership" our streets ended up in their current condition and we got 2025 passed. Talk about shenanigans. But dare he try to remove inept civil servants?
Oh, Mr. Medlock is just doing his new job:
Local Talk Radio host.
It's in the job description.
It's a topic of likely local interest:
The fall-out from the local PUBLIC funding and subsequent failure of Great Plains Airlines after a mere three short years of operations.
The bank and the man are our cities two best assets.
Let's not bite the hand that feeds us.....
Been expecting this. And, to no surprise, it's a nearly invisible agenda item, placed at the last minute and expecting Council to vote on Thursday. The "Tulsa Way".
There's so many things wrong about this it cannot even be addressed in a short posting.
FOTD, are you on BOK's Board?
While we're looking into this may also be a good time to take another look at that $7 million loan made in 2006 to TARE (an Authority with major cash flow and no need to be borrowing money). Remember, it was TARE Ms.Kitty obtained $11 Million in post-ice-storm cleanup funding. When FEMA reimburses the City, oddly, there's going to be about $8.25 million (75% of $11M) which has no place to go except the City's reserve fund. Actually, the final clean-up cost was greater than that, so should be even more.
Also remember that when the reserve fund reaches a certain point, your Ad Valorem tax goes DOWN, so it's important for them to find a use for this money or your taxes reduce.
QuoteAOX wrote
How come these radio magnets aren't up in arms about the Areema which will be a far greater disaster than Great Plains? And what institution seems to be shoring up that financial loser?
[/i]
What's an Areema? If you can't even discuss it without baby talk, why should we bother?
And the arena is infrastructure. Any profits that it happens to generate go to the city. Great Planes was a private for profit venture - see the difference? I would be happy to discuss the merits of economic development with you (again), but in general the city should not be subsidizing private enterprise.
Roads, schools, sewer, zoning... standard. Parks, trails, convention centers, and venues are also historically items provided by municipalities to improve the standard of living. I'm not sure what a large loan to a private for-profit has to do with an arena for general use, specifically in this instance.
So far your responses are:
1) Who cares, we waste tons of money.
2) So, we spent tons of money on the arena
and 3) I own stock in BOkF, so I'm happy to suck up the money.
Unfortunately, the up tick in your stock from the $7mil in the nearly $4BIL company won't offset your share of the tax you'll pay in to cover it. But it's good to see your sense of civic duty kick in.
BOKF and Kaiser are both valuable assets to this community. But so are the police, fire, teachers, and the thousands of other workers. So if we are handing out wads of cash for being valuable to the city I'll hold my hand out as the head of an educated young family that decided to live in Tulsa.
Do you have a persuasive argument in favor of dolling out this money or just random responses?
Also, why stick this in the agenda and vote so quickly on it?
- - -
And let me take care of it for you: blah blah blah stop with the personal attacks your so mean cannon_fodder. Now can we get to some real discussion of this matter?
The blame needs to be laid at the feet of those in charge at the time the deal went down.
The bank at that time was doing you and me and the taxpayers a favor. Or so they must have thought at the time. They thought they were helping create jobs which would increase the tax base. And no doubt they were doing what banks try to do in making loans. But they would not have made such favorable terms, not acruing interest nor forgiving indebtedness, had they not wanted to help the city.
The deal went south. The taxpayers need to blame the deal makers and not scapegoat the lender. We do have a moral obligation. If I were a lender, I'd have a difficult time lending to some who might suggest the borrower/guarantor has no legal obligation to repay the debt.
CF, I never said I owned stock in the bank. The Areema gets its nickname from the 2025 "vision" thing being reamed down our throats. It will cost you much more than $20.00. And do not give any loss leader or economic driver non sense.
Wrinkle, that argument about ad valorem taxes going down someday is bunk.
What this is in plain terms is politics. I asked a friend who listened to Faux radio at 2:30 if there were any defenders of the city or the bank on Medshlocks show. They said absolutely not. The news tonight did not report any of this either. And there is no doubt the bank may have had political motives as well.
Corporate welfare sucks. That's what this was a failed attempt at. Is it not surprising you lash out at FOTD for wanting the city to keep their word, to do the honorable thing, and to do what good partners do for each other.
And the owners of the bank do for this community that which can not be quantified.
I don't think we should skip out on an obligation due to an error in paperwork. Hopefully we are settling it for a reduced amount. If that is the case I think we should just count ourselves lucky that Kaiser isn't a D--k and suing us for the full amount plus some.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposedly, land around the Air Force Plant #3 was pledged.
However, the Tulsa World reported that maybe the bank neglected to file a proper lien entry........
Hence, NO collateral on the loan.
Ooops!
How about asking former TAA/TAIT attorney Mr. Moneybags Studenny for the $7 million.
Didn't he have E&O insurance?
Hmmmmmmh?
[:O]
Good point.
Would love to see the original manipulators held accountable. Especially the lieyers should be called out for shenanigans.
But to try to capitalize politicaly like Medschlock et al are doing indicates their unwillingness to move on to more important issues. He's either running for office or trying to get a better job within the worst MSM organization in the world. I bet he'll be like a little attack dog. The people may not like the issue and the tax loss but it pales compared to the other waste that Councilor Medlock failed to see going on during his tenure. After all, under his "leadership" our streets ended up in their current condition and we got 2025 passed. Talk about shenanigans. But dare he try to remove inept civil servants?
What waste on the streets? Jim Mautino and I tried to stop the latest 3rd Penny question because it was riddled with pork and was for 6 years rather than the two we said needed to be done to finish what was already promised to voters in 2001.
The Gang of Five stopped the annexation of the 23 square miles of North Tulsa County because we couldn't afford to take care of the roads we had inside city limits as it was.
Gang of Five was torn to shreds for asking why we couldn't use water sold to the suburbs as a revenue source to pay for our deteriorating infrastructure, including streets. We were told that wasn't neighborly.
I was the first councilor to fight the Bixby/Jenks bridge because it would force us to spend tens of millions of dollars to upgrade Yale from 96th to 121st, draining needed dollars to fix existing roads.
In 2005 I debated Randi Miller and told every media outlet that we needed to end Four-to-Fix the County to make those tax dollars available for streets and public safety. Ironic that Bill Martinson is now using my idea in his street proposal.
What were you doing at that time?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The blame needs to be laid at the feet of those in charge at the time the deal went down.
The bank at that time was doing you and me and the taxpayers a favor. Or so they must have thought at the time. They thought they were helping create jobs which would increase the tax base. And no doubt they were doing what banks try to do in making loans. But they would not have made such favorable terms, not acruing interest nor forgiving indebtedness, had they not wanted to help the city.
The deal went south. The taxpayers need to blame the deal makers and not scapegoat the lender. We do have a moral obligation. If I were a lender, I'd have a difficult time lending to some who might suggest the borrower/guarantor has no legal obligation to repay the debt.
CF, I never said I owned stock in the bank. The Areema gets its nickname from the 2025 "vision" thing being reamed down our throats. It will cost you much more than $20.00. And do not give any loss leader or economic driver non sense.
Wrinkle, that argument about ad valorem taxes going down someday is bunk.
What this is in plain terms is politics. I asked a friend who listened to Faux radio at 2:30 if there were any defenders of the city or the bank on Medshlocks show. They said absolutely not. The news tonight did not report any of this either. And there is no doubt the bank may have had political motives as well.
Corporate welfare sucks. That's what this was a failed attempt at. Is it not surprising you lash out at FOTD for wanting the city to keep their word, to do the honorable thing, and to do what good partners do for each other.
And the owners of the bank do for this community that which can not be quantified.
We placed a call at 12:30 from our news department to John Durkee, the mayor's new director of communications (formerly of KRMG). We wanted to get a direct statement defending the action. He didn't call back until 4:10, ten minutes after I went off the air.
I spoke with him and he told us they had no comment on the issue and referred me to City Attorney Deidre Dexter, who had someone in her office handling legal questions.
I asked him "what about the political questions?" He asked what I meant. I said "How about that Mayor Taylor was a member of the BOK Board of Directors immediately before her becoming Mayor?"
He said, "I don't know anything about that."
I also placed a call to G. T. Bynum...no response...John Eagleton...no response...and Jack Henderson, who said he's leaning toward voting in favor, but didn't want to come on the air.
What more were we supposed to do in a couple of hours with a story that is breaking this fast...in...uh...your "professional" opinion?
If your interested in why the Council can do very little to stop Mayor Taylor, you can read my latest entry on my blog at:
http://www.chrismedlock.com/2008/06/council-powerless-to-stop-taylor.html
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It's been awhile but didn't the City put up collateral for this note, collateral that the $7M would essentially be buying back?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Supposedly, land around the Air Force Plant #3 was pledged.
However, the Tulsa World reported that maybe the bank neglected to file a proper lien entry........
Hence, NO collateral on the loan.
Ooops!
How about asking former TAA/TAIT attorney Mr. Moneybags Studenny for the $7 million.
Didn't he have E&O insurance?
Hmmmmmmh?
[:O]
Good point.
Would love to see the original manipulators held accountable. Especially the lieyers should be called out for shenanigans.
But to try to capitalize politicaly like Medschlock et al are doing indicates their unwillingness to move on to more important issues. He's either running for office or trying to get a better job within the worst MSM organization in the world. I bet he'll be like a little attack dog. The people may not like the issue and the tax loss but it pales compared to the other waste that Councilor Medlock failed to see going on during his tenure. After all, under his "leadership" our streets ended up in their current condition and we got 2025 passed. Talk about shenanigans. But dare he try to remove inept civil servants?
What waste on the streets? Jim Mautino and I tried to stop the latest 3rd Penny question because it was riddled with pork and was for 6 years rather than the two we said needed to be done to finish what was already promised to voters in 2001.
The Gang of Five stopped the annexation of the 23 square miles of North Tulsa County because we couldn't afford to take care of the roads we had inside city limits as it was.
Gang of Five was torn to shreds for asking why we couldn't use water sold to the suburbs as a revenue source to pay for our deteriorating infrastructure, including streets. We were told that wasn't neighborly.
I was the first councilor to fight the Bixby/Jenks bridge because it would force us to spend tens of millions of dollars to upgrade Yale from 96th to 121st, draining needed dollars to fix existing roads.
In 2005 I debated Randi Miller and told every media outlet that we needed to end Four-to-Fix the County to make those tax dollars available for streets and public safety. Ironic that Bill Martinson is now using my idea in his street proposal.
What were you doing at that time?
Now... now Chris.. We all are aware of your many accomplishments while on the City dole......
I know an election year has given you and your friends that fever.
Let's just blame the people that actually obligated us to this debt...
If you want to crucify someone... crucify Susan... She gave the City's word we would back the debt.
The court has ruled has it not...?
I, for one, am not about to defend anyones actions in regard to the investigation into this matter by the City Council.. ie the
gang of fiveThere was just enough dirt to make it interesting.. But there was a whole lot of fizzle and no pop.
They pulled the plug on your funds... wah wah wah.
You saw fit to jump behind LaFortuna who strangely enough received the same sort trial by innuendo that you are mounting against Mayor Taylor..
Can't say I blame you.. With a dufus like McCain what can a Republican do..?
By the way did the "I" ever become a complete...?
Well, Master Bates puts everything in black and white. If Krazy Kathy decides to foist tax payer dollars when it has already been deemed that we don't need to then taxpayers can sue her qui tam for misappropriation of funds and get her removed from office. I say go for it.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The bank and the man are our cities two best assets.
Let's not bite the hand that feeds us.....
You could not be more of an ignorant dude....Lol...You are a laughingstock...
+1
CM...I was not discussing what you did or tried to accomplish as a councilor. A few issues we might have had agreed and still might agree today on seperate ones. But your personal history has very little to do with this issue. That is why I will not be baited by non sense like "what were you doing?"
It's like you are playing a game of gotcha for that pathetic station you work. Take some lessons from Russert. If you are going to make some sort of "conflict of interest" claim, not only save us the grief in cost and time and uncertainty, but let the Mayor distinguish between then and now and what her role was if any in the process of this loan. Russert might advise you to have a balanced discussion or not one at all. Of course, your station plays to one audience and they are not balanced and the dead air is even unfair.
Burner, nice sucker punch. I see you brought your sidehick Inteller along.
Rico gets the post of the day award.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The blame needs to be laid at the feet of those in charge at the time the deal went down.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. That wouldn't include us, however. De-funding the investigation, by itself, was a CYA act of loath. I wouldn't even pay those funds if the investigation gets done. And, how is it no one was ever tried, much less now serving time for this criminal act.
Perhaps we should start with those who made 'moral' commitments that are based upon illegal obligations?
quote:
The bank at that time was doing you and me and the taxpayers a favor. Or so they must have thought at the time. They thought they were helping create jobs which would increase the tax base. And no doubt they were doing what banks try to do in making loans. But they would not have made such favorable terms, not acruing interest nor forgiving indebtedness, had they not wanted to help the city.
Doing me a favor???!! Sure.
It was an inside deal on our backs, intended to make huge wealth at our expense. Sharing the profits wasn't in the cards, just sharing the loss now, it appears.
quote:
The deal went south. The taxpayers need to blame the deal makers and not scapegoat the lender. We do have a moral obligation. If I were a lender, I'd have a difficult time lending to some who might suggest the borrower/guarantor has no legal obligation to repay the debt.
The lender was on the inside, like all the other parties.
quote:
CF, I never said I owned stock in the bank. The Areema gets its nickname from the 2025 "vision" thing being reamed down our throats. It will cost you much more than $20.00. And do not give any loss leader or economic driver non sense.
Do you know the difference between public and private projects?
quote:
Wrinkle, that argument about ad valorem taxes going down someday is bunk.
It's true Ad Valorem would go down if the sinking fund achieves a certain level. I certainly don't expect any of our leaders to let that happen, even if they have to give away money to keep it from happening.
quote:
What this is in plain terms is politics. I asked a friend who listened to Faux radio at 2:30 if there were any defenders of the city or the bank on Medshlocks show. They said absolutely not. The news tonight did not report any of this either. And there is no doubt the bank may have had political motives as well.
Chris responded well to this lame argument.
quote:
Corporate welfare sucks. That's what this was a failed attempt at. Is it not surprising you lash out at FOTD for wanting the city to keep their word, to do the honorable thing, and to do what good partners do for each other.
It's called backscratching. And, in this case is illegal. The City of Tulsa was not a party to the deal, why are we now expected to pay a debt we do not owe? The place for BOK to do this would be the bankruptcy court handling GPA assets.
They didn't cover themselves?? I'd call it bad banking.
Let Susan Savage pay it, she's the one who's claimed to have made a verbal committment, certainly not in our behalf. And, it was immoral for her to have attempted to do so.
quote:
And the owners of the bank do for this community that which can not be quantified.
Well, there's something which can be debated at length. I've not seen everything, but what I have always comes with a conditional benefit.
I still believe crimes were committed.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Well, Master Bates puts everything in black and white. If Krazy Kathy decides to foist tax payer dollars when it has already been deemed that we don't need to then taxpayers can sue her qui tam for misappropriation of funds and get her removed from office. I say go for it.
Anyone got a bucket of hot tar and a pillowslip of feathers?
Then, see you tonite at the City Council meeting.....
As I understand it, the amount that was defaulted has $7.5 million outstanding. So we are getting a 5% discount on a debt that the last mayor was warned he couldn't legally pay.
Here's my problem:
1) the debt is not clear cut. The FAA ruled that we held out illegal collateral. There was no clause that the city would assume the debt nor that would compensate BOk for a bad loan.
2) Under LaFortune the city attorney said we can't legally pay for it, now we change our minds?
3) And a slew of potential conflicts of interest -
a) A mayor who was on the BOk Board of Directors
b) A city attorney who is on a "6 month hold" from practicing with the firm representing BOk (Dorwart)
and c) and counselors who accepted campaign donations from BOk (Kaiser)
So I can't say it's total BS because I'm not fully aware in this complex situation. But it certainly warrants a close eye. The city should never have been in this situation to begin with.
Why not orchestrate a pass-back? Hand over the money and have BOk donate it to a park, fund, or some other project. They get to count the revenue on their books and the right off on the donation, and the city gets a new park. Seems like a decent compromise - giving them $7.1 out of $7.5mil isn't much of a compromise.
- - - -
As a side note, it turns out I know the attorney representing BOk on this matter. Haven't talked to him in a year, but full disclosure.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I don't think we should skip out on an obligation due to an error in paperwork. Hopefully we are settling it for a reduced amount. If that is the case I think we should just count ourselves lucky that Kaiser isn't a D--k and suing us for the full amount plus some.
ahh, they are....
CJ-2004-6124 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2004-6124&db=Tulsa&submitted=true%22)Actually, the City of Tulsa was just added as defendant on June 25, 2008, just in time for this latest action by Ms. Kitty.
That had to be REQUESTED and granted by the Judge. Why would we want to join into a suite as defendant when we were not originally so named?
Appears some collusion is also involved here, besides the unwarranted attempt to steal taxpayer money.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I don't think we should skip out on an obligation due to an error in paperwork. Hopefully we are settling it for a reduced amount. If that is the case I think we should just count ourselves lucky that Kaiser isn't a D--k and suing us for the full amount plus some.
ahh, they are....
CJ-2004-6124 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2004-6124&db=Tulsa&submitted=true%22)
Actually, the City of Tulsa was just added as defendant on June 25, 2008, just in time for this latest action by Ms. Kitty.
That had to be REQUESTED and granted by the Judge. Why would we want to join into a suite as defendant when we were not originally so named?
Appears some collusion is also involved here, besides the unwarranted attempt to steal taxpayer money.
Maybe CannonFodder will opine, but just HOW does the City get added as a defendant THREE years AFTER the original case is filed?
Unless the City of Tulsa ASKED to be added as a defendant?
Many things are smelling about this so-called "Settlement".
How amusing the two latest stories seem to be: We can't afford gasoline for police cars but we can afford to pay $7.1M that is not our debt.
PATHETIC!
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Well, Master Bates puts everything in black and white. If Krazy Kathy decides to foist tax payer dollars when it has already been deemed that we don't need to then taxpayers can sue her qui tam for misappropriation of funds and get her removed from office. I say go for it.
Anyone got a bucket of hot tar and a pillowslip of feathers?
Then, see you tonite at the City Council meeting.....
My computer screen is covered in coffee, thanks alot [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
As I understand it, the amount that was defaulted has $7.5 million outstanding. So we are getting a 5% discount on a debt that the last mayor was warned he couldn't legally pay.
Here's my problem:
1) the debt is not clear cut. The FAA ruled that we held out illegal collateral. There was no clause that the city would assume the debt nor that would compensate BOk for a bad loan.
2) Under LaFortune the city attorney said we can't legally pay for it, now we change our minds?
3) And a slew of potential conflicts of interest -
a) A mayor who was on the BOk Board of Directors
b) A city attorney who is on a "6 month hold" from practicing with the firm representing BOk (Dorwart)
and c) and counselors who accepted campaign donations from BOk (Kaiser)
So I can't say it's total BS because I'm not fully aware in this complex situation. But it certainly warrants a close eye. The city should never have been in this situation to begin with.
Why not orchestrate a pass-back? Hand over the money and have BOk donate it to a park, fund, or some other project. They get to count the revenue on their books and the right off on the donation, and the city gets a new park. Seems like a decent compromise - giving them $7.1 out of $7.5mil isn't much of a compromise.
- - - -
As a side note, it turns out I know the attorney representing BOk on this matter. Haven't talked to him in a year, but full disclosure.
And they could build that park in north Tulsa to make up for the one they renegged on when the river tax-grab/slush-fund failed.
Interesting, this suit was just filed against M. Susan Savage yesterday, anyone know if this could be related?
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2314922&db=Oklahoma
News from the special Airport Board Meeting:
I attended the special meeting of the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust that was held at 8:30 AM in Room 1101 of the Tulsa City Hall. Even though this was on the same floor and mere feet from Mayor Taylor's office, Kathy Taylor never appeared during the meeting.
All board members were present in the room with the exception of Meredith Siegfried, who was on a speaker phone as she was in Singapore on business.
The meeting was late starting and relatively brief. There were few surprises, but one jumped out at me. Richard Studenny, the attorney for the Tulsa Industrial Authority AND TAIT [the lender AND the borrower] back when the Great Plains deal was cooked up, will potentially be given a free pass.
TIA, and indirectly BOK, was going after Mr. Studenny's malpractice and/or errors and omissions insurance to recoup their financial losses. Studenny was fired, after a too lengthy drama in the media, by then Mayor Bill LaFortune. It was always speculated that Studenny knew where "all the bodies" were buried at the Tulsa Airport.
Now with Kathy Taylor's rushed and hushed settlement, the word is that both the bank, and TIA will waive any claim to Studenny's insurance. This let's him off free and clear, unless the City Council and/or the mayor muster the political will to pursue him in court. Remember though, this will be a brand new law suit and the clock and the cash machine will have to begin anew.
What's that smell? Can you smell that smell?
The smell? You been using mouthwash today? JUST KIDDING!!
So Taylor is protecting Studenny's insurance company bc she used to be on the BOK's Board so he does not fink out the TIA? Wait, what?
Queen Kathy never met a shady Taxpayer funded swindle she wouldn't cosign:
In her first year as Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce, she used taxpayer money to fund a questionable foundation with close ties to former Democrat state senator and convicted felon Gene Stipe in a purely speculative venture in direct competition with the City of Tulsa.
In 2004 a Commerce Department Appropriations Bill implemented under Taylor's authority includes $350,000 to the Rural Development Foundation.
According to an Oklahoma House of Representatives press release dated September 9, 2003, the Rural Development Foundation was "pondering" development of a system that would convey water to communities in Pottawatomie, Okfuskee, Creek, McIntosh, Okmulgee and Seminole counties. Just what the hell does "pondering" mean?
"We would either deliver raw water to their own treatment plants or reservoirs, or sell them filtered water, or maybe it would be a combination of the two," said Steve Phipps. He said he was a consultant to the tax-exempt foundation, which is based in Antlers.
The address of Rural Development Foundation office is recorded as 111 Main Street, Antlers Oklahoma. Steve Phipps also owns an abstract business in Antlers, the Pushmataha County Abstract Co., at that same address.
As Commerce Secretary, Kathy Taylor was responsible for managing the entire Department appropriation, including the $350,000 to this foundation. The question most taxpayers should be interested in is how someone could set up a foundation, quickly secure a water rights agreement and then get that much money from the Commerce Dept with no track record of accomplishments on a purely speculative deal?
The Rural Development Foundation also received $350,000 from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry in 2004. Further, an agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce transfers that $350,000 to the Commerce Department effective June 30, 2005. That agreement is signed by Kathryn L. Taylor and dated September 9, 2004. Thus, Rural Development Foundation apparently gathered a total of $700,000.00 in Oklahoma taxpayer funds.
Kathy Taylor's appointment to the Henry transition team and later as Secretary of Commerce for Governor Brad Henry followed significant campaign donations to his election effort after contributing to Henry's opponent Republican Steve Largent prior to the election.
Da Mare has certainly proven she has a grift for graft straight out of the pay to playbook for the best government money can buy. God save us from the Queen Carpetbagger.
She should be running against Inhofe.[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
The smell? You been using mouthwash today? JUST KIDDING!!
So Taylor is protecting Studenny's insurance company bc she used to be on the BOK's Board so he does not fink out the TIA? Wait, what?
Hmm...sorry about the smell remark, I didn't notice you came in the room. Just kidding!!!
Studenny's practice would be substantially damaged by a negative judgment against his insurance. Would he be able to get it for future business? How much more would premiums be? Not to mention opening the door for Bar Association sanctions. No body wanted Studenny talking.
SO, we, the taxpayers are just pretty much screwed right? Right. Just because I'm the shallow person I am, I was wondering if this would have happened if we gave kaiser the river? Is this Plan B?......LOL.
I think Michael Bates says it best on his blog today -
"The City of Tulsa doesn't owe this money to BOk, and paying it is against the law. The Mayor and the City Attorney and any councilor that votes in favor of tonight's resolution will be personally exposed to a qui tam action filed by taxpayers under 62 O.S. §372 and §373."
magine I'm having coffee with Mayor Taylor one day, and she remarks, "You seem sad, Michael. What's wrong?"
"I lent someone $7,000 to help start a new business. The business went broke. I sued the guy, but he doesn't have any money. Another guy cosigned the loan and pledged some collateral, but it turns out he doesn't really own the property, so he can't cover the loan either. I should have known the collateral wasn't his, but I didn't think about it before I lent him the money. Anyway, looks like I'm out seven grand."
"I think I can help you, Michael. Just add the City as a defendant to your lawsuit."
"But the City isn't involved...."
"Doesn't matter. You're my friend, and I can help you. Just file an amended petition against the city, cite any old grounds -- make something up. I'll direct the City Attorney to settle out of court for the full amount. The Council will have to approve taking the money out of the sinking fund, but they're pushovers. They don't like to give the newspaper an excuse to call them bickering obstructionists."
"Won't that raise our property taxes?"
"You know, Michael, it's just pennies per taxpayer, and you're such a valuable asset to our community, you deserve it."
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
SO, we, the taxpayers are just pretty much screwed right? Right. Just because I'm the shallow person I am, I was wondering if this would have happened if we gave kaiser the river? Is this Plan B?......LOL.
Funny....
It was rumored at the time BOK purchased the "naming rights" to the Arena that they were merely passing the money to "Billy" so it could be given back to them...
Maybe they are looking at a very long term free rental agreement at the OTC "New City Hall"...
just kidding...........[:)]
But this does begin to make a very good case as to why this should be settled. The sooner the better.
It would remove any speculation as to a conflict of interest in future dealings with Mister Kaiser. He deserves that.
The amount of
garbage being shoveled in this thread was just as prevalent during the LaFortunate term...
Anyone caring to read some facts as to the case...? See the following. (//%22http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/av2004058.pdf%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
The smell? You been using mouthwash today? JUST KIDDING!!
So Taylor is protecting Studenny's insurance company bc she used to be on the BOK's Board so he does not fink out the TIA? Wait, what?
Hmm...sorry about the smell remark, I didn't notice you came in the room. Just kidding!!!
Studenny's practice would be substantially damaged by a negative judgment against his insurance. Would he be able to get it for future business? How much more would premiums be? Not to mention opening the door for Bar Association sanctions. No body wanted Studenny talking.
Studenny needs to face the consequences of his incompetence. Covering his donkey with $7mm in "hush money" from the city is absolute corruption.
I found the new lawsuit filed on Susan Savage yesterday when I was looking for info on the Studenny case on OSCN. Any indications at all if it's related? I found it odd that happened on the same day COT was added as a defendant on the GP lawsuit.
Rico gets the best constructive post of the day on this thread.... two days in a row Rico!
It's time for the end game on this issue. Medlock and Bates will no doubt continue with gathering the tar and feathers.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rico gets the best constructive post of the day on this thread.... two days in a row Rico!
It's time for the end game on this issue. Medlock and Bates will no doubt continue with gathering the tar and feathers.
-1.
I guess I'm confused Rico and AOX. This is a mess, so pay the money and so we don't have to worry about it?
We are talking about $7,000,000.00 here. More money than most Americans will make their entire life. Why not give this a closer look at least?
I guess I haven't heard a coherent argument as to why we should pay it. I'm not dead-set against it, perhaps I just don't understand. Convince me otherwise.
"We are talking about $7,000,000.00 here. More money than most Americans will make their entire life."
Good comparison.....not even rational.[:P] And you wonder why some of us won't go for your worms and other baited threads (or should that be threats?).
You evidently are like your Fox counterparts Bates and Medlock. You don't want to be fair, you are unbalanced and fear dead air.[:D]
Wait a minute. I'm a little confused as well. My wife asked me this evening just why we were having to pay for this Great Plaines thing. Our real estate taxes go up again and we don't have anything to show for it.
Good question. BOK was lead on by unscrupulous borrowers who really didn't have the title to collateral and suddenly disappear leaving the bank holding the bag. Just like when the bank has to go repossess a car and the car is gone and no paperwork exists to prove a car was ever purchased. Whoops, burned. Except all the principals seem to have skated on this one and my real estate tax is increased to cover the losses of the richest man in town. Yeah, its clear now.
edit with anger slowly subsiding...About the only thing that does make sense to me is that there does seem to be a moral case for doing the right thing. We put our trust in these elected officials to represent us and they failed to do so without reneging on a deal. However, if it is "unjust enrichment" just how were we enriched and why don't I feel enriched?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"We are talking about $7,000,000.00 here. More money than most Americans will make their entire life."
Good comparison.....not even rational.[:P] And you wonder why some of us won't go for your worms and other baited threads (or should that be threats?).
You evidently are like your Fox counterparts Bates and Medlock. You don't want to be fair, you are unbalanced and fear dead air.[:D]
Why pay? It is NOT a City of Tulsa liability. NEVER was.
Ms. Chatty Kathy Taylor needs to attain higher office. Badly.
Governor, Sinator, etc.
Unless she gets $7 million for greedy KAISER, who is the richest man in Oklahoma, her political future is curtains.
Now, she gets a blank cheque from Mssr. Kaiser and his cronies to ensure her future political viability.
And, we pay the freight. Again.
Swell.
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"We are talking about $7,000,000.00 here. More money than most Americans will make their entire life."
Good comparison.....not even rational.[:P] And you wonder why some of us won't go for your worms and other baited threads (or should that be threats?).
You evidently are like your Fox counterparts Bates and Medlock. You don't want to be fair, you are unbalanced and fear dead air.[:D]
No, let's be serious here for a minute and get past the personal lampooing. If Studenny had EOI, and his blunder is what got everyone's tit in a wringer over the airport property with the FAA, they need to pay, not taxpayers.
The idea that the citizens of Tulsa should be held liable for the either a)ignorant conduct, b)willful misconduct, or c)outright fraud committed by Studenny is ludicrous. Lending is not a risk-free business and BOK knows that.
For those amongst us born with a silver spoon up our donkey, Cannon's analogy is easy to brush off. To the average work-a-day Joe driving home and hearing about this sudden $7mm payment, that's a lot of money.
Your attitude is "Feh, just give the bank their money."
I've never been adjudged a millionaire so $7mm sounds like a lot of money to me. Even if it's not all mine, a share of that is, and I didn't create this ****-up. An attorney in the employ of the city did. He has insurance just for these ****-ups and there are mechanisms to remove boobs like him from being able to practice law again.
I think a lot of people look at government expenditures and think: "Good thing it's not my money!"
D'OH!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
"We are talking about $7,000,000.00 here. More money than most Americans will make their entire life."
Good comparison.....not even rational.[:P] And you wonder why some of us won't go for your worms and other baited threads (or should that be threats?).
You evidently are like your Fox counterparts Bates and Medlock. You don't want to be fair, you are unbalanced and fear dead air.[:D]
Just a guess, mind you.
June 30, the bank needs to file its quarterly financial statement with the SEC.
If they can show a sizeable RECOVERY in their Reserves, so much the better for their stock price.
Otherwise, aren't commercial and residential real estate loans TANKING badly nationwide, leading to large loan write-offs in many banks?
The $7 million from the City of Tulsa goes a long way to augmenting the bank's possibly depleted reserve for bad debts.
Ouch!
No, let's be serious here for a minute and get past the personal lampooing. If Studenny had EOI, and his blunder is what got everyone's tit in a wringer over the airport property with the FAA, they need to pay, not taxpayers.
The idea that the citizens of Tulsa should be held liable for the either a)ignorant conduct, b)willful misconduct, or c)outright fraud committed by Studenny is ludicrous. Lending is not a risk-free business and BOK knows that.
For those amongst us born with a silver spoon up our donkey, Cannon's analogy is easy to brush off. To the average work-a-day Joe driving home and hearing about this sudden $7mm payment, that's a lot of money.
Your attitude is "Feh, just give the bank their money."
I've never been adjudged a millionaire so $7mm sounds like a lot of money to me. Even if it's not all mine, a share of that is, and I didn't create this ****-up. An attorney in the employ of the city did. He has insurance just for these ****-ups and there are mechanisms to remove boobs like him from being able to practice law again.
I think a lot of people look at government expenditures and think: "Good thing it's not my money!"
D'OH!
If anyone knows of a lawyer experienced in qui tam cases please forward their information to me.
I am serious.
After what I watched take place tonight, a qui tam suit is only a start. It is time to bring in the state and maybe even the feds on CoT. Corruption reached all new heights this evening.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
If anyone knows of a lawyer experienced in qui tam cases please forward their information to me.
I am serious.
After what I watched take place tonight, a qui tam suit is only a start. It is time to bring in the state and maybe even the feds on CoT. Corruption reached all new heights this evening.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
If anyone knows of a lawyer experienced in qui tam cases please forward their information to me.
I am serious.
After what I watched take place tonight, a qui tam suit is only a start. It is time to bring in the state and maybe even the feds on CoT. Corruption reached all new heights this evening.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.
If you know a lawyer experienced in qui tam matters please forward their name to me.
Per §373 I need nine others to join me on qui tam action, so if you know anyone else that would like to join me in the endeavor forward their names to me.
Good luck...just from watching this in short bits on the news...and wondering pancakes is going on with this ...it is obviouse there is MUCH MORE going on..and the CITY of TULSA is hoping that its citizens will just stroll down the road......
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
If anyone knows of a lawyer experienced in qui tam cases please forward their information to me.
I am serious.
After what I watched take place tonight, a qui tam suit is only a start. It is time to bring in the state and maybe even the feds on CoT. Corruption reached all new heights this evening.
No doubt about it, Tulsa needs some tough love to get us out of this dysfunction junction we're in. I think it will take a grand jury. That's where this needs to go. I'd love to serve on that grand jury, BTW.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
The following is the link to the Council agenda item.
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Administration was trying to get Airport land to deed to BOk, but FAA said "no way."
Not confirmed yet if Council approval is necessary, but new councilors woefully unaware of particulars, the decision is expected immediately and the timing around the holiday seems designed to minimize public fallout.
For more, Bates will be on my show at 2:30.
The Bank of Oklahoma enters a business deal and loses, now the City of Tulsa wants to make it right and claim the payment is moral.
Here's a moral question: had the business skyrocketed and made millions of dollars for BOK, how much of that money was BOK going to give the City of Tulsa because is was the moral thing to do?
The BIG FAT ZERO!
Seriously thinking about pulling all my money out of BOK.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
The following is the link to the Council agenda item.
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Administration was trying to get Airport land to deed to BOk, but FAA said "no way."
Not confirmed yet if Council approval is necessary, but new councilors woefully unaware of particulars, the decision is expected immediately and the timing around the holiday seems designed to minimize public fallout.
For more, Bates will be on my show at 2:30.
The Bank of Oklahoma enters a business deal and loses, now the City of Tulsa wants to make it right and claim the payment is moral.
Here's a moral question: had the business skyrocketed and made millions of dollars for BOK, how much of that money was BOK going to give the City of Tulsa because is was the moral thing to do?
The BIG FAT ZERO!
Seriously thinking about pulling all my money out of BOK.
Didn't Mayor Taylor "settle" the matter at lunch earlier this week with the bank's CEO?
She was fed a Lie-Burger.
[:)]
Holy $#!^, what a crock: KOTV (//%22http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8561400%22) forgets to mention the Mayor in their story, like it was the Council's idea! And the World devoted three times more words to the story, not mentioning the Mayor by name, just lil' 'm'! (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080627_11_A1_hPrope281466%22)
There is no justification for the way it happened, much less the thing that happened.
As for 'putting it behind us', we already did, but it's now going to haunt for a long time.
At least the Council (in a hands-tied situation) did the best they could in preventing the 'Emergancy Clause' portion from passing. That means the money cannot be paid on Monday as was a requirement of the 'deal'.
Makes the 'deal' invalid, if it ever was.
Whatever the intent, it was centered on settlement prior to July, 1, 2008. It'd be interesting to know why that was important. So, important that people risked their political futures.
Where's the WrecKall Kitty Petition going to be available?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
If anyone knows of a lawyer experienced in qui tam cases please forward their information to me.
I am serious.
After what I watched take place tonight, a qui tam suit is only a start. It is time to bring in the state and maybe even the feds on CoT. Corruption reached all new heights this evening.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.
If you know a lawyer experienced in qui tam matters please forward their name to me.
Per §373 I need nine others to join me on qui tam action, so if you know anyone else that would like to join me in the endeavor forward their names to me.
Not a lawyer (disclaimer), but from what I read about Qui Tam, it's a Federal deal. Not sure it can be applied to State/Local government without specific State/Local law. But, if you can, those ten filers could obtain up to the full amount ($7.1Mil) if found correct. How's that for incintive?
I'm for the Federal Grand Jury, too.
1) FOTD, your response was... YET AGAIN, totally not related to the matter at hand.
2) Kudos to GT Bynum and the other counselor who recused themselves. The only thing that smells right on this whole damn thing.
3) We were added to the lawsuit recently. The proposal for payment came to light Monday. It was published on Tuesday and approved on Thursday. Fastest $7mil ever.
So we have the mayor, much of the council, and the city attorney all with interests in the transaction. Also interested are one of the largest companies, the richest man, and the cities major newspaper. All on a debt that is not legally owned (the city was not unjustly enriched IMHO) and was "settled" for the asking price (generally you settle somewhere lower than that).
I just wish it was not rushed and given more scrutiny.
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent. Also will see about the stand for "unjust enrichment" as a cause of action.
So in reality is there anything that can really be done about this? I think its funny..(now that I don't live in the city limits) so it really does not affect me...but I think its still a SHAM!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent.
See 62 O.S. 372 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88300%22) & 373 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88301%22)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) FOTD, your response was... YET AGAIN, totally not related to the matter at hand.
2) Kudos to GT Bynum and the other counselor who recused themselves. The only thing that smells right on this whole damn thing.
3) We were added to the lawsuit recently. The proposal for payment came to light Monday. It was published on Tuesday and approved on Thursday. Fastest $7mil ever.
So we have the mayor, much of the council, and the city attorney all with interests in the transaction. Also interested are one of the largest companies, the richest man, and the cities major newspaper. All on a debt that is not legally owned (the city was not unjustly enriched IMHO) and was "settled" for the asking price (generally you settle somewhere lower than that).
I just wish it was not rushed and given more scrutiny.
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent. Also will see about the stand for "unjust enrichment" as a cause of action.
Wonder if the $7 million gain to BOK will be offset by their WRITE-OFF of the carrying value of the Arena Naming Rights?
The VALUE of those naming rights just got depreciated!
How?
Every time a Tulsan drives by, sees or attends an event in the BOK Arena, they'll fondly remember how Mayor Taylor hastily paid the bank $7 million of their tax dollars that she simply didn't have to.
Besides being mad a Mayor Taylor, they just might not be too happy with the bank.
You don't want existing or potential bank customers to get MAD when they think of your brand name.
Thanks, for the memories.
[:O]
The owner of BOK does more for this community than any other individual in town.
Years ago, Boone Pickens tried to use his money and power to manipulate the community of Amarillo. The citizens turned their back on Boone and he took his circus and moved to Dallas. GBK would not engage in such antics. Instead, he takes a beating and just keeps giving.
What does BOK do for this community in support? How many employees work for the bank in Tulsa? How does this growing corporation continue to add to our economy here through nation wide acquisitions? What does the bank do in support of civic activities and sponsorships of events you attend mostly for free?
What does the owner do for this town? He gives at least $50,000,000 here annually through his foundations. It goes mainly to education and early childhood development programs. Would the Kendall Whittier area still be in poverty and crime ridden without his input? He set up a community foundation which allows individuals the ability to give back to their city through estate planning which in turn will benefit Tulsa forever. Do you know all the other wonderful things this kind person does for you indirectly over and above $27 a person? You all need a lesson in civics and in getting life in perspective.
Put politics aside this time and move on to a more positive outlook.
If you are looking for a witch hunt go down the pike to the Suckretary of State. She probably had to beg the bank to get involved in her scheme. No bank would have been so generous as to make this type of loan structure in the first place. And the bank forgave almost $5,000,000 in interest due.
GT Bynum did not need to bail until he realized his vote was unnecessary. He is a republican....Forgoing the emergency clause was cya for a few councilors.
Mean people suck. This hateful political game reflects poorly on all here who believe that walking on a small debt is the way to go. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth? The benefits of paying off this amount far outweigh the cost to continue the fight. Does it help maintain our community credibility with lenders and rating agencies going into the future?
AOX, no one argued that Kaiser and his Family Foundation nor that BOk has not done a lot for this community. I have extolled his virtuous giving many times.
But the argument "George Kaiser gives lots of money to Tulsa, so lets give lots of money to him" is not a winning argument. Sorry. Not only is not sound logic, this matter is a legal matter... the city can not give million to whomever it deems worthy.
Then there is philanthropy and business, his philanthropy to the city should not be tied to our willingness to give him $7 million, or it really isn't philanthropy. If he steps up and blackmails the city for $7mil he should get it - he's worth it to the community. BUT, if that's what's going on then my opinion of him would hcange drastically.
If you actually read, above I indicated a compromise if he was interested in philanthropy which would see the money essentially returned to the city with the benefits still given to BOk. Nothing like that was discussed that I am aware of. BOk added Tulsa to the suit and we nearly instantly handed over the entire sum they asked for.
For the record, $7,100,000.00 is not a small amount. It is what the average Tulsan makes in about 160 years of working. If it is a trivial matter, why would a multi billion dollar company care, or why don't you just pay it off? Time to step to the plate.
AND, I want full disclosure. What relationships do you have here because your "give the money to the rich and screw it" position is contrary to your normal banter. I'm operating on the assumption that either you or someone close to you will personal bennefit from this. Your comments have lacked rationale for your position - "he's nice so pay him $7mil" notwithstanding.
You didn't actually expect a re-THUG-lican to have any honor or ethics did you? And a reich-wingnut at that? CF, you're easy to figure out. You are an obstructionalist. You are the type who likes 5 year divorces because they pay good fees for the inability to mediate.
Move on if you are going to avoid answering my questions.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
AOX, no one argued that Kaiser and his Family Foundation nor that BOk has not done a lot for this community. I have extolled his virtuous giving many times.
But the argument "George Kaiser gives lots of money to Tulsa, so lets give lots of money to him" is not a winning argument. Sorry. Not only is not sound logic, this matter is a legal matter... the city can not give million to whomever it deems worthy.
Then there is philanthropy and business, his philanthropy to the city should not be tied to our willingness to give him $7 million, or it really isn't philanthropy. If he steps up and blackmails the city for $7mil he should get it - he's worth it to the community. BUT, if that's what's going on then my opinion of him would hcange drastically.
If you actually read, above I indicated a compromise if he was interested in philanthropy which would see the money essentially returned to the city with the benefits still given to BOk. Nothing like that was discussed that I am aware of. BOk added Tulsa to the suit and we nearly instantly handed over the entire sum they asked for.
For the record, $7,100,000.00 is not a small amount. It is what the average Tulsan makes in about 160 years of working. If it is a trivial matter, why would a multi billion dollar company care, or why don't you just pay it off? Time to step to the plate.
AND, I want full disclosure. What relationships do you have here because your "give the money to the rich and screw it" position is contrary to your normal banter. I'm operating on the assumption that either you or someone close to you will personal bennefit from this. Your comments have lacked rationale for your position - "he's nice so pay him $7mil" notwithstanding.
The promoters of Great Plains Airlines, who have all left town by now, had pitched their "Direct Flights to the Coasts" deal to 2nd tier cities like Wichita and Tulsa.
All the other cities had the sense to turn them down.
Then, the promoters used a network of gifted grifters to garner $30 million in State Tax Credits courtesy of their lobbyist Martha Erling Frette.
Then, got TAIT to pledge 22 acres of land right in the heart of the airport to the bank.
Then, in exchange for $600K in free advertising, they made World Publishing Co. the largest equity owner of GPA, despite today's Tulsa World's repeated Half-Truth that World Publishing only owned 3% of the shares.
PREFERRED shares are not counted the same way as the common stock.
Repeat: The World Publishing company was the single largest equity owner of the airlines. And, that ownership interest bought GPA many, many favorable "news" articles right up to the point when the airline crashed.
WHY didn't anyone exercise some adult leadership over the promoters when the first planes they acquired, they leased two airplanes that were incapable of flying non-stop to either coast.
THAT was a serious RED FLAG.
In a Banana Republic like Tulsa, a few immensely rich families like the Lortons, the Helmerichs, the Kaisers, the Warrens, the Siegfrieds, the Flints, the Rooneys, and the Schusterman's have an influence far, far in excess of what is healthy for what we mistakenly persist in calling our "democracy".
It isn't really a democracy.
It is a Banana Republic.
It only has the edifices of a democracy:
Elections.
Courts.
Judges.
These ruling Oligarch families select our political leaders, the Mayor and a majority of our city councilors.
Their paid paladins like Cameron and Reynolds populate our city boards, commisions and authorities (like TAIT, TMUA, TARE, TIA, TDA, etc.), doing their bidding, and breaking our backs with bad, bad deals like the Trash-to- Energy Plant, clean water piped at cost to subsidize development of our suburbs, Great Plains Airlines, an arena sole-sourced to the Flint-Rooney Oligarchia Familias, etc., etc., etc.
Very scarily, they also select our District and Federal Court judges.
Newly appointed Federal judge Gregory Frizzell is Senator Inhofe's "dear" friend.
Really scary if you are foolish enough or unlucky enough to have a legal tangle with the local Oligarchia Familias.
Their wholly-owned District Judge Jane Wiseman, took all of FIVE minutes to rule that a log-rolled 2003 Vision 2025 ballot, that figuratively sugar-coated voter rat poison, was actually not a log-rolled ballot.
Don't believe your eyes. Believe the judge.
Dear Judge Wiseman's reward:
Shortly thereafter, rewarded with a state Appellant Judgeship.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
[:O]
FOTD, no one disputes how much better this city looks and feels due to the generosity of Mr. Kaiser. BOK and Kaiser are benevolent to a point, but I'm still miffed about the conditional philanthropy offered with the river and sensing defeat, offering north Tulsa a park if only they would support it. The initiative failed and Kaiser pulled the gift from North Tulsa along with the big $100mm "one time" gift. I suspect that money will continue to flow into Tulsa from his foundation for many years to come whether or not BOK is paid the $7mm.
If it is true that BOK did not perfect a lein on the property, that's their fault and no one owes them a thing. If BOK negleted to file a lein on your house or commercial property, they would be screwed. It's their fault.
If, however, it was because Dick Stupidity issued an opinion that it was okay to mortgage property at AFP-1 without fully following through with the FAA and BOK filed a proper lein, that falls into errors and omissions and should fall to his insurer.
George Kaiser as a person and through his foundation makes lots of donations to Tulsa, so does BOK. That in itself does not justify a quick and quiet re-payment to BOK. Were it not for open meeting laws, I think this would have been buried deeper than the swindle on the TTE plant. This Great Plains deal was business, not personal, you are making it sound like a personal obligation to pay back Mr. Kaiser.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FOTD . . . you are making it sound like a personal obligation to pay back Mr. Kaiser.
+1.
Anybody else livid about the immunity deal for Studeneny. The reason he got it and the Mayor was hell bent on settling this out of court is that he knows where all the skeletons are buried in this deal, so nobody wants him talking under oath. He could take many of the elites in Tulsa down with him and embarrass the hell out of many others. That's what this is really about. That is why the Mayor rushed this through without even so much as discovery, which is the hight of hypocrisy considering that the Mayor forced out City Attorneys for not appealing a judgment against the city that was awarded after the case actually went to court, opting not to contest the judgment. Remember her harsh criticism of the handling of that settlement in that case. Why the double standard here?
It is an insult to the intelligence of Tulsans for Kathy Taylor to think that she could get away with this and somehow try to pass the buck, pass the blame, use her executive authority to tie the Kouncil's hands on the issue, and then try to pass this off as an action of the Kouncil. After Da Mare conceived this with a little help from daddy Kaiser, she gave birth to this brainchild. She is the mother of this little monster, it's her baby and no one else is responsible or to blame. She needs to take responsibility for the child she so enthusiastically conceived and carried to term, yet no longer wants to claim.
I was ready to support the street tax despite my disgust with Da Mares pandering to spoiled South Tulsa special interests and despite my indigestion over excessive utility rate increases. That was until I was told by this administration that I have a moral obligation to support this immoral BOK settlement. I now have a moral obligation to oppose the street package and the downtown ballpark. After listening to the poignant public comments made by Michelle Walker last night, how else could I sleep at night?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Anybody else livid...
No. Read the information again and stop listening to the
penny pundits.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You didn't actually expect a re-THUG-lican to have any honor or ethics did you? And a reich-wingnut at that? CF, you're easy to figure out. You are an obstructionalist. You are the type who likes 5 year divorces because they pay good fees for the inability to mediate.
Move on if you are going to avoid answering my questions.
You sir, are being a jackass. I go out of my way to answer even your most obnoxious questions in a meaningful way more often than not. In spite of your constant changes of subject, belittling nicknames for everything you dislike, and total refusal to reciprocate that courtesy for anyone else.
I don't believe you have posted a responsive reply to anyone else in the last week... yet you accuse ME of avoiding questions? I gave you a very responsive answer, and true to form, instead of replying to it you change the subject. It's like talking to my 8 year old "What's 4 x 5?" "That's easy! It's... hey dad, what are we doing this weekend."
You are either entirely ignorant of what constitutes discussion or you are going out of your way to change the subject, avoid questions, and otherwise attempt to flee from worthwhile discussions of topics. Either way, your contributions are far from meaningful or helpful.
Go ahead and whine about a "personal attack," but telling someone who is acting like a fool that they are doing so is simply stating the truth. I doubt many would disagree with me. Whether they agree with my statements or not, I at least try to discuss topics in a sincere manner.
Taylor sez on KTUL: '"It impacts the credit rating of the airport and their ability to expand," the mayor said. "We've got business out there -- Spirit, American, Nordan, Lufthansa -- who are willing and ready to add additional space. We need to move on with that and not continue to spend legal fees on a risky battle."
That sounds reasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Anybody else livid...
No. Read the information again and stop listening to the penny pundits.
Read it and read between the lines. Who should I be listening to, the Whirled? Drink more Kool-Aid like a good comatose cheerleader, huh? Join the sweet sedation of your stepford society, maybe? Do I get a complimentary membership to the country club, too? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather remain an honest naysayer and keep my self respect than become a dishonest cheerleader with all the ill-gotten perks that go along with it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
You didn't actually expect a re-THUG-lican to have any honor or ethics did you? And a reich-wingnut at that? CF, you're easy to figure out. You are an obstructionalist. You are the type who likes 5 year divorces because they pay good fees for the inability to mediate.
Move on if you are going to avoid answering my questions.
You sir, are being a jackass. I go out of my way to answer even your most obnoxious questions in a meaningful way more often than not. In spite of your constant changes of subject, belittling nicknames for everything you dislike, and total refusal to reciprocate that courtesy for anyone else.
I don't believe you have posted a responsive reply to anyone else in the last week... yet you accuse ME of avoiding questions? I gave you a very responsive answer, and true to form, instead of replying to it you change the subject. It's like talking to my 8 year old "What's 4 x 5?" "That's easy! It's... hey dad, what are we doing this weekend."
You are either entirely ignorant of what constitutes discussion or you are going out of your way to change the subject, avoid questions, and otherwise attempt to flee from worthwhile discussions of topics. Either way, your contributions are far from meaningful or helpful.
Go ahead and whine about a "personal attack," but telling someone who is acting like a fool that they are doing so is simply stating the truth. I doubt many would disagree with me. Whether they agree with my statements or not, I at least try to discuss topics in a sincere manner.
C'mon, give little Joey a break. He just wants government to be run by the golden rule- those who have the gold, make the rules.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent.
See 62 O.S. 372 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88300%22) & 373 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88301%22)
Ohhh, this is getting better. We do have local Qui Tam equivalents.
And, appears the rewards are even better, up to three times the amount. Pro Bono is a write-off, unless you're handed $21.3 million in the process.
THAT, I wouldn't mind paying, but Ms. Kitty is good for it anyway.
Why do I have this feeling her lack of taking her salary will come into play here?
Did they ever force feed the $1 contract to her?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Anybody else livid about the immunity deal for Studeneny. The reason he got it and the Mayor was hell bent on settling this out of court is that he knows where all the skeletons are buried in this deal, so nobody wants him talking under oath. He could take many of the elites in Tulsa down with him and embarrass the hell out of many others. That's what this is really about. That is why the Mayor rushed this through without even so much as discovery, which is the hight of hypocrisy considering that the Mayor forced out City Attorneys for not appealing a judgment against the city that was awarded after the case actually went to court, opting not to contest the judgment. Remember her harsh criticism of the handling of that settlement in that case. Why the double standard here?
It is an insult to the intelligence of Tulsans for Kathy Taylor to think that she could get away with this and somehow try to pass the buck, pass the blame, use her executive authority to tie the Kouncil's hands on the issue, and then try to pass this off as an action of the Kouncil. After Da Mare conceived this with a little help from daddy Kaiser, she gave birth to this brainchild. She is the mother of this little monster, it's her baby and no one else is responsible or to blame. She needs to take responsibility for the child she so enthusiastically conceived and carried to term, yet no longer wants to claim.
I was ready to support the street tax despite my disgust with Da Mares pandering to spoiled South Tulsa special interests and despite my indigestion over excessive utility rate increases. That was until I was told by this administration that I have a moral obligation to support this immoral BOK settlement. I now have a moral obligation to oppose the street package and the downtown ballpark. After listening to the poignant public comments made by Michelle Walker last night, how else could I sleep at night?
I'm not sure you got it right here. What I heard on the tape of that meeting was TAA/TAIT were retaining their leverage on Mr. Studenny so he couldn't talk, not relieving him. Same effect, however. Shut him up. An immunity would allow him to speak, which is what they don't want.
Boy, talk about a can of worms freshly opened.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Read it and read between the lines.
Why? What if between the lines there is nothing but empty whitespace? You ever live in a city with a bad bond rating? I have. You think Tulsa depresses you now, just wait until there
are no options for you to poo-poo.
quote:
Who should I be listening to, the Whirled? Drink more Kool-Aid like a good comatose cheerleader, huh? Join the sweet sedation of your stepford society, maybe? Do I get a complimentary membership to the country club, too? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather remain an honest naysayer and keep my self respect than become a dishonest cheerleader with all the ill-gotten perks that go along with it.
Don't get nasty with me...oh, I thought I was talking with somebody else for a second. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Taylor sez on KTUL: '"It impacts the credit rating of the airport and their ability to expand," the mayor said. "We've got business out there -- Spirit, American, Nordan, Lufthansa -- who are willing and ready to add additional space. We need to move on with that and not continue to spend legal fees on a risky battle."
That sounds reasonable.
Personally, I would've let TAA/TAIT go bankrupt and rebuild from the ground up, after first relieving all of their positions.
These people shouldn't be handling any money, especially ours.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent.
See 62 O.S. 372 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88300%22) & 373 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88301%22)
Ohhh, this is getting better. We do have local Qui Tam equivalents.
And, appears the rewards are even better, up to three times the amount. Pro Bono is a write-off, unless you're handed $21.3 million in the process.
THAT, I wouldn't mind paying, but Ms. Kitty is good for it anyway.
Why do I have this feeling her lack of taking her salary will come into play here?
Did they ever force feed the $1 contract to her?
She's not taking her Mayoral salary for one, simple reason:
She is a resident of FLORIDA.
Florida has NO state income taxes. Her husband Mr. Moneybags Lobeck likes living in a state with NO income taxes.
They file a joint return.
Drawing a salary as Mayor of Tulsa means she is a resident of OKLAHOMA.
Hence, no salary, no residency issue (for tax purposes).
However, all of her official acts in office are probably null & void since she is not an Oklahoma resident.
Like her "settlement" with the bank.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Read it and read between the lines.
Why? What if between the lines there is nothing but empty whitespace? You ever live in a city with a bad bond rating? I have. You think Tulsa depresses you now, just wait until there are no options for you to poo-poo.
quote:
Who should I be listening to, the Whirled? Drink more Kool-Aid like a good comatose cheerleader, huh? Join the sweet sedation of your stepford society, maybe? Do I get a complimentary membership to the country club, too? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather remain an honest naysayer and keep my self respect than become a dishonest cheerleader with all the ill-gotten perks that go along with it.
Don't get nasty with me...oh, I thought I was talking with somebody else for a second. [;)]
Guess I struck a nerve. The truth isn't sickly sweet and sugary like the Koool-Aid you are strung out on. I'll admit the taste can be bitter for those with a long term dependency. Detoxification is not a enjoyable or particularly appetizing experience, sorry if it is a shock to your sedated system.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Personally, I would've let TAA/TAIT go bankrupt and rebuild from the ground up, after first relieving all of their positions.
These people shouldn't be handling any money, especially ours.
They're just an Authority; they were acting on a political decision by the City at that time. If the City loses the Authority, then they can't act on anything. Or was that just hyperbole?
If this ends up in court there might be some light shed on it, preferably a venue other than Tulsa where everyone that counts belongs to the same little club. I've heard from those in the know that Kaiser's gifts always carry more than the usual number of strings. FOTD this isn't about touchy feely impulses, nothing with this many zeros behind it ever is. I'm waiting for the issue that drives Tulsans to the point of saying the same old good old boys aren't going to get away with this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Personally, I would've let TAA/TAIT go bankrupt and rebuild from the ground up, after first relieving all of their positions.
These people shouldn't be handling any money, especially ours.
They're just an Authority; they were acting on a political decision by the City at that time. If the City loses the Authority, then they can't act on anything. Or was that just hyperbole?
"Just an Authority" underminds the very definition of an 'authority', which is to segregate ongoing operations from political will.
They are a descrete entity and can (did) bankrupt themselves.
I was trying to imagine the political decision to which you are referring. The City was not a participant in the 'deal' from the get go. Nor was it named in any suits until the 26th of this month, yesterday. In fact, it was never named, Ms. Kitty voluntarily had us placed there with the amended patition.
The founding of a new airline is not a public decision, political or otherwise. Besides, it wasn't structured for public benefit, just attempts to offload liabilities.
IMO, crimes were committed, which is all now being attempted to get covered. Katbox.
No hyperbol, that's what I would've done four years ago, or today.
That authority would disappear and we'd create a new one. As for credit ratings, theirs should be in the hopper anyway. The only way they can borrow money now is for someone to ignore the facts.
Was just thinking this may have a good effect in having us re-evaluate all public trusts (i.e., 'Authorities').
Their ability to conjur up and execute a plan which brought us to this point with Great Plains Airline should be fair warning on the scope of power these 'authorities' weld.
The intent of authorities was, as I mentioned above, to segregate 'operations' from political will.
As it is, they operate like totally free businesses with little public input. They are granted the power to borrow money, build things, then, give them away at will.
In most cases, City assets are transferred to these operations, by Council authorization, and then are subject only to the whims of these authorities, without further public input.
The recent fuss over the old City Hall building being requested of the Council to transfer to the Public Facilities Authority is a good example of how loss of control occurs in those transactions.
All authorities, established by State Law and local Ordinance, have these powers.
IMO, this needs to change so that 'ongoing operations' does not include such broad powers of debt and decision.
They can do all the things they currently do, but should have to stop and ask their constituants once in awhile, "Do you wish to form a new airline?".
This is a major problem with how things get done in this City.
Could this be the TIF of the iceberg?
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Just an Authority" underminds the very definition of an 'authority', which is to segregate ongoing operations from political will.
...and this would undermine
your notion that they were a separate and distinct entity. The mayor is on the board.
quote:
SECTION 1.1 TULSA AIRPORT AUTHORITY CREATED. There is hereby created an agency of the City of Tulsa to be known as the Tulsa Airport Authority which shall consist of the Mayor and four (4) members appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.
This should help you understand how closely their operations are linked to the city...
quote:
SECTION 1.9 POWERS. The Tulsa Airport Authority may adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations for the maintenance and operation of any and all airports belonging to the city and may enter into contracts for the acquisition, establishment, operation, improvement, maintenance, leasing, or other disposition of the airports of the city; provided, all such rules and regulations shall to be subject to the approval of the Council and all of such contracts shall be subject to the approval of the Mayor. The Tulsa Airport Authority may employ, engage, or contract for the services of an attorney, auditors, and other special qualification personnel, subject to the approval of the Mayor.
quote:
They are a descrete entity and can (did) bankrupt themselves.
No, they are a public trust charged with carrying out a narrowly defined mission of the city. They have the ability to enter into agreements that the city cannot, that's why they are there. And the Mayor has final say on those contracts, and who's on the boards for that matter.
quote:
I was trying to imagine the political decision to which you are referring. The City was not a participant in the 'deal' from the get go. Nor was it named in any suits until the 26th of this month, yesterday. In fact, it was never named, Ms. Kitty voluntarily had us placed there with the amended patition.
Sure they were, if you believe that the above is true.
quote:
The founding of a new airline is not a public decision, political or otherwise. Besides, it wasn't structured for public benefit, just attempts to offload liabilities.
No, but part of the financing was most certainly a public, political decision by the previous mayor and council. They called it a public purpose, and so it was.
quote:
IMO, crimes were committed, which is all now being attempted to get covered. Katbox.
No hyperbol, that's what I would've done four years ago, or today.
That authority would disappear and we'd create a new one. As for credit ratings, theirs should be in the hopper anyway. The only way they can borrow money now is for someone to ignore the facts.
I don't know about crimes. And Mayor Taylor is simply doing what she has to do to protect the
city's bond rating; they're as inextricably tied as the organizations themselves. The Mayor can recreate that organization in no time at all if need be. When you get to be Mayor, so can you.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Was just thinking this may have a good effect in having us re-evaluate all public trusts (i.e., 'Authorities').
Their ability to conjur up and execute a plan which brought us to this point with Great Plains Airline should be fair warning on the scope of power these 'authorities' weld.
The intent of authorities was, as I mentioned above, to segregate 'operations' from political will.
As it is, they operate like totally free businesses with little public input. They are granted the power to borrow money, build things, then, give them away at will.
In most cases, City assets are transferred to these operations, by Council authorization, and then are subject only to the whims of these authorities, without further public input.
The recent fuss over the old City Hall building being requested of the Council to transfer to the Public Facilities Authority is a good example of how loss of control occurs in those transactions.
All authorities, established by State Law and local Ordinance, have these powers.
IMO, this needs to change so that 'ongoing operations' does not include such broad powers of debt and decision.
They can do all the things they currently do, but should have to stop and ask their constituants once in awhile, "Do you wish to form a new airline?".
This is a major problem with how things get done in this City.
I had just been thinking recently about our systems of "boards" and authorities. I've had some dealings with the Park Board, which was the first time I noticed that there are some ceremonial appointments like Dale McNamara (former TU golf coach), Yvonne Hovell (owner ET Dodge), Walt Helmerich (Helmerich & Payne, Utica Square), the mayor, and finally Joe Schulte (I believe is the owner of Soutwood Nursery).
Right there, you have at least four people you have to wonder what expertise they bring to the table and a fifth person whose business
could benefit from a cozy relationship with the Parks & Rec dept. Not saying Southwood does benefit from that relationship, just saying there'd be room for it. Just an odd selection process. I certainly appreciate the mayor wanting to be up on issues, but I don't necessarily think the mayor should be on any advisory boards.
Take a look at the Airport authority and any other board or authority in Tulsa or Tulsa County. There are those well-connected in the community who are appointed who don't really have a clue about operations, and perhaps one or two who have business related to the authority. Personally I don't think it's a good idea to have Meredith Siegfried (Nordam) on the Airport Board.
Here's a lengthier report of the FAA investigation, 35 pages if anyone is interested. The summary did, in fact, find conflict-of-interest by former board members:
http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2003062.pdf
"Title: Report to Senator Inhofe on Tulsa Airport Authority's Management and Operations
Date: May 06, 2004
Type: Correspondence
Project ID: CC-2003-062
Summary: We issued our investigative report regarding contracting irregularities, conflicts of interest, and other issues at the Tulsa Airports, undertaken in response to a request from Senator James M. Inhofe, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We found instances where the Tulsa Airport Authority's procurements of professional services, which were funded by the Airport Improvement Program, did not adhere to FAA's required competitive-selection procedures. We also found conflicts of interest on the part of former authority officials, poor recordkeeping by the authority, and a lack of sufficient oversight by FAA, in addition to other issues. The report identifies areas we are continuing to investigate and includes the audit report sent to FAA."
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Credibility with the bond underwriters and rating agencies seems essential for municipalities and affiliate employers to get the terms and conditions at a good pricing to market.
Would welshing on a debt or a debt outstanding impact an issuance?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Would welshing on a debt or a debt outstanding impact an issuance?
Is that a rhetorical question?
yes
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Just an Authority" underminds the very definition of an 'authority', which is to segregate ongoing operations from political will.
...and this would undermine your notion that they were a separate and distinct entity. The mayor is on the board.
quote:
SECTION 1.1 TULSA AIRPORT AUTHORITY CREATED. There is hereby created an agency of the City of Tulsa to be known as the Tulsa Airport Authority which shall consist of the Mayor and four (4) members appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.
This should help you understand how closely their operations are linked to the city...
quote:
SECTION 1.9 POWERS. The Tulsa Airport Authority may adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations for the maintenance and operation of any and all airports belonging to the city and may enter into contracts for the acquisition, establishment, operation, improvement, maintenance, leasing, or other disposition of the airports of the city; provided, all such rules and regulations shall to be subject to the approval of the Council and all of such contracts shall be subject to the approval of the Mayor. The Tulsa Airport Authority may employ, engage, or contract for the services of an attorney, auditors, and other special qualification personnel, subject to the approval of the Mayor.
quote:
They are a descrete entity and can (did) bankrupt themselves.
No, they are a public trust charged with carrying out a narrowly defined mission of the city. They have the ability to enter into agreements that the city cannot, that's why they are there. And the Mayor has final say on those contracts, and who's on the boards for that matter.
quote:
I was trying to imagine the political decision to which you are referring. The City was not a participant in the 'deal' from the get go. Nor was it named in any suits until the 26th of this month, yesterday. In fact, it was never named, Ms. Kitty voluntarily had us placed there with the amended patition.
Sure they were, if you believe that the above is true.
quote:
The founding of a new airline is not a public decision, political or otherwise. Besides, it wasn't structured for public benefit, just attempts to offload liabilities.
No, but part of the financing was most certainly a public, political decision by the previous mayor and council. They called it a public purpose, and so it was.
quote:
IMO, crimes were committed, which is all now being attempted to get covered. Katbox.
No hyperbol, that's what I would've done four years ago, or today.
That authority would disappear and we'd create a new one. As for credit ratings, theirs should be in the hopper anyway. The only way they can borrow money now is for someone to ignore the facts.
I don't know about crimes. And Mayor Taylor is simply doing what she has to do to protect the city's bond rating; they're as inextricably tied as the organizations themselves. The Mayor can recreate that organization in no time at all if need be. When you get to be Mayor, so can you.
You are, of course, referring to the Tulsa Airports Authority (TAA). Shall we discuss TAIT?
Please Refer to Chapter 8 of Title 39 (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39-8.asp%22)
Has anyone wondered why we have both a TAA and a TAIT? Especially since to become a board member of TAIT, you first are required to be a board member of TAA. Same club, different purpose.
And, the original suit is the Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA) suing TAIT, not TAA.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Or a thinly-veiled threat from one of our members who travels in the same circles as Kaiser talking about all the people BOK employs and what all they give back. BOK wouldn't get up and walk out on Tulsa if they were not re-paid the $7.1mm.
If there is some sort of banking reg which would enjoin the city in liablility on this, sure I could see us paying up. I've not heard that yet. In the instance where a debtor puts up collateral, disposes of the collateral and the bank cannot repossess it, it still does not alleviate the debtor of the debt. If they have the ability to pay otherwise, the are legally obliged. However, the city was not a party to the defense on this until this week.
Dick Stupidity screwed us, he needs to be run out of town on a rail, straight to the ocean.
Was just listening to Chris Medlock's show and he brought up the possibility that a new emergency meeting might yet be called before July 1, 2008 IF, somehow, one of the two no votes last night decided to change.
A public meeting would still require 24 hours prior notice posting before any vote could be had.
On a hunch, I decided to check the City's website to see if any new meetings had been scheduled, ....and here's what I got:
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6365/tulsapublicmeetingsagenhb6.jpg)
Seems someone should be going down to the parking level bulletin board and checking for new postings.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You are, of course, referring to the Tulsa Airports Authority (TAA). Shall we discuss TAIT?
Please Refer to Chapter 8 of Title 39 (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39-8.asp%22)
Has anyone wondered why we have both a TAA and a TAIT? Especially since to become a board member of TAIT, you first are required to be a board member of TAA. Same club, different purpose.
Because they can issue tax-exempt bonds and TAA cannot? I'm pretty sure this is the sole reason for two trusts and why the membership is identical.
quote:
And, the original suit is the Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA) suing TAIT, not TAA.
Because this transaction involved tax exempt bonds?
These are
just public trusts. The former mayor and council, and thus the city, made the decisions. It therefore makes some sense that the city would have to pony up in the end.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Just an Authority" underminds the very definition of an 'authority', which is to segregate ongoing operations from political will.
...and this would undermine your notion that they were a separate and distinct entity. The mayor is on the board.
quote:
SECTION 1.1 TULSA AIRPORT AUTHORITY CREATED. There is hereby created an agency of the City of Tulsa to be known as the Tulsa Airport Authority which shall consist of the Mayor and four (4) members appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.
This should help you understand how closely their operations are linked to the city...
quote:
SECTION 1.9 POWERS. The Tulsa Airport Authority may adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations for the maintenance and operation of any and all airports belonging to the city and may enter into contracts for the acquisition, establishment, operation, improvement, maintenance, leasing, or other disposition of the airports of the city; provided, all such rules and regulations shall to be subject to the approval of the Council and all of such contracts shall be subject to the approval of the Mayor. The Tulsa Airport Authority may employ, engage, or contract for the services of an attorney, auditors, and other special qualification personnel, subject to the approval of the Mayor.
quote:
They are a descrete entity and can (did) bankrupt themselves.
No, they are a public trust charged with carrying out a narrowly defined mission of the city. They have the ability to enter into agreements that the city cannot, that's why they are there. And the Mayor has final say on those contracts, and who's on the boards for that matter.
quote:
I was trying to imagine the political decision to which you are referring. The City was not a participant in the 'deal' from the get go. Nor was it named in any suits until the 26th of this month, yesterday. In fact, it was never named, Ms. Kitty voluntarily had us placed there with the amended patition.
Sure they were, if you believe that the above is true.
quote:
The founding of a new airline is not a public decision, political or otherwise. Besides, it wasn't structured for public benefit, just attempts to offload liabilities.
No, but part of the financing was most certainly a public, political decision by the previous mayor and council. They called it a public purpose, and so it was.
quote:
IMO, crimes were committed, which is all now being attempted to get covered. Katbox.
No hyperbol, that's what I would've done four years ago, or today.
That authority would disappear and we'd create a new one. As for credit ratings, theirs should be in the hopper anyway. The only way they can borrow money now is for someone to ignore the facts.
I don't know about crimes. And Mayor Taylor is simply doing what she has to do to protect the city's bond rating; they're as inextricably tied as the organizations themselves. The Mayor can recreate that organization in no time at all if need be. When you get to be Mayor, so can you.
BTW, wanted to ask about your source document for the above. It's not in Title 39, either in Chapter 1-Airports & Aircraft, or Chapter 4 - Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust (what happened to this anyway?), nor in any Title 39 (Trusts) document is Tulsa Airport Authority mentioned, much less defined.
REFER to: TITLE 39 - TRUSTS (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39.asp%22)
Oddly, Tulsa Airport Authority seems to not exist in any Tulsa Ordinance (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/%22) as of this date.
The Chapter 4 - Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust, offhand, seems to have all the powers formerly attributed to TAA. In several places in that document it refers to both the Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust AND the Tulsa Airport Authority. In fact, it's unclear if TAA is something else being referenced, as in the Tulsa Park Board, or intended to mean the Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust as one in the same.
Members of the Board of Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust, as defined, are to be selected from members of the Tulsa Park Board, oddly.
Either the online document has not been updated lately, or something's amiss.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Was just listening to Chris Medlock's show and he brought up the possibility that a new emergency meeting might yet be called before July 1, 2008 IF, somehow, one of the two no votes last night decided to change.
A public meeting would still require 24 hours prior notice posting before any vote could be had.
On a hunch, I decided to check the City's website to see if any new meetings had been scheduled, ....and here's what I got:
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6365/tulsapublicmeetingsagenhb6.jpg)
Yes, I see! It looks like some sort of code...but for what?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Was just listening to Chris Medlock's show and he brought up the possibility that a new emergency meeting might yet be called before July 1, 2008 IF, somehow, one of the two no votes last night decided to change.
A public meeting would still require 24 hours prior notice posting before any vote could be had.
On a hunch, I decided to check the City's website to see if any new meetings had been scheduled, ....and here's what I got:
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6365/tulsapublicmeetingsagenhb6.jpg)
Yes, I see! It looks like some sort of code...but for what?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You are, of course, referring to the Tulsa Airports Authority (TAA). Shall we discuss TAIT?
Please Refer to Chapter 8 of Title 39 (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title39-8.asp%22)
Has anyone wondered why we have both a TAA and a TAIT? Especially since to become a board member of TAIT, you first are required to be a board member of TAA. Same club, different purpose.
Because they can issue tax-exempt bonds and TAA cannot? I'm pretty sure this is the sole reason for two trusts and why the membership is identical.
quote:
And, the original suit is the Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA) suing TAIT, not TAA.
Because this transaction involved tax exempt bonds?
These are just public trusts. The former mayor and council, and thus the city, made the decisions. It therefore makes some sense that the city would have to pony up in the end.
Keep in mind here that TIA is suing TAIT. BOK has not sued any of them as far as I know. And, BOK has definitely NOT sued the City of Tulsa.
TIA orchestrated a pass-thru loan they made from BOK to give to TAIT. TAIT is the one defaulting, not TIA, at least to date.
Besides that, I would think TIA has enough assets to cover their own potential default to BOK, TIA just wants to recover from TAIT's default to TIA. This doesn't even involve BOK at this point.
TIA, via cooperation of our Mayor, was able to get the City of Tulsa to join into their suit as defendant on the 26th. Still no BOK.
This is about paying TIA, not BOK.
TIA is liable to BOK for the amount, and is very likely able to pay it, but doesn't want to.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Was just listening to Chris Medlock's show and he brought up the possibility that a new emergency meeting might yet be called before July 1, 2008 IF, somehow, one of the two no votes last night decided to change.
A public meeting would still require 24 hours prior notice posting before any vote could be had.
On a hunch, I decided to check the City's website to see if any new meetings had been scheduled, ....and here's what I got:
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6365/tulsapublicmeetingsagenhb6.jpg)
Yes, I see! It looks like some sort of code...but for what?
"Code" for "don't show meeting agendas online".
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Oddly, Tulsa Airport Authority seems to not exist in any Tulsa Ordinance (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/%22) as of this date.
Now, why would you even say something like that?
Article 5 of the City Charter:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/charter/article5.asp
I know you are not really paranoid, so I think you are playing. But when you throw out bullsh*t just to see what sticks, you do people a real disservice...and from what I read here in this thread, there are some people here who are teetering awfully close to the edge as it is. No need for you to push them off the cliff with that kind of dumb stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Code" for "don't show meeting agendas online".
Or a standard error that occurs when there is a database issue, typically with the connection string. It is surprisingly common, and can be caused by any number of variables (password change, malformed connection string, etc)...
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Oddly, Tulsa Airport Authority seems to not exist in any Tulsa Ordinance (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/%22) as of this date.
Now, why would you even say something like that?
Article 5 of the City Charter:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/charter/article5.asp
I know you are not really paranoid, so I think you are playing. But when you throw out bullsh*t just to see what sticks, you do people a real disservice...and from what I read here in this thread, there are some people here who are teetering awfully close to the edge as it is. No need for you to push them off the cliff with that kind of dumb stuff.
I was asking your source because it didn't show up in the current list of Ordinances. Reasonable question.
I knew I'd seen it before, but there it wasn't.
I'm not the one teetering close to the edge on this deal, or anyone in this thread.
It was indeed a reasonable question and I was happy to answer it. It was the statement that followed that was over the top.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
It was indeed a reasonable question and I was happy to answer it. It was the statement that followed that was over the top.
You can't say it does exist in the Ordinances, can you?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Or a thinly-veiled threat from one of our members who travels in the same circles as Kaiser talking about all the people BOK employs and what all they give back. BOK wouldn't get up and walk out on Tulsa if they were not re-paid the $7.1mm.
If there is some sort of banking reg which would enjoin the city in liablility on this, sure I could see us paying up. I've not heard that yet. In the instance where a debtor puts up collateral, disposes of the collateral and the bank cannot repossess it, it still does not alleviate the debtor of the debt. If they have the ability to pay otherwise, the are legally obliged. However, the city was not a party to the defense on this until this week.
Dick Stupidity screwed us, he needs to be run out of town on a rail, straight to the ocean.
I am certain Dick Stupidity was preasured like Brute Banker and others by our current Suckretary of State.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
It was indeed a reasonable question and I was happy to answer it. It was the statement that followed that was over the top.
You can't say it does exist in the Ordinances, can you?
See, That's what I'm saying...you are playing games and it really makes it hard for some of these folks to sort out fact from bullsh*t. Some of them have a hard enough time as it is.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Code" for "don't show meeting agendas online".
Or a standard error that occurs when there is a database issue, typically with the connection string. It is surprisingly common, and can be caused by any number of variables (password change, malformed connection string, etc)...
If no meeting of the sort described occurs prior to Tuesday, I'll conceed. Until then, I can only say in over 5 years of using that site, it's never done that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Code" for "don't show meeting agendas online".
Or a standard error that occurs when there is a database issue, typically with the connection string. It is surprisingly common, and can be caused by any number of variables (password change, malformed connection string, etc)...
If no meeting of the sort described occurs prior to Tuesday, I'll conceed. Until then, I can only say in over 5 years of using that site, it's never done that.
I won't argue that it has or hasn't happened on the City of Tulsa website. I don't check the site regularly enough to argue either way. I was just answering the question of what the error was, and commenting that the error is fairly common (I even see it here on the TulsaNow site from time to time).
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Code" for "don't show meeting agendas online".
Or a standard error that occurs when there is a database issue, typically with the connection string. It is surprisingly common, and can be caused by any number of variables (password change, malformed connection string, etc)...
If no meeting of the sort described occurs prior to Tuesday, I'll conceed. Until then, I can only say in over 5 years of using that site, it's never done that.
I won't argue that it has or hasn't happened on the City of Tulsa website. I don't check the site regularly enough to argue either way. I was just answering the question of what the error was, and commenting that the error is fairly common (I even see it here on the TulsaNow site from time to time).
Agreed, it is common. Just hadn't experienced it there. Timing is suspicious, however.
Which leads to some discussion about perhaps getting the Council to pass a resolution requiring digital posting of Agendas. This is the electronic age. Might throw in an email subscriber automated mailing for good measure.
Currently, the only legal posting requirements are on the board outside City Hall. Sometimes that can be inconvenient(almost always).
The electronic posting can be in addition, not necessarily replacing.
And, as a byproduct, citizens would be more informed and better served. Imagine that.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
It was indeed a reasonable question and I was happy to answer it. It was the statement that followed that was over the top.
You can't say it does exist in the Ordinances, can you?
See, That's what I'm saying...you are playing games and it really makes it hard for some of these folks to sort out fact from bullsh*t. Some of them have a hard enough time as it is.
That one was a little gamey, even if true. But, was just for you. Sometimes I intentionally pop balloons, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Agreed, it is common. Just hadn't experienced it there. Timing is suspicious, however.
Which leads to some discussion about perhaps getting the Council to pass a resolution requiring digital posting of Agendas. This is the electronic age. Might throw in an email subscriber automated mailing for good measure.
Currently, the only legal posting requirements are on the board outside City Hall. Sometimes that can be inconvenient(almost always).
The electronic posting can be in addition, not necessarily replacing.
And, as a byproduct, citizens would be more informed and better served. Imagine that.
I would love to receive an email notice, since I rarely check the site currently. Yet, while not incredibly difficult to develop, I believe that the IT department is already squeezed pretty tight. I interned a few years back, and realized that there is a significant backlog. That is one department in the city that I would love to see some more money thrown at (but I am also biased, being an IT person). [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Agreed, it is common. Just hadn't experienced it there. Timing is suspicious, however.
Which leads to some discussion about perhaps getting the Council to pass a resolution requiring digital posting of Agendas. This is the electronic age. Might throw in an email subscriber automated mailing for good measure.
Currently, the only legal posting requirements are on the board outside City Hall. Sometimes that can be inconvenient(almost always).
The electronic posting can be in addition, not necessarily replacing.
And, as a byproduct, citizens would be more informed and better served. Imagine that.
I would love to receive an email notice, since I rarely check the site currently. Yet, while not incredibly difficult to develop, I believe that the IT department is already squeezed pretty tight. I interned a few years back, and realized that there is a significant backlog. That is one department in the city that I would love to see some more money thrown at (but I am also biased, being an IT person). [:P]
Well, I can't say I know much of those things. But, what I proposed is not reinventing the wheel. There are literally thousands of existing scripts around to use. Might make a good days' work.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Or a thinly-veiled threat from one of our members who travels in the same circles as Kaiser talking about all the people BOK employs and what all they give back. BOK wouldn't get up and walk out on Tulsa if they were not re-paid the $7.1mm.
If there is some sort of banking reg which would enjoin the city in liablility on this, sure I could see us paying up. I've not heard that yet. In the instance where a debtor puts up collateral, disposes of the collateral and the bank cannot repossess it, it still does not alleviate the debtor of the debt. If they have the ability to pay otherwise, the are legally obliged. However, the city was not a party to the defense on this until this week.
Dick Stupidity screwed us, he needs to be run out of town on a rail, straight to the ocean.
I am certain Dick Stupidity was preasured like Brute Banker and others by our current Suckretary of State.
Doesn't matter if or who pressured him. He put his professional license on the line when he issued his opinion and executed his signature. Should I assume you play golf with Dick Stupidity as well as big wigs at BOK since you seem to be defending him?
Are you certain it involved pressure and not a set of knee pads and a towel? [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Inteller,
When I have time I'll see if I can find a starting point for you in Oklahoma law. Qui Tam as you refer to it is a Federal Statute and I am ignorant of a State equivalent.
See 62 O.S. 372 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88300%22) & 373 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=88301%22)
I called around all day and couldn't find a firm in Tulsa who would take a look at this. I'm now talking to an outfit in OKC. I'm sure they will jump at the chance to give Tulsa's mayor a black eye.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Wait a minute. I'm a little confused as well. My wife asked me this evening just why we were having to pay for this Great Plaines thing. Our real estate taxes go up again and we don't have anything to show for it.
Good question. BOK was lead on by unscrupulous borrowers who really didn't have the title to collateral and suddenly disappear leaving the bank holding the bag. Just like when the bank has to go repossess a car and the car is gone and no paperwork exists to prove a car was ever purchased. Whoops, burned. Except all the principals seem to have skated on this one and my real estate tax is increased to cover the losses of the richest man in town. Yeah, its clear now.
edit with anger slowly subsiding...About the only thing that does make sense to me is that there does seem to be a moral case for doing the right thing. We put our trust in these elected officials to represent us and they failed to do so without reneging on a deal. However, if it is "unjust enrichment" just how were we enriched and why don't I feel enriched?
Biggest problem with the morality excuse is that BOK had handled the bond indentures for all TAIT transactions for decades before the made the loans. Officers within their own bank knew the FAA wouldn't approve the collateral agreement. Since they knew the security was bogus, they can only claim Savage had a moral obligation to pay them back IF they KNEW that the whole agreement was a house of cards.
Hard to believe they didn't know.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Holy $#!^, what a crock: KOTV (//%22http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8561400%22) forgets to mention the Mayor in their story, like it was the Council's idea! And the World devoted three times more words to the story, not mentioning the Mayor by name, just lil' 'm'! (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080627_11_A1_hPrope281466%22)
Kathy Taylor served on the BOK Board of Directors. So did David Griffin. David Griffin is the Griffin of Griffin Communications. Griffin Communications owns KOTV.
So you think they're going to stick anything on KT?
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Holy $#!^, what a crock: KOTV (//%22http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8561400%22) forgets to mention the Mayor in their story, like it was the Council's idea! And the World devoted three times more words to the story, not mentioning the Mayor by name, just lil' 'm'! (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080627_11_A1_hPrope281466%22)
Kathy Taylor served on the BOK Board of Directors. So did David Griffin. David Griffin is the Griffin of Griffin Communications. Griffin Communications owns KOTV.
So you think they're going to stick anything on KT?
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa!
Thought maybe you'd have figured out by now that's where you live.
Notice that the Sinking Fund Blitz was launched AFTER a new city council was sworn in.
The Kaisers had to get some more of their toadies on the city council: Patrick, Gomez, and Bynum (LaFortunate Son).
Troyer finally grew some backbone last nite. Too late. They'll cancel his life support next election.
Jack Henderson was allowed to vote his conscience, since his vote didn't matter after they'd already locked up Eagleton, Martinet, Gomez, Patrick and Westcott.
Another sad day for Tulsans. They'll be many, many more until the peasants take back Tulsa.
[:O]
This is the wikipedia version of Great Plains Airlines...
Great Plains Airlines was a regional airline headquartered out of Tulsa, Oklahoma USA with a hub in Oklahoma City. The airline was founded in 2001 but filed bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2004 after a bid for assistance through the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) was rejected. The airline's foundation was based upon giving Oklahoma non-stop flights to a number of destinations, ultimately to business centers on the east and west coasts, but poor management and increased competition into the Oklahoma market killed the airline.
To assist in starting the airline, the operating certificate was purchased from Ozark Airlines, an airline not related to the original Ozark Airlines, but a small airline operating Dornier 328JETs. The airline also took over operations of Ozark's two aircraft.
The airline had several signature items, including Krispy Kreme donuts on breakfast flights, and the paintwork on the vertical stabilizers (tail) of their aircraft would change color from blue to purple depending on the viewing angle.
The airline was founded right before the September 11th attacks that grounded airlines across the country. All the airlines suffered because nobody wanted to fly. All the big players were bailed out with billions from President Bush but Great Plains Airlines was not.
Yes, there was probably some mismanagement, but you got to believe it the most important reason they failed was their timing. Lots of start up ventures fail their first year and being smacked with industry terrorism right off the bat was too much to overcome.
I knew the city and the authority was risking something to help make this business succeed. It was covered by the local media. The contracts were discussed at public meetings. I agreed with a large number of people at the time that we really needed a direct flight to the two coasts if we were going to be able to compete in the American business world. Any businessman getting to Tulsa by air from LA or New York could cut their travel time in half. Time was money.
This was a business idea that would have a real boost to Tulsans if it would have succeeded. It didn't and having it's failure hanging over our ability to finance future projects could have made it haunt us for years to come.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is the wikipedia version of Great Plains Airlines...
Great Plains Airlines was a regional airline headquartered out of Tulsa, Oklahoma USA with a hub in Oklahoma City. The airline was founded in 2001 but filed bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2004 after a bid for assistance through the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) was rejected. The airline's foundation was based upon giving Oklahoma non-stop flights to a number of destinations, ultimately to business centers on the east and west coasts, but poor management and increased competition into the Oklahoma market killed the airline.
To assist in starting the airline, the operating certificate was purchased from Ozark Airlines, an airline not related to the original Ozark Airlines, but a small airline operating Dornier 328JETs. The airline also took over operations of Ozark's two aircraft.
The airline had several signature items, including Krispy Kreme donuts on breakfast flights, and the paintwork on the vertical stabilizers (tail) of their aircraft would change color from blue to purple depending on the viewing angle.
The airline was founded right before the September 11th attacks that grounded airlines across the country. All the airlines suffered because nobody wanted to fly. All the big players were bailed out with billions from President Bush but Great Plains Airlines was not.
Yes, there was probably some mismanagement, but you got to believe it the most important reason they failed was their timing. Lots of start up ventures fail their first year and being smacked with industry terrorism right off the bat was too much to overcome.
I knew the city and the authority was risking something to help make this business succeed. It was covered by the local media. The contracts were discussed at public meetings. I agreed with a large number of people at the time that we really needed a direct flight to the two coasts if we were going to be able to compete in the American business world. Any businessman getting to Tulsa by air from LA or New York could cut their travel time in half. Time was money.
This was a business idea that would have a real boost to Tulsans if it would have succeeded. It didn't and having it's failure hanging over our ability to finance future projects could have made it haunt us for years to come.
Continental Airlines decided to fly non-stop to Newark from Tulsa 1x per day. They still do at last count.
American at one time had non-stop from Tulsa to L.A. for several years after GPA came to town.
And, neither airline got $40 million in Oklahoma taxpayer subsidies.
GPA was a Cloud-Cuckoo-Land Business Plan from the start.
Their first planes:
Insufficient range to fly non-stop to either coast.
NEVER had a plane that could fly non-stop to east or west coast.
Where did the money go?
Follow the Money.
Always.
Whenever the Bankruptcy Court finally releases the details of the company's financial failure. (Pat Malloy III - Trustee).
Isn't he married into the local ruling Oligarchy?
Figures.
Definitely won't be ANY assets left after the bankruptcy attorney chews over the carcass.
News be coming out soon; else, why the RUSH to use the City Sinking Fund to pay BOK $7.1 million?
Needed to get the deal finished before the honey pot trail to the local Grandees gets released.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is the wikipedia version of Great Plains Airlines...
Great Plains Airlines was a regional airline headquartered out of Tulsa, Oklahoma USA with a hub in Oklahoma City. The airline was founded in 2001 but filed bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2004 after a bid for assistance through the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) was rejected. The airline's foundation was based upon giving Oklahoma non-stop flights to a number of destinations, ultimately to business centers on the east and west coasts, but poor management and increased competition into the Oklahoma market killed the airline.
To assist in starting the airline, the operating certificate was purchased from Ozark Airlines, an airline not related to the original Ozark Airlines, but a small airline operating Dornier 328JETs. The airline also took over operations of Ozark's two aircraft.
The airline had several signature items, including Krispy Kreme donuts on breakfast flights, and the paintwork on the vertical stabilizers (tail) of their aircraft would change color from blue to purple depending on the viewing angle.
The airline was founded right before the September 11th attacks that grounded airlines across the country. All the airlines suffered because nobody wanted to fly. All the big players were bailed out with billions from President Bush but Great Plains Airlines was not.
Yes, there was probably some mismanagement, but you got to believe it the most important reason they failed was their timing. Lots of start up ventures fail their first year and being smacked with industry terrorism right off the bat was too much to overcome.
I knew the city and the authority was risking something to help make this business succeed. It was covered by the local media. The contracts were discussed at public meetings. I agreed with a large number of people at the time that we really needed a direct flight to the two coasts if we were going to be able to compete in the American business world. Any businessman getting to Tulsa by air from LA or New York could cut their travel time in half. Time was money.
This was a business idea that would have a real boost to Tulsans if it would have succeeded. It didn't and having it's failure hanging over our ability to finance future projects could have made it haunt us for years to come.
So it's being haunting us ? Who is "us"
What KT did will be haunting us more than the above haunting was doing
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This is the wikipedia version of Great Plains Airlines...
Great Plains Airlines was a regional airline headquartered out of Tulsa, Oklahoma USA with a hub in Oklahoma City. The airline was founded in 2001 but filed bankruptcy and ceased operations in 2004 after a bid for assistance through the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) was rejected. The airline's foundation was based upon giving Oklahoma non-stop flights to a number of destinations, ultimately to business centers on the east and west coasts, but poor management and increased competition into the Oklahoma market killed the airline.
To assist in starting the airline, the operating certificate was purchased from Ozark Airlines, an airline not related to the original Ozark Airlines, but a small airline operating Dornier 328JETs. The airline also took over operations of Ozark's two aircraft.
The airline had several signature items, including Krispy Kreme donuts on breakfast flights, and the paintwork on the vertical stabilizers (tail) of their aircraft would change color from blue to purple depending on the viewing angle.
The airline was founded right before the September 11th attacks that grounded airlines across the country. All the airlines suffered because nobody wanted to fly. All the big players were bailed out with billions from President Bush but Great Plains Airlines was not.
Yes, there was probably some mismanagement, but you got to believe it the most important reason they failed was their timing. Lots of start up ventures fail their first year and being smacked with industry terrorism right off the bat was too much to overcome.
I knew the city and the authority was risking something to help make this business succeed. It was covered by the local media. The contracts were discussed at public meetings. I agreed with a large number of people at the time that we really needed a direct flight to the two coasts if we were going to be able to compete in the American business world. Any businessman getting to Tulsa by air from LA or New York could cut their travel time in half. Time was money.
This was a business idea that would have a real boost to Tulsans if it would have succeeded. It didn't and having it's failure hanging over our ability to finance future projects could have made it haunt us for years to come.
So it's being haunting us ? Who is "us"
What KT did will be haunting us more than the above haunting was doing
It's been haunting the bad-loan-gone-bye-bye loan accounts at a certain local Plutocrat bank for the past 4 years.
Mr. Moneybags Kaiser is the 26th richest man in Amerika.
He wants to move up to #25.
We're helping him.
He really APPRECIATES it.
Really.
[:P]
I have to agree one of their business mistakes was buying the wrong planes. They bought out the operating license and planes of Ozark Airlines. It probably was a good price. I don't know. I don't know how much planes sell for.
All that is in the past. It doesn't change the facts that the city and the airport were still being affected by the airline that failed during a previous administration. I don't like paying any more in taxes than the next guy, but want to do the right thing. As much as you guys want to disagree, I think the city is doing the right thing here.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have to agree one of their business mistakes was buying the wrong planes. They bought out the operating license and planes of Ozark Airlines. It probably was a good price. I don't know. I don't know how much planes sell for.
All that is in the past. It doesn't change the facts that the city and the airport were still being affected by the airline that failed during a previous administration. I don't like paying any more in taxes than the next guy, but want to do the right thing. As much as you guys want to disagree, I think the city is doing the right thing here.
I totally agree that the dear, poor thing deserves our $7.1 million.
Mr. Kaiser really deserves the $7.1 million.
We Need to Feed his Greed.
He needs to move up to #25. Soon.
We can help.
We'll feel much better afterwards.
Count on it.
I'm already starting to feel a little bit better.
Really.
It will Transform our Soul.
Honest.
Just like the Arena.
It fixed the cash-flow problems of the Rooney and Flint families for a few years.
See.
And, the new half-sized Downtown AA-Class baseball stadium.
Wonder who will build it?
Guess who?
Used only 66 nites per year for home games.
Feeling MUCH better.
Is it the Flint Family, or the Rooney Family that co-owns the Island in the Caribbean with the Lorton's World family?
We'll definitely need to LIGHT and GUARD the new Driller stadium in its proposed Ghetto location.
Will the Crips and Bloods offer Valet Parking?
Any free parking thereabouts?????
Who'll provide Overwatch while we run to our cars after a baseball game?
Will Storey Wrecker respond when we find our cars hoisted tireless on Egg Crates?
Thank you Mayor Taylor for your bold leadership in this matter.
Positively Transformational.
Transforming our hard earned tax dollars into a gift to the #26 richest man in the U.S.........
George Kaiser.
Soon to be Mr. #25.
Say, I just heard that the City of Tulsa can afford to open only FOUR city pools on its own this summer.
Out of 22 city pools.
4 of 22.
Our glorious City Government can afford to open FOUR city pools this summer.
Really, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.
The children are much safer if there is NO WATER in the city pools.
That way, they positively cannot drown.
Never.
Guaranteed.
See, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.
Like last year's Kaiser River Tax.
It's FOR THE CHILDREN.
See! Believe!
[:P]
This thread reads like a transcript from court proceedings on a TV show. Boston Legal or whatever. Those of us without law degrees, insider knowledge of the nobility and where the bodies are buried....are not amused. It appears as if the nexus of pragmatism, morality, greed, elitism, partisanship and incompetency is about to go nuclear.
Can't tell who has an axe to grind and whose lying but I'll tell you this, average folks don't understand what's happening and they're pretty pissed. Unless its outright fraud and can be proved as such then pay the man for his bad loan and be done with it. We don't need more useless drama in the form of peeing fights at city hall. File a suit or drop it. Seriously, spend your time and efforts on cleaning up the populations of these authorities. RPA and Airports Authorities should be first.
Those of you who would rather see the city collapse than give credit to a female, pseudo-democrat are as dreadful as the people you prosecute on this forum. Likely you have enough money to withstand the furor and chaos you so desire. The rest of us don't. Yeah, Kaiser, Flints, Rooneys are all rich and throw their weight around. I'll take our rich versus anyone else's rich though. You act like they invented such behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
This thread reads like a transcript from court proceedings on a TV show. Boston Legal or whatever. Those of us without law degrees, insider knowledge of the nobility and where the bodies are buried....are not amused. It appears as if the nexus of pragmatism, morality, greed, elitism, partisanship and incompetency is about to go nuclear.
Can't tell who has an axe to grind and whose lying but I'll tell you this, average folks don't understand what's happening and they're pretty pissed. Unless its outright fraud and can be proved as such then pay the man for his bad loan and be done with it. We don't need more useless drama in the form of peeing fights at city hall. File a suit or drop it. Seriously, spend your time and efforts on cleaning up the populations of these authorities. RPA and Airports Authorities should be first.
Those of you who would rather see the city collapse than give credit to a female, pseudo-democrat are as dreadful as the people you prosecute on this forum. Likely you have enough money to withstand the furor and chaos you so desire. The rest of us don't. Yeah, Kaiser, Flints, Rooneys are all rich and throw their weight around. I'll take our rich versus anyone else's rich though. You act like they invented such behavior.
The poor dears.
Mr. Kaiser et al:
They are so needy.
We NEED to FEED their GREED.
We'll feel much better.
Really.
I'm already feeling better.
Really.
I'm glowing.
Feeling transformed.
Keep trying to move #26 to #25.
We'll feel better.
Much.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"Just an Authority" underminds the very definition of an 'authority', which is to segregate ongoing operations from political will.
...and this would undermine your notion that they were a separate and distinct entity. The mayor is on the board.
quote:
SECTION 1.1 TULSA AIRPORT AUTHORITY CREATED. There is hereby created an agency of the City of Tulsa to be known as the Tulsa Airport Authority which shall consist of the Mayor and four (4) members appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.
This should help you understand how closely their operations are linked to the city...
quote:
SECTION 1.9 POWERS. The Tulsa Airport Authority may adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations for the maintenance and operation of any and all airports belonging to the city and may enter into contracts for the acquisition, establishment, operation, improvement, maintenance, leasing, or other disposition of the airports of the city; provided, all such rules and regulations shall to be subject to the approval of the Council and all of such contracts shall be subject to the approval of the Mayor. The Tulsa Airport Authority may employ, engage, or contract for the services of an attorney, auditors, and other special qualification personnel, subject to the approval of the Mayor.
quote:
They are a descrete entity and can (did) bankrupt themselves.
No, they are a public trust charged with carrying out a narrowly defined mission of the city. They have the ability to enter into agreements that the city cannot, that's why they are there. And the Mayor has final say on those contracts, and who's on the boards for that matter.
quote:
I was trying to imagine the political decision to which you are referring. The City was not a participant in the 'deal' from the get go. Nor was it named in any suits until the 26th of this month, yesterday. In fact, it was never named, Ms. Kitty voluntarily had us placed there with the amended patition.
Sure they were, if you believe that the above is true.
quote:
The founding of a new airline is not a public decision, political or otherwise. Besides, it wasn't structured for public benefit, just attempts to offload liabilities.
No, but part of the financing was most certainly a public, political decision by the previous mayor and council. They called it a public purpose, and so it was.
quote:
IMO, crimes were committed, which is all now being attempted to get covered. Katbox.
No hyperbol, that's what I would've done four years ago, or today.
That authority would disappear and we'd create a new one. As for credit ratings, theirs should be in the hopper anyway. The only way they can borrow money now is for someone to ignore the facts.
I don't know about crimes. And Mayor Taylor is simply doing what she has to do to protect the city's bond rating; they're as inextricably tied as the organizations themselves. The Mayor can recreate that organization in no time at all if need be. When you get to be Mayor, so can you.
The city's bond rating would not be effected by a negative ruling against TAIT. In fact, Mayor Taylor has RISKED the city's bond rating on two fronts. Taking $7 million out of the Sinking Fund reduces our reserves for Munies in advance of a street tax that will include bonds. Two, she has made us a party to a law suit that could blow up in her face if BOK gets ticked about the money not getting to them by June 30.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Credibility with the bond underwriters and rating agencies seems essential for municipalities and affiliate employers to get the terms and conditions at a good pricing to market.
Would welshing on a debt or a debt outstanding impact an issuance?
Once again, CoT's bond rating is safe until you do something stupid like make the city part of the suit. Only TAIT's rating was in danger.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Or a thinly-veiled threat from one of our members who travels in the same circles as Kaiser talking about all the people BOK employs and what all they give back. BOK wouldn't get up and walk out on Tulsa if they were not re-paid the $7.1mm.
If there is some sort of banking reg which would enjoin the city in liablility on this, sure I could see us paying up. I've not heard that yet. In the instance where a debtor puts up collateral, disposes of the collateral and the bank cannot repossess it, it still does not alleviate the debtor of the debt. If they have the ability to pay otherwise, the are legally obliged. However, the city was not a party to the defense on this until this week.
Dick Stupidity screwed us, he needs to be run out of town on a rail, straight to the ocean.
Look at this as canon fodder says.....from a business perspective...
Kaiser taking his bank and moving would not be a business decision. It would be one of emotion.
However.......Calculating
interest on a failed repayment of 7 million would be a business decision.
You all enjoy gambling......? be my guest.
Medlock has had his 15 minutes.. Regardless of the outcome of this case he will be going back to being a disk jockey.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The bond rating argument is steaming hot B.S. to scare the public into accepting this deal and somehow lull the public into a false sense of security that Da Mare is somehow protecting us from the boogeyman. The public won't be scared or silenced into submission and subjugation like little children under the spin of this patronizing condescension.
Or a thinly-veiled threat from one of our members who travels in the same circles as Kaiser talking about all the people BOK employs and what all they give back. BOK wouldn't get up and walk out on Tulsa if they were not re-paid the $7.1mm.
If there is some sort of banking reg which would enjoin the city in liablility on this, sure I could see us paying up. I've not heard that yet. In the instance where a debtor puts up collateral, disposes of the collateral and the bank cannot repossess it, it still does not alleviate the debtor of the debt. If they have the ability to pay otherwise, the are legally obliged. However, the city was not a party to the defense on this until this week.
Dick Stupidity screwed us, he needs to be run out of town on a rail, straight to the ocean.
Look at this as canon fodder says.....from a business perspective...
Kaiser taking his bank and moving would not be a business decision. It would be one of emotion.
However.......Calculating interest on a failed repayment of 7 million would be a business decision.
You all enjoy gambling......? be my guest.
Medlock has had his 15 minutes.. Regardless of the outcome of this case he will be going back to being a disk jockey.
Yep, the local ruling Power Establishment finally nailed bad old Chris Medlock.
First, they tried to Recall him, and co-councilor Jim Mautino.
Why?
They were asking too many questions about TMUA board appointments (Cameron and Reynolds), and Mayor MisFortunate's 40-year sweet-heart deal Water Contracts with Bixby, Jenks, and Owasso.
Defeating the Recall made him even more popular.
Popular enough to seriously threaten an incumbent "Republican" mayor, Bill MisFortunate, in the GOP primary.
Sinator Dumbkopf Inhofe had to twist Randi Miller's arm to get in the race at the last minute, in order to siphon off Mr. Medlock's west Tulsa and ORU base.
It worked, but it left the incumbent Mayor MisFortunate as a dead-man walking:
59% of the GOP voters preferred someone else.
D.O.A.
Then, they managed to keep Medlock out of the State House of Representives, electing instead a well-funded charter member of the Builder/Developer cabal.
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
The local power Oligarchy should be careful what they want:
They might get it.
[:P]
I really like your version of election history.
Medlock loses election after election and it is someone else's fault. Did you ever consider that the voters just didn't like him?
He had a history of starting arguments and pissing people off. He also was outed for lying. It sounds like to me that he has the perfect job as a disc jockey.
This is not an attempt to slam other disc jockeys.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I really like your version of election history.
Medlock loses election after election and it is someone else's fault. Did you ever consider that the voters just didn't like him?
He had a history of starting arguments and pissing people off. He also was outed for lying. It sounds like to me that he has the perfect job as a disc jockey.
This is not an attempt to slam other disc jockeys.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have to agree one of their business mistakes was buying the wrong planes. They bought out the operating license and planes of Ozark Airlines. It probably was a good price. I don't know. I don't know how much planes sell for.
All that is in the past. It doesn't change the facts that the city and the airport were still being affected by the airline that failed during a previous administration. I don't like paying any more in taxes than the next guy, but want to do the right thing. As much as you guys want to disagree, I think the city is doing the right thing here.
i swear dude, you would defend Krazy Kathy's actions if she bent over and **** down your mouth.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I really like your version of election history.
Medlock loses election after election and it is someone else's fault. Did you ever consider that the voters just didn't like him?
He had a history of starting arguments and pissing people off. He also was outed for lying. It sounds like to me that he has the perfect job as a disc jockey.
This is not an attempt to slam other disc jockeys.
I think he's 3-for-5 election wise.
A 60% success rate.
Elected city councilor 2x; retained seat through Recall 1x.
Came in 2nd in a 3-way Winner-Take-All GOP primary against an incumbent mayor.
Soundly defeated for State House by a well-funded Builder/Developer cartel candidate.
Better than your election rate for public office:
Still 0-for-0?
[}:)]
I wouldn't even vote for me.
I vote by looks.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I wouldn't even vote for me.
I vote by looks.
Then why were you a Hillary supporter?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Once again, CoT's bond rating is safe until you do something stupid like make the city part of the suit. Only TAIT's rating was in danger.
Oh, that's great news. Which rating company do you work for again? S&P? Fitch? Moody's?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
I can rarely listen to his show realtime:
I work for a living.
How quaint!
When I have been able to listen, he seems to have more than just a few callers.
Just his friends and family shilling?
Making this about off-his-Medlock (JUST KIDDING!!!) is as predictable as his making this about Kaiser and Taylor, or Ournutt (NOT KIDDING!!!) making this a Democrat thang. (//%22http://tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1621&Itemid=2%22)
This is all about the same old crowd playing the same old insider games at the expense of the hoi polloi Tulsans.
This never was a win/win situation, taxpayers were going to get hosed it was just a matter of how much. I wish those same voices freaking out about this deal would sound the alarm about the $25M in pork we are set to receive from the state for the river projects.
Just a suggestion:
Stupid cryptic one liners are a real bore.
You feel me?
[8]
The shizzle is coming down. I would not want to be sporting colors in the Osage. Word! (//%22http://www.milliondollarelm.com/Tulsa/promos.php?id=678%22)
No, really, you feel me?
Okay, wiseacres, why would Eagleton see the wisdom of this? You think he is beholdin' to the oligarchy? Or is he too one of the sheeple? I never saw him as one to wantonly waste the taxpayers money and his past behaviors during the river tax lead one to believe he is not easily influenced by the nobility. Is he tainted too?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
Holy crap. That's a big dropoff in listeners. The station went from a 3.2 share to a 2.6 in a matter of months.
And it's getting beat nearly 3-to-1 by KRMG.
Look no doubting we are not getting the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to our pols. I know EZ-E is a fan of mine, so it is not easy for me to be critical but no doubt he should have voted no and incurred the wrath of The Machine. This is a bipartisan boondoggle so yeah he sucks now, too.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Okay, wiseacres, why would Eagleton see the wisdom of this? You think he is beholdin' to the oligarchy? Or is he too one of the sheeple? I never saw him as one to wantonly waste the taxpayers money and his past behaviors during the river tax lead one to believe he is not easily influenced by the nobility. Is he tainted too?
Yeah, I noticed this, too. Eagleton's been known as a maverick ever since he came on the council. I'm much less inclined to think the settlement's a bad idea if he supported it.
And he's an attorney. He knows the pluses and minuses behind this thing a lot better than the armchair lawyers on this board.
So a bunch of attorneys come up with a solution that protects the attorney who - by all accounts - is the one who should have known better. And because we detractors of the decision do not have JD's, we are stoopid poop heads? Come on!
Where did EZ-E get his degree anyway? Hells bells I do believe the loony left is trying to discredit the ORU/CBN crowd at every opportunity, but now he is possessed by sage-like wisdom?? Get real!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
So a bunch of attorneys come up with a solution that protects the attorney who - by all accounts - is the one who should have known better. And because we detractors of the decision do not have JD's, we are stoopid poop heads? Come on!
Where did EZ-E get his degree anyway? Hells bells I do believe the loony left is trying to discredit the ORU/CBN crowd at every opportunity, but now he is possessed by sage-like wisdom?? Get real!
I don't care where he got his JD as long as it wasn't by mail. I criticize Eagleton for a lot and am totally from a different background but he is straight arrow and not easily taken in by anyone or anything. I respect him. But I guess you only support those who agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
By that logic, you should be banned for incessantly spamming the rest of us with your spin on behalf the Taylor administration to try to reverse their sinking approval ratings. It certainly serves your self interest, both personal and professional, to do so considering the numerous conflicts of interests you, wifey, and the Family LLC have. Hell, you have your own trust with the city, no wonder you would be in favor of a settlement that allows a trust to get off the hook and leave the taxpayers holding the bag. I can't say I blame you for putting your own self interest ahead of the public, as a matter of fact, I'd be shocked if you did otherwise.
You reliable calls to ban the public from this public forum show the contempt and disregard you have for the public, public discourse, and public debate in general. Tulsans have had your nauseating, trust us we know what's best, golden rule governance(those who have the gold, make the rules) shoved down our throats and force fed to us for too long. We are going to puke our guts out all over the elitist establishment running this city.
Even if it's easy to be free
What's your definition of freedom?
And who the **** are you, anyway?
Who the **** are they?
Who the **** am I to say?
What the **** is really going on?
How did the cat get so fat?
Why does the family die?
Do you care why?
Cause there hasn't been a sign
Of anything gettin' better in the ghetto
People's fed up
But when they get up
You point your ****in' finger
You racist, you bigot
But that's not the problem
Now is it?
It's all about the money
Political power is takin
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the war from their Mansions
And I wonder...
How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?
How did the cat get so fat?
How did the cat get so fat?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Holy crap. That's a big dropoff in listeners. The station went from a 3.2 share to a 2.6 in a matter of months.
You would think that losing 20% of your audience would always be bad. But being a station that talks politics all day long losing that much during an election year makes it awful.
I think it is a matter of time before they start playing oldies or Hispanic pop songs.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Okay, wiseacres, why would Eagleton see the wisdom of this? You think he is beholdin' to the oligarchy? Or is he too one of the sheeple? I never saw him as one to wantonly waste the taxpayers money and his past behaviors during the river tax lead one to believe he is not easily influenced by the nobility. Is he tainted too?
Yeah, I noticed this, too. Eagleton's been known as a maverick ever since he came on the council. I'm much less inclined to think the settlement's a bad idea if he supported it.
And he's an attorney. He knows the pluses and minuses behind this thing a lot better than the armchair lawyers on this board.
One of Eagletons ideas he sent the city council before his election:
quote:
Allow the Bank of Oklahoma to provide financing on the overrun for
the arena and the building of the bridge (the IVI one), earning a fair market value
in exchange for dismissing their lawsuit against the Tulsa Airport
Authority Trust.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Holy crap. That's a big dropoff in listeners. The station went from a 3.2 share to a 2.6 in a matter of months.
You would think that losing 20% of your audience would always be bad. But being a station that talks politics all day long losing that much during an election year makes it awful.
I think it is a matter of time before they start playing oldies or Hispanic pop songs.
Way to deflect there, big boy.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I don't care where he got his JD as long as it wasn't by mail. I criticize Eagleton for a lot and am totally from a different background but he is straight arrow and not easily taken in by anyone or anything. I respect him. But I guess you only support those who agree with you.
That is correct. Especially over public policy issues when the person in question is an elected official. I am not suggesting any impropriety other than one set of lawyers is giving another lawyer a huge break - he can be straight as an arrow but if he is shooting in the wrong direction it matters not. We can disagree on Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy or what not but this is a wee bit different, no?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
By that logic, you should be banned for incessantly spamming the rest of us with your spin on behalf the Taylor administration to try to reverse their sinking approval ratings. It certainly serves your self interest, both personal and professional, to do so considering the numerous conflicts of interests you, wifey, and the Family LLC have. Hell, you have your own trust with the city, no wonder you would be in favor of a settlement that allows a trust to get off the hook and leave the taxpayers holding the bag. I can't say I blame you for putting your own self interest ahead of the public, as a matter of fact, I'd be shocked if you did otherwise.
You reliable calls to ban the public from this public forum show the contempt and disregard you have for the public, public discourse, and public debate in general. Tulsans have had your nauseating, trust us we know what's best, golden rule governance(those who have the gold, make the rules) shoved down our throats and force fed to us for too long. We are going to puke our guts out all over the elitist establishment running this city.
Even if it's easy to be free
What's your definition of freedom?
And who the **** are you, anyway?
Who the **** are they?
Who the **** am I to say?
What the **** is really going on?
How did the cat get so fat?
Why does the family die?
Do you care why?
Cause there hasn't been a sign
Of anything gettin' better in the ghetto
People's fed up
But when they get up
You point your ****in' finger
You racist, you bigot
But that's not the problem
Now is it?
It's all about the money
Political power is takin
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the war from their Mansions
And I wonder...
How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?
How did the cat get so fat?
How did the cat get so fat?
I think it's best we let CM spam through here. I sure as the devil will not listen to any Foxed News. While we were provided an inside scoop we attempted to make it fair and balanced.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
QuoteI think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
QuoteI think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
Find a better shil or you take the lead MB and then Medlock's conflict of interest won't be so obvious or odorous.
There is a big difference between discussing the topic and directing people to his radio show and his blog.
His first post says to listen to his show (because you were going to be on it) and his second tries to direct people to leave this forum and go to his blog.
I have no problem with public discussion, but these two posts seem to promote him more than discussing the topic on this forum.
I have posted my website as a response for questions or for information. I think that is different than starting a thread directing people to listen to him.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
The conflation, distortion, and whining doesn't do much for the level of discourse either, Michael. Whatever "substance" there was became impossible to discern once you guys started pumping out the poo. So climb off your high horse and enjoy the smell down here; you helped make it.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
There is a big difference between discussing the topic and directing people to his radio show and his blog.
His first post says to listen to his show (because you were going to be on it) and his second tries to direct people to leave this forum and go to his blog.
I have no problem with public discussion, but these two posts seem to promote him more than discussing the topic on this forum.
I have posted my website as a response for questions or for information. I think that is different than starting a thread directing people to listen to him.
He started a thread on a breaking news story that has generated plenty of discussion here, an indication that the forum regulars were very interested in this topic.
Chris can speak for himself, but I suspect at 12:41 pm, just over an hour before his show begins, he didn't have time to write a detailed post, just time to post something quick and let people know where they could learn more. It wasn't a hit-and-run post -- he came back later and participated in the discussion here.
Whether you like him or not, he has first-hand knowledge and perspective on this issue because it came up during his time on the City Council. We ought to encourage people like that to post here, not try to run them off.
If you want to start the iheartkathy.com forum, where never is heard a discouraging word about the mayor, feel free to do that somewhere else. The TulsaNow board of directors created this public forum to encourage public discussion, not to stifle it.
I guess you people in the entertainment and political spin business just get to act differently.
Promoting yourself non-stop must how you get paid.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I really like your version of election history.
Medlock loses election after election and it is someone else's fault. Did you ever consider that the voters just didn't like him?
He had a history of starting arguments and pissing people off. He also was outed for lying. It sounds like to me that he has the perfect job as a disc jockey.
This is not an attempt to slam other disc jockeys.
Now you've gone and done it. When was I outed for lying? I know what you think and what you're going to say, but I explained that situation the day it came out. I never lied and you can't prove I did. So who's the revisionist, Patton? What would be learned about YOU if the Lorton's money was directed to digging into your life?
Sing another tune and let's get onto something happening now, like you're precious KT blowing her career to smithereens?
BTW...my election record is 4 and 3. What's yours Recycled Michael Patton?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
Let's see Patton. I have been doing radio for all of 14 months. I go from a co-host on a morning show to having my own show in the afternoon. I get a raise, and you Taylor apologists like you like to spin it as a demotion. You're pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Then, horror-of-horrors, he's next co-hosting a morning talk show, after they run off the Hated-One Michael Delgiorno.
Now, he's back solo as a local talk radio commentator 10 hours per week:
Raggin' on their asses every day......Some fun.
You must be the only one listening.
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=17533
Their station is 15th out of 19 in the local market. Even his own station demoted him to the mid-afternoon time slot.
I think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
Tired old game of citing ratings for 12 year olds up of both genders, which is all that is published for free, Patton. What is our rank among males 35 to 65 with a household income of $100K plus? If you knew this one, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Also explains why Mayor KT is too afraid to come on any of our shows to answer hardball questions.
Disclosing people's personal information on a forum that allows users to remain anonymous is both against our policies and just plain childish when you use it to make a point. Please cease this practice immediately.
-ADMIN
Disclosing people's personal information on a forum that allows users to remain anonymous is both against our policies and just plain childish when you use it to make a point. Please cease this practice immediately.
-ADMIN
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
The conflation, distortion, and whining doesn't do much for the level of discourse either, Michael. Whatever "substance" there was became impossible to discern once you guys started pumping out the poo. So climb off your high horse and enjoy the smell down here; you helped make it.
Without so much as discourse, you wouldn't even be able to complain about "the level". A lecture on substance? All you have offered is B.S. scare tactics, based on false assumptions and bogus bond ratings. Maybe you should pull your head out of your high horses rears and start addressing the issues being raised with some substance instead of pathetically deflecting in a desperate attempts to disrupt the discussion, shift the focus, pass the buck, and scare the public into submission through Chicken Piddles sky is falling doomsday scenario based on bogus bond ratings? Oh, I almost forgot about Joey Boy's pathetic attempts to guilt the public into accepting that we somehow owe this to King Kaiser because of his "philanthropy". You pontificate about substance yet offer none yourselves. No wonder you are defending this deviant deal when you engage the same dysfunctional deceptive double standards. Yeah, you guys are really on the level, forgive me for criticizing or questioning your supreme moral authority. [sarcasm off]
One more thing, that smell is coming from the turd that King Kaiser and Queen Kathy dropped in their Krystal Kastle on their golden throne. There's just one problem, no matter how discreet they attempted to be, it's so big they couldn't just flush it away. The foul odor coming from their Krystal Kastle continues to grow as the stench of their decaying defecation emanates across all parts of the city, and chokes Tulsans who inhale the royal toxic fumes. Let's be fair, and give credit where is due. King Kaiser should like credit, after all, it's how he's filled his treasury.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Tired old game of citing ratings for 12 year olds up of both genders, which is all that is published for free, Patton. What is our rank among males 35 to 65 with a household income of $100K plus? If you knew this one, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Also explains why Mayor KT is too afraid to come on any of our shows to answer hardball questions.
Please share, o' ratings king.
If you think that your ratings with a certain demographic affect my sleep, you are delusional. Do you really think I care about you that much?
Do you have to open the sunroof in your car so your head fits inside when you drive?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Tired old game of citing ratings for 12 year olds up of both genders, which is all that is published for free, Patton. What is our rank among males 35 to 65 with a household income of $100K plus? If you knew this one, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Also explains why Mayor KT is too afraid to come on any of our shows to answer hardball questions.
Please share, o' ratings king.
If you think that your ratings with a certain demographic affect my sleep, you are delusional. Do you really think I care about you that much?
Do you have to open the sunroof in your car so your head fits inside when you drive?
[}:)]
+1
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Tired old game of citing ratings for 12 year olds up of both genders, which is all that is published for free, Patton. What is our rank among males 35 to 65 with a household income of $100K plus? If you knew this one, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Also explains why Mayor KT is too afraid to come on any of our shows to answer hardball questions.
Please share, o' ratings king.
If you think that your ratings with a certain demographic affect my sleep, you are delusional. Do you really think I care about you that much?
Do you have to open the sunroof in your car so your head fits inside when you drive?
Obviously you do, Patton. You take every opportunity to take a cheap shot, but hey...must just be your winning personality.
Any time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Nominated for post of the day!
It's Sunday and by daze end there are some rad competitors. And the way CM is going, it's gonna get stranger.
BTW Swake, there has to be a better definition for conservative now that "neo" blew the old definition away.
Hmmm... So with the above analogy, I should not give to the city until the city does right with how the city did me wrong. Lets call it the "Kaiser Way"
Oh by the way quit spinning the facts.. It was not the city it was TIA. The city had nothing in this until KT had BOK pull the city in. If BOK lawyers thought the city was responsible, the city would have been named in the original lawsuit. Wonder why the city was not named in the beginning....hmmmm
Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important
I think you're hitting on it...
If one looks more closely at this deal, it's apparent it's NOT BOK doing the dirty work here. It's TIA. TIA has the Metro Chamber as its' TRUSTOR (as opposed to 'TRUSTEE'). And, it's TIA who obtained the loan from BOK, then gave the proceeds to TAIT. TAIT defaulted, leaving TIA obligated. TIA's responsibilities are definitely NOT the City of Tulsa's.
I'm of the opinion Ms. Kitty just gave TIA our money. The suit is TIA v TAIT. BOK is not even involved. I suspect BOK has long been paid by TIA, who now is attempting to pass their own liability off on Tulsans.
And, to answer your question, $7.1 million WOULD be important to the Chamber and its Trustees since it likely would affect their credit rating, cash flow or ability to operate (of course, based upon their own possibly fruadulent use of that money originally). It could be the Chambers' Trustees are on the hook personally as well. That would be meaningful, if so.
Not sure why BOK is standing by taking all the crap over it, however. Guess it could be a question as to how much influence the Chamber has on BOK.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
This is the most twisted logic I've read on anything this year.
But TIA and TAIT are authorities that have the Mayor or mayoral designates, on their boards. They are set up by the city or county to legally incur debt and to do the peoples work without undue political influence. (Neither one of those elements were accomplished with this deal.) In some instances these authorities receive partial funding from the city/county. If that is true and city officials used their influence to persuade BOK that their money was covered, then it doesn't take lawyers too long to connect the dotted lines. It just looks more and more like the city would have been dragged into this suit inevitably.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important
Because BOK is a federally regulated bank and what's more is a publicly traded company. It would be illegal (under the Sarbanes-Oxley law and others) to pick a debt and forgive because you like the creditor. Preferential treatment is not legal.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
A lot of probablies and maybes.
Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".
The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is: You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up. If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.
How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK? Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.
Meh, who cares, $7mm? It's not like it was our money or anything.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Hmmm... So with the above analogy, I should not give to the city until the city does right with how the city did me wrong. Lets call it the "Kaiser Way"
Oh by the way quit spinning the facts.. It was not the city it was TIA. The city had nothing in this until KT had BOK pull the city in. If BOK lawyers thought the city was responsible, the city would have been named in the original lawsuit. Wonder why the city was not named in the beginning....hmmmm
1 The Tulsa International Airport is leased to Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT). TAIT is a trust sponsored by
the City of Tulsa for improving the buildings, structures, and facilities of Tulsa area airports. TAIT is the entity that
the Federal Aviation Administration recognizes for purposes of Airport Improvement Program grants and Passenger
Facility Charges project approvals. All references to the Airport in this memorandum are synonymous with TAIT.
2 The Tulsa Industrial Authority is an agency created to promote the general economic welfare of Tulsa area citizens.
The City of Tulsa directly benefits from activities of the Authority.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Why does someone who has given way more than $7 mil to Tulsa , care more about this $7 million than he does of the city financialy.
Whats the big missing picture that makes this $7.1 million so important
Are you on credit watch?
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Any time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.
I am sure you have much more reach around than I have.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
QuoteI think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
Agree with Michael Bates 1,000%.
Recycle is a certified MetroTulsaChamberPot in viewpoint on this Forum.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
QuoteI think he started this thread just so he could promote himself and his show. It looks like a desperate effort to get listeners.
We should ban him for spamming.
This is a substantive public policy issue and belongs here. An admin for this site should not be making such dismissive comments and threats. Your attitude does not promote public discourse.
Find a better shil or you take the lead MB and then Medlock's conflict of interest won't be so obvious or odorous.
CM and Michael Bates:
You remind me of the guy at the state fair mud wrestling with a pig.
You forget that the pig is ENJOYING it.
Stay out of the fetid mud that the Forum associates of the MetroTulsaChamberPots are wallowing in.
Return to your normal higher plane of political discourse.
They are sniping and nit-picking you because THEY ARE TRYING TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE.
And, because you have grown to become SOMEBODIES in this town, while they are still NOBODIES.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Quote
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.[/size=2]
[;)]
I was never offered money to work in Bill LaFortune's administration. I did some paid computer work for his 2002 campaign. I didn't do any paid campaign work in the 2006 city elections, no one offered me a job, and if they had I would have turned them down.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
Any time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.
I am sure you have much more reach around than I have.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2568405066_795b2c4b26_o.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
A lot of probablies and maybes.
Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".
The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is: You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up. If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.
How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK? Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.
Meh, who cares, $7mm? It's not like it was our money or anything.
With fraud you have to prove intent to defraud and proving intent is can be very difficult. Look at all the money that has been spent on Great Plains trying to find fraud.
Let's try another example. Flooding. You have a mortgage on your home. This is a securitized loan. Your home is destroyed by flood and you do not carry flood insurance. Your debt to the mortgage company is not erased simply because the property used to secure the loan no longer exists. You still have to pay. The city of Tulsa will have to as well.
Now, about going after the former TIA attorney for malpractice. I don't know what the city would stand to gain here. The attorney's mistake didn't create the debt, so I would say that he is not responsible for the debt. He made a (bad) mistake on how a loan was guaranteed. The city owes the debt either way, so from what I can tell the injured party is not the city here, it's Bank of Oklahoma, he could be liable for damages to the bank, but not the city. The city got the loan it wanted and the city is not injured by paying a loan it agreed to. How exactly would it work for the city to sue the attorney because the city was forced to repay a debt it agreed to guarantee?
Look, no love lost twixt myself and some of the 'guest' posters here, but can we just keep the thread topical instead of using this rare opportunity of CM's participation as an opportunity to 'get even'? If folk are besieged with nasties every time they deign to poke their heads up to post those people will stop posting. Venality and pettiness just does not help [pot=kettle].
Swake:
A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd. This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time. And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches? A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.
That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.
This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?
I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions. I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it. This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.
As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency. I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).
I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light. Move on please.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
AOX, no one argued that Kaiser and his Family Foundation nor that BOk has not done a lot for this community. I have extolled his virtuous giving many times.
But the argument "George Kaiser gives lots of money to Tulsa, so lets give lots of money to him" is not a winning argument. Sorry. Not only is not sound logic, this matter is a legal matter... the city can not give million to whomever it deems worthy.
Then there is philanthropy and business, his philanthropy to the city should not be tied to our willingness to give him $7 million, or it really isn't philanthropy. If he steps up and blackmails the city for $7mil he should get it - he's worth it to the community. BUT, if that's what's going on then my opinion of him would hcange drastically.
If you actually read, above I indicated a compromise if he was interested in philanthropy which would see the money essentially returned to the city with the benefits still given to BOk. Nothing like that was discussed that I am aware of. BOk added Tulsa to the suit and we nearly instantly handed over the entire sum they asked for.
For the record, $7,100,000.00 is not a small amount. It is what the average Tulsan makes in about 160 years of working. If it is a trivial matter, why would a multi billion dollar company care, or why don't you just pay it off? Time to step to the plate.
AND, I want full disclosure. What relationships do you have here because your "give the money to the rich and screw it" position is contrary to your normal banter. I'm operating on the assumption that either you or someone close to you will personal bennefit from this. Your comments have lacked rationale for your position - "he's nice so pay him $7mil" notwithstanding.
The promoters of Great Plains Airlines, who have all left town by now, had pitched their "Direct Flights to the Coasts" deal to 2nd tier cities like Wichita and Tulsa.
All the other cities had the sense to turn them down.
Then, the promoters used a network of gifted grifters to garner $30 million in State Tax Credits courtesy of their lobbyist Martha Erling Frette.
Then, got TAIT to pledge 22 acres of land right in the heart of the airport to the bank.
Then, in exchange for $600K in free advertising, they made World Publishing Co. the largest equity owner of GPA, despite today's Tulsa World's repeated Half-Truth that World Publishing only owned 3% of the shares.
PREFERRED shares are not counted the same way as the common stock.
Repeat: The World Publishing company was the single largest equity owner of the airlines. And, that ownership interest bought GPA many, many favorable "news" articles right up to the point when the airline crashed.
WHY didn't anyone exercise some adult leadership over the promoters when the first planes they acquired, they leased two airplanes that were incapable of flying non-stop to either coast.
THAT was a serious RED FLAG.
In a Banana Republic like Tulsa, a few immensely rich families like the Lortons, the Helmerichs, the Kaisers, the Warrens, the Siegfrieds, the Flints, the Rooneys, and the Schusterman's have an influence far, far in excess of what is healthy for what we mistakenly persist in calling our "democracy".
It isn't really a democracy.
It is a Banana Republic.
It only has the edifices of a democracy:
Elections.
Courts.
Judges.
These ruling Oligarch families select our political leaders, the Mayor and a majority of our city councilors.
Their paid paladins like Cameron and Reynolds populate our city boards, commisions and authorities (like TAIT, TMUA, TARE, TIA, TDA, etc.), doing their bidding, and breaking our backs with bad, bad deals like the Trash-to- Energy Plant, clean water piped at cost to subsidize development of our suburbs, Great Plains Airlines, an arena sole-sourced to the Flint-Rooney Oligarchia Familias, etc., etc., etc.
Very scarily, they also select our District and Federal Court judges.
Newly appointed Federal judge Gregory Frizzell is Senator Inhofe's "dear" friend.
Really scary if you are foolish enough or unlucky enough to have a legal tangle with the local Oligarchia Familias.
Their wholly-owned District Judge Jane Wiseman, took all of FIVE minutes to rule that a log-rolled 2003 Vision 2025 ballot, that figuratively sugar-coated voter rat poison, was actually not a log-rolled ballot.
Don't believe your eyes. Believe the judge.
Dear Judge Wiseman's reward:
Shortly thereafter, rewarded with a state Appellant Judgeship.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
[:O]
If you really dislike Tulsa so much, please move.
You and some others are such children. You used this issue against LaFortune to no avail and now you are doing it again. It's obstructionist nonsense.
Judge Wiseman is one of the better legal minds we have. She's respected by pretty much everyone -- liberal, conservative, defense, plaintiff, you name it. They all love her.
Beyond that, you are pretty wrong with your timeline. The V2025 vote was in the fall of '03; Judge Wiseman was appointed to the Court of Civil Appeals in late summer '04. At the time she had been on the bench for over 20 years. She had applied for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This was a well deserved promotion a long time coming.
If I remember right, the criticism on here was that she didn't write out an opinion on the infamous logjammin' case. Newsflash: Tulsa County judges almost always give oral opinions or simply write "motion denied." If it was such a horrible law, then go appeal it.
To insult her is such a disgrace. There aren't many better families out there. You have ZERO credibility.
Judge Frizzell is also a very talented judge. You don't get that appointment without being a first rate legal mind. He's a gentleman, something you are not, sir.
Beyond that, your Banana Republic diatribe is so silly. If Tulsa really is an oligarchy, why did Kathy Taylor run against Bill LaFortune? Someone get mad over a game of gold at Southern Hills?
You know what we have in Tulsa? A whole lot of potential that gets blocked by splintered interest groups and others in power who just have bad ideas (Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, Randi Miller). If you all would get past the conspiracy nonsense and do something other than post on message boards, maybe we'd have something. But as it stands, it's a waste of talent attacking some of the real talent we have in the city.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Swake:
A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd. This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time. And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches? A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.
That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.
This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?
I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions. I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it. This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.
As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency. I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).
I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light. Move on please.
Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.
And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.
What's your opinion on paying the funds Gold? I'm not proposing a grand conspiracy, just that when dolling out $7mil in public funds I'd like it to be a little more clear. Having expressed confidence in the legal system (on which I agree) and your doubt of the ruling oligarchy, I'd be interested to get your take.
Oh, and "greedy" Kaiser donated another $25M to Tulsa today, just FYI.
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Swake:
A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd. This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time. And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches? A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.
That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.
This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?
I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions. I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it. This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.
As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency. I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).
I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light. Move on please.
Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.
And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.
Wrong, TIA is NOT controled by the City of Tulsa, nor is it a 'governmental' entity or have any authority to control city property.
Tulsa is, however, declared the benefactor of TIA, but that doesn't obligate the city to whatever TIA does.
Besides all that, TIA was also not named, it is the Plaintiff in its' own suit against TAIT (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2004-6124&db=Tulsa&submitted=true%22), originally, and, as of last week, the City of Tulsa (by Ms. Kitty's voluntary placement).
I have the distinct feeling you don't understand all the circumstances here.
What it boils down to is the Mayor had to make this payment to prevent someone, or more, from going to jail. The final piece of the cover they've been working to complete for four years.
Now they hope it just goes away.
But,we have have questions.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
If I'm correct (speculation warning), BOK has already been paid by TIA, who was the last in the chain of obligation to BOK for those funds.
So, what the Mayor did was reimburse TIA, not BOK.
There is no suit by BOK against anyone for any of these funds.
Brash dare: Prove me wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.
So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?
BTW, barring any unreported activity over the weekend, today would be the last day the offer of settlement remains valid. However, our Council did not approve the 'emergency' nature of the claim, meaning it's passage would not take effect for 30 days, around July 27th.
As such, no funds should be transferred out of our Sinking Fund on this date, or until at least the 27th of July.
If there are, more rules have been broken.
And, in legal terms, I'd guess the settlement offer expires unfulfilled at midnight tonight. Or should.
Case reopened.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Hard as it may be to grasp, Kaiser and BOK are two seperate entities. Not-so-Great Plains Airlines is a big black eye for BOK in front of their stockholders. BOK cannot be shown to be a business to put Tulsa ahead of BOK. Writing off a huge loan without persuing every avenue or receiving even the smallest (7M) token would be seen as misdirection of the company.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.
So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?
You really don't get it, do you?
TIA was the first socialist endeavor by the City and The Chamber in a joint venture that went down the tubes.....there will be others. And these too will pick the tax payer pocket.
Swake.....mutually exclusive events. But big picture non the less.....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.
So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?
You really don't get it, do you?
Oh, I get it. The city of Tulsa owed $7 million dollars and paid it (or agreed to pay it) last week. This week Kaiser and his foundation not only gave back the $7 million, he added another $18 million to it, and donated the money in such a fashion that the state has to match what he donated bringing the total to $50 million.
I don't exactly have $7 million laying around, but if I had $7,000 and someone told me that if I gave them my $7,000 they would give me back $50,000 I would make that deal every day of the week, unless of course the deal was outlined in an e-mail from Nigeria.
I don't think you get "it"
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
A lot of probablies and maybes.
Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".
The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is: You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up. If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.
How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK? Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.
Meh, who cares, $7mm? It's not like it was our money or anything.
With fraud you have to prove intent to defraud and proving intent is can be very difficult. Look at all the money that has been spent on Great Plains trying to find fraud.
Let's try another example. Flooding. You have a mortgage on your home. This is a securitized loan. Your home is destroyed by flood and you do not carry flood insurance. Your debt to the mortgage company is not erased simply because the property used to secure the loan no longer exists. You still have to pay. The city of Tulsa will have to as well.
Now, about going after the former TIA attorney for malpractice. I don't know what the city would stand to gain here. The attorney's mistake didn't create the debt, so I would say that he is not responsible for the debt. He made a (bad) mistake on how a loan was guaranteed. The city owes the debt either way, so from what I can tell the injured party is not the city here, it's Bank of Oklahoma, he could be liable for damages to the bank, but not the city. The city got the loan it wanted and the city is not injured by paying a loan it agreed to. How exactly would it work for the city to sue the attorney because the city was forced to repay a debt it agreed to guarantee?
Simple, the bank wouldn't have made a loan that large without security of some sort in the first place. Had the opinion been the land could not be used for security, there likely would not have been a debt in the first place. A lot of people made errant decisions on this deal which has led to the point we are at now. Dick Stupidity, Esq. made an error or omission on his opinion, that's what EOI is for. It's to protect those harmed by it.
I'd like to think that GPA would have survived had it been started at another point in time, but that's neither here nor there. It failed and there was incompetence in the management of it and in the city becoming a co-guarantor.
In lending law, it's not necessary to prove intent. One example: Open a credit account, charge it up and file bankruptcy within 90 days of the last charge or advance. It's fraud if the debtor fails to reaffirm the debt or surrender the collateral. Another example: put up someone else's property which is not yours to encumber and represent it as being legally yours to encumber: it's fraud. Third example, representing a bogus financial condition on a credit application. No questions asked, no intent is considered. It's pretty black-and-white in lending.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Hard as it may be to grasp, Kaiser and BOK are two seperate entities. Not-so-Great Plains Airlines is a big black eye for BOK in front of their stockholders. BOK cannot be shown to be a business to put Tulsa ahead of BOK. Writing off a huge loan without persuing every avenue or receiving even the smallest (7M) token would be seen as misdirection of the company.
Eh, you beat me to it. As well, the Kaiser Foundation is it's own separate entity. Kaiser can direct where funds go from his foundation. I'd like to think that there would have been this announcement whether or not the city had agreed to pay this money. Kaiser has many other interests aside from BOK which contribute to his wealth, including Kaiser-Francis oil company.
It is black and white to a large degree.
Thank gawd we went through the late 70's and early 80's with stupid lenders in this state.
Many municipalities are getting ready to be kicked in the teeth by their local bankers.
We just get pinched in the rump by angry taxpayers.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Because the state by law has to match his $25 million making it $50 million and that $50 million in local higher education will make more a long term difference than this $7 million ever could in a city budget of over $550 million dollars.
So, he just today gave Tulsa a donation that will with state matching funds be nine times more money than what the seven million will cost. Is there anyone that thinks that is a bad deal?
You really don't get it, do you?
Oh, I get it. The city of Tulsa owed $7 million dollars and paid it (or agreed to pay it) last week. This week Kaiser and his foundation not only gave back the $7 million, he added another $18 million to it, and donated the money in such a fashion that the state has to match what he donated bringing the total to $50 million.
I don't exactly have $7 million laying around, but if I had $7,000 and someone told me that if I gave them my $7,000 they would give me back $50,000 I would make that deal every day of the week, unless of course the deal was outlined in an e-mail from Nigeria.
I don't think you get "it"
"The city of Tulsa owed $7 million dollars..."
See there, you got off on the wrong foot in the first line.
I think this thread could use some botox.....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Swake:
A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd. This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time. And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches? A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.
That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.
This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?
I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions. I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it. This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.
As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency. I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).
I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light. Move on please.
Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.
And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.
Wrong, TIA is NOT controled by the City of Tulsa, nor is it a 'governmental' entity or have any authority to control city property.
Tulsa is, however, declared the benefactor of TIA, but that doesn't obligate the city to whatever TIA does.
Besides all that, TIA was also not named, it is the Plaintiff in its' own suit against TAIT (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2004-6124&db=Tulsa&submitted=true%22), originally, and, as of last week, the City of Tulsa (by Ms. Kitty's voluntary placement).
I have the distinct feeling you don't understand all the circumstances here.
What it boils down to is the Mayor had to make this payment to prevent someone, or more, from going to jail. The final piece of the cover they've been working to complete for four years.
Now they hope it just goes away.
But,we have have questions.
Is this not control? All member appointed by mayor and approved by city council. Authority created by city ordinance and meet at city hall:
Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA)
MEMBERS: Mayor (or full-time City Employee to serve as designee),
7 Mayoral appointees with Council approval (must be a citizen and resident of Tulsa)
Chair elected by members.
TERM: 5 years, staggered, expiring on March 7
CREATED BY: TITLE 39, CHAPTER 10
MEETINGS: Periodically, usually at City Hall.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Hard as it may be to grasp, Kaiser and BOK are two seperate entities. Not-so-Great Plains Airlines is a big black eye for BOK in front of their stockholders. BOK cannot be shown to be a business to put Tulsa ahead of BOK. Writing off a huge loan without persuing every avenue or receiving even the smallest (7M) token would be seen as misdirection of the company.
Eh, you beat me to it. As well, the Kaiser Foundation is it's own separate entity. Kaiser can direct where funds go from his foundation. I'd like to think that there would have been this announcement whether or not the city had agreed to pay this money. Kaiser has many other interests aside from BOK which contribute to his wealth, including Kaiser-Francis oil company.
Exactly right. Bank of Oklahoma both as a federally chartered bank and as a publicly traded company has a legal responsibility to pursue the $7 million from TIA and the city of Tulsa no matter what Kaiser's feelings on the subject are.
As for hiding criminal wrong doing, that's just plain stupid. The people running things today are not the same people that were there when Great Plains was started. Medlock (when he was on the council) and others have spent a lot of time and a lot of money looking for any kind evidence of wrong doing and have come up with nothing even criminal looking much less any charges. Great Plains was a nice idea with a mediocre business plan that died in the aftermath of airline problems after 9-11.
Honestly people, Kaiser's philanthropy and the $7,100,000 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
First of all, the concept of pay-o-la for charity is ridiculous. If you give me $7mil I'll donate $25mil - what kind of sense is that?
Second, Kaiser is worth nearly $11 Bil according to Forbes. He owns about 63% of BOKF, or $2.2Billion. He gives away hundreds of millions in his foundation. You think he is staying up at night worrying about $7mil? (incidentally, to fuel the oligarchy speculators - Robert J LaFortune owns 81,795 shares of BOKF).
And finally, the issue is NOT whether George Kaiser is a great philanthropist and good for the city. No one is arguing that he is not. BUT we do not settle complex litigation without clarifying the position and figuring out what's going on because we like a possible beneficiary.
BOKF and the other plaintiffs have a duty to look out for themselves, the City has a duty to look our for the citizens. If they are looking out for us by paying, great. But please explain to us what's going on.
So, for the love of god... can we drop the "I love Kaiser so lets give him the money" angle.
This thread is politics as usual.
No thanks.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Hard as it may be to grasp, Kaiser and BOK are two seperate entities. Not-so-Great Plains Airlines is a big black eye for BOK in front of their stockholders. BOK cannot be shown to be a business to put Tulsa ahead of BOK. Writing off a huge loan without persuing every avenue or receiving even the smallest (7M) token would be seen as misdirection of the company.
Eh, you beat me to it. As well, the Kaiser Foundation is it's own separate entity. Kaiser can direct where funds go from his foundation. I'd like to think that there would have been this announcement whether or not the city had agreed to pay this money. Kaiser has many other interests aside from BOK which contribute to his wealth, including Kaiser-Francis oil company.
Exactly right. Bank of Oklahoma both as a federally chartered bank and as a publicly traded company has a legal responsibility to pursue the $7 million from TIA and the city of Tulsa no matter what Kaiser's feelings on the subject are.
As for hiding criminal wrong doing, that's just plain stupid. The people running things today are not the same people that were there when Great Plains was started. Medlock (when he was on the council) and others have spent a lot of time and a lot of money looking for any kind evidence of wrong doing and have come up with nothing even criminal looking much less any charges. Great Plains was a nice idea with a mediocre business plan that died in the aftermath of airline problems after 9-11.
+1
Well stated.
This is looking like one of them 'liar loan' situations. At what point does BOK just take it in the bootay for not vetting the process?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Maybe Mr. Kaiser's family foundation could endow our city's Public Pools to perpetuity.
The city of Tulsa only managed to pay to operate 4 of 22 pools again this summer.
Do a whole lot more good with his $$'s than throwing more money down a rat-hole that are our two major mediocrities of state universities.
I notice that George Kaiser didn't attend college in Oklahoma......Harvard wasn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Why does he not 'donate' to the City the $7M?
Maybe Mr. Kaiser's family foundation could endow our city's Public Pools to perpetuity.
The city of Tulsa only managed to pay to operate 4 of 22 pools again this summer.
Do a whole lot more good with his $$'s than throwing more money down a rat-hole that are our two major mediocrities of state universities.
I notice that George Kaiser didn't attend college in Oklahoma......Harvard wasn't it?
LOL. The money towards the local public universities is clearly a better investment. What nonsense on your part to criticize a man for giving millions to the local colleges.
I do have a question regarding what I read about the use of the donations.
Is there a reason Universities would chose to fund professorships over finiancial aid for students?
I'm not saying what they've done with the donations is wrong, just questioning how the decision process works in prioritizing endowments, grants, and donations.
Just curious, I have no hidden agenda on the matter.
I think we have exhausted this thread...finally.
One last glance at the topic title and I could not resist:
Mayor Taylor To Give BOK $7 Mil for Great Plains
Why would she want to buy Great Plains? Doesn't she know they went out of business?
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I do have a question regarding what I read about the use of the donations.
Is there a reason Universities would chose to fund professorships over finiancial aid for students?
I'm not saying what they've done with the donations is wrong, just questioning how the decision process works in prioritizing endowments, grants, and donations.
Just curious, I have no hidden agenda on the matter.
Sounds like a great topic of discussion for another thread.
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
How REASONABLE you sound....
Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.
It is:
A CAPITULATION.
A settlement is:
Let's Share the Pain.
This is NOT a settlement.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
How REASONABLE you sound....
Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.
It is:
A CAPITULATION.
A settlement is:
Let's Share the Pain.
This is NOT a settlement.
[:O]
Your numbers are wrong. I think the bank forgot interest to the tune of 5 million more. And not knowing the documents, just maybe the bank could have charged a higher default rate.
It is a settled matter.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
How REASONABLE you sound....
Except, that paying 100% of the Principal owed on the debt is NOT a Settlement.
It is:
A CAPITULATION.
A settlement is:
Let's Share the Pain.
This is NOT a settlement.
[:O]
Your numbers are wrong. I think the bank forgot interest to the tune of 5 million more. And not knowing the documents, just maybe the bank could have charged a higher default rate.
It is a settled matter.
Maybe.
The bank got it's Principal back.
City property owners will pay.
The bank also got maybe a tiny bit of bad publicity.
On balance, who's ahead?
I suspect that eventually someone will file a Qui Tam lawsuit against the Mayor over making the city a party to litigation last week, for which the city was NOT a defendant.
In about five years, we'll get a verdict.
After the city pays about $5 million in her legal expenses.
Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.
Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.
Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.
She can't draw a salary.
That would mean she'd have to fill out an IRS Form W-4.
And, that would corroborate that she has been a FLORIDA resident since shortly after her inauguration.....
None of her acts have been legal.
NOW, that WOULD keep the City Legal Department very busy!
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.
[;)]
Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.
Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.
I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.
Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.
I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.
As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
A lot of probablies and maybes.
Okay, so let's say it's the "right thing" for the city to repay the debt plus a lot of "if'ns & buts".
The way the law works, not probably, not maybe is: You have committed fraud when you put up collateral for a loan which is not yours to put up. If it's a big enough deal, it results in prison time.
How do you feel about Dick Stupidity, Esq. and other co-conspirators walking away with total immunity on this one while they left us holding the bag for BOK? Fine, pay back BOK who does have some redress under the law, but apply the same redress to the citizens of Tulsa so we can subrogate liability to Stupidity's EOI company.
Meh, who cares, $7mm? It's not like it was our money or anything.
With fraud you have to prove intent to defraud and proving intent is can be very difficult. Look at all the money that has been spent on Great Plains trying to find fraud.
Let's try another example. Flooding. You have a mortgage on your home. This is a securitized loan. Your home is destroyed by flood and you do not carry flood insurance. Your debt to the mortgage company is not erased simply because the property used to secure the loan no longer exists. You still have to pay. The city of Tulsa will have to as well.
Now, about going after the former TIA attorney for malpractice. I don't know what the city would stand to gain here. The attorney's mistake didn't create the debt, so I would say that he is not responsible for the debt. He made a (bad) mistake on how a loan was guaranteed. The city owes the debt either way, so from what I can tell the injured party is not the city here, it's Bank of Oklahoma, he could be liable for damages to the bank, but not the city. The city got the loan it wanted and the city is not injured by paying a loan it agreed to. How exactly would it work for the city to sue the attorney because the city was forced to repay a debt it agreed to guarantee?
The city was NEVER the guarantor. Period.
The 22 acres of land that TAIT put up as a guarantee was improper because using it as collateral was against FAA regulations. Period
BOK had to know the collateral was bogus because they did all the bond indenture work for TAIT and had officers that knew the land couldn't be used. Period.
In fact, the FACT is that it is a FACT that BOK NEVER FILED THE PAPER WORK WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO REGISTER THE 22 ACRES of land as COLLATERAL. Why? Because they KNEW it was bogus. PERIOD.
Tulsa wasn't a party to the loan until Kathy Taylor negotiated with BOK to do so. Period.
Why was BOK and the Mayor of Tulsa working out a settlement for a case between TIA and TAIT?
No speculation here guys...it's all documented fact. Your speculation doesn't make any of this less factual.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.
Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.
Hmmm...if Kathy Taylor continues to not draw her salary for the next 69 years, the city should just about break even for her borderline malfeasance.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
This is Queen Kathy and King Kaiser's turd. The Council didn't negotiate ****. As a matter of fact, the machiavellian maneuvering Da Mare engaged in left the Council no other options but to do her bidding against their will. Why don't you get your facts straight before you mouth off with these insults to our intelligence. Either you are just clueless or an outright liar.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.
Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.
Once again you distort the truth. Do Nancy Segal and Deidre Dexter work for free? Whatever money might have been saved by Queen Kathy not accepting a salary was spent long ago on her ever increasing number of loyal toadies and cronies(many of whom collect six figure salaries) that serve her, not the public, otherwise known as At-Will employees.
BTW, I thought the Mayor had independent counsel work out this deal because of her conflicts of interests with BOK. Maybe that was just a PR move so she could have plausible deniability if she wasn't successful in sneaking this past the public and the **** hit the fan? Either way, she gave birth to this little monster and she needs to claim it. What kind of mother would abandon her newborn like this?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Swake:
A "couple million" in legal fees is absurd. This is a fairly straight forward case, certainly not requiring some 10,000 hours of lawyer time. And why do you say we "probably would not win" when the cause of action is "unjust enrichment" and we (the City of Tulsa) hold not riches? A precursory look at the case has issues that are not so clear cut in either direction.
That said, offering to pay the FULL amount is not settling a case, it's just handing over the money.
This situation is far too complex for citizens like us, who pay attention to fully understand:
Why was Tulsa not named in the original suit?
Why were we added?
Who has interests in this transaction (other than the counsel, the mayor, the city attorney, failed businessmen, the local newspaper, a local billionaire, and a large company)?
Was the underlying transaction legal (apperently not)?
What are our legal responsibilities likely to be?
If we don't owe the money, SHOULD we pay it and if so... why?
Who are the actual parties (City, BOk, TAA, TIA?)?
I'm trying to figure it out, and don't have the answers to most of those questions. I can not say if we owe the money, and if we don't - on what basis we should pay it. This is not a matter against Kaiser nor BOk, they are supposed to look out for themselves... my concern is with the City.
As a citizen, I expect full disclosure and transparency. I think we deserve a closer look and full information on this matter before we hand over $7mil (or 25% of the public funding for a new downtown stadium).
I also think all the chest puffing about who has the furthest reach casts all parties in a bad light. Move on please.
Absurd? Tulsa spent more two million on representation in the Black Officers lawsuit and then had to pay another amount well in excess of two million for the plaintiff's fees when the city lost.
And while the city specifically may not have been named, TIA was, and TIA is a governmental authority created and controlled by the city to administer city property. TIA is part of city government and when TIA is named in a lawsuit, the city is being sued.
Wrong, TIA is NOT controled by the City of Tulsa, nor is it a 'governmental' entity or have any authority to control city property.
Tulsa is, however, declared the benefactor of TIA, but that doesn't obligate the city to whatever TIA does.
Besides all that, TIA was also not named, it is the Plaintiff in its' own suit against TAIT (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2004-6124&db=Tulsa&submitted=true%22), originally, and, as of last week, the City of Tulsa (by Ms. Kitty's voluntary placement).
I have the distinct feeling you don't understand all the circumstances here.
What it boils down to is the Mayor had to make this payment to prevent someone, or more, from going to jail. The final piece of the cover they've been working to complete for four years.
Now they hope it just goes away.
But,we have have questions.
Is this not control? All member appointed by mayor and approved by city council. Authority created by city ordinance and meet at city hall:
Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA)
MEMBERS: Mayor (or full-time City Employee to serve as designee),
7 Mayoral appointees with Council approval (must be a citizen and resident of Tulsa)
Chair elected by members.
TERM: 5 years, staggered, expiring on March 7
CREATED BY: TITLE 39, CHAPTER 10
MEETINGS: Periodically, usually at City Hall.
When you actually read Title 39, Chapter 10, you'll see that after the Mayor and the Mayor's appointments comes Appendix I, which names a Trustor for TIA who's final authorization MUST occur before any TIA action may be taken.
Who is that Trustor?
(HINT: It contains the word "Chamber")
UPDATE: Bonus for anyone who can name all eight Trustees of TIA.
Wasn't Jim Hewgley, Jr. one of the original trustees?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Wasn't Jim Hewgley, Jr. one of the original trustees?
Appears so, along with K. C. Olinger, John L. O'Brien, Falkner C. Broach, Clyde C. Cole, Jr., D. E. Frieden, L. Dean Hoye and J. E. Daley.
But, today's current listing of TIA Trustees is more evasive.
Can you name all eight?
Their meetings are open and their agendas are posted. Have you ever attended one?
Is your idea just to slam them because you can't name the current board?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Their meetings are open and their agendas are posted. Have you ever attended one?
Is your idea just to slam them because you can't name the current board?
Sure they are, as stated, they hold them "periodically" and "usually at City Hall".
I'll pencil that in.
I think it's your idea that I'm slaming them.
I asked only for a current listing of the Trustees.
It's my understanding that would be public information as well, and easily obtainable. But, a more than casual interest came up nil.
There's the Mayor, of course. Since she's been in office, it's presumed she's re/appointed two replacements. If I go peruse the last 75 City Council Agendas, I could probably pick up those two.
That leaves five.
Did you call the staff person?
Tom Warren, 584-7881
I guess I don't understand your innuendo.
Awesome: Chris' summation bears reiteration:
'The city was NEVER the guarantor. Period.
The 22 acres of land that TAIT put up as a guarantee was improper because using it as collateral was against FAA regulations. Period
BOK had to know the collateral was bogus because they did all the bond indenture work for TAIT and had officers that knew the land couldn't be used. Period.
In fact, the FACT is that it is a FACT that BOK NEVER FILED THE PAPER WORK WITH THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO REGISTER THE 22 ACRES of land as COLLATERAL. Why? Because they KNEW it was bogus. PERIOD.
Tulsa wasn't a party to the loan until Kathy Taylor negotiated with BOK to do so. Period.
Why was BOK and the Mayor of Tulsa working out a settlement for a case between TIA and TAIT?
No speculation here guys...it's all documented fact. Your speculation doesn't make any of this less factual.'
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Did you call the staff person?
Tom Warren, 584-7881
I guess I don't understand your innuendo.
Sorry, that doesn't get you the bonus.
Innuendo?
Wanting to know the names of the people we're supposed to pay $7.1 million, and who have sued TAIT for what appears to be some combination of their own failing and/or collusion, but who now expect Tulsans to pick up the cost of their mistake.
No innuendo.
The TAA itself has a decent website explaining who the members are, where and when they meet:
http://www.tulsaairports.com/index.cfm?id=34
But I haven't been able to find information on many of the other commissions/authorities/agencies for the City:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/AgencyAuthority.asp#Women
So many of these have a lot of overlapping area. And the list doesn't include the Tulsa Sports Commission, am I making that one up? Also, some list websites, others do not - we know the TAA has a website (linked above), but it isn't listed. Argh.
- And now a report from the "Mayor's Commission on the Status of Women."
- "Still female."
- Thank you. And now a report from...
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
This is Queen Kathy and King Kaiser's turd. The Council didn't negotiate ****. As a matter of fact, the machiavellian maneuvering Da Mare engaged in left the Council no other options but to do her bidding against their will. Why don't you get your facts straight before you mouth off with these insults to our intelligence. Either you are just clueless or an outright liar.
Someone's off their meds or suffering from a brain disorder or both.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Too many keep their focus on the micromanagement of situatuions. Where they fail to see how change and progress come about instead allowing politics to cloud their ability to see what is best in the long run for our community.
There sure are many here who will always be stuck on their own specialty and especially this little devil. Despite not being a lawyer, Little Lucifer here dealt in many "convoluted" situations where common sense had to prevail over legal entanglements to negotiate a reasonable conclusion so that the parties could move on for the best of both. Hence, mediation to end litigation and to relieve stress is often the selected road towards negotiation. Consider this deal was negotiated between the bank and the council with the mayor mediating. They just did not ask your opinion.
This is Queen Kathy and King Kaiser's turd. The Council didn't negotiate ****. As a matter of fact, the machiavellian maneuvering Da Mare engaged in left the Council no other options but to do her bidding against their will. Why don't you get your facts straight before you mouth off with these insults to our intelligence. Either you are just clueless or an outright liar.
Someone's off their meds or suffering from a brain disorder or both.
I guess I struck a nerve. Sucks to be exposed as the bull****ter you are, doesn't it? Go ahead, lash out if it makes you feel better about your sorry donkey self. I know the truth hurts, honey. Especially when someone lives in a perpetual state of dysfunction and denial like yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.
[;)]
Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.
Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.
I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.
Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.
I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.
As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.
I can see you have no interest in continuing your political career, based on how you handle yourself on here. I think I speak for many around town when I say:
THANK YOU, SIR!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY (City)
Five-year staggered terms; meets bi-monthly at Metropolitan Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. Purpose: To stimulate economic growth and
development of Tulsa by acting as a vehicle for tax-exempt financing.
Term Expires
John Goodwin, Chair 3-7-10
Jeff Stava 3-7-08
John Favell 3-7-08
Joan P. Parkhurst 3-7-10
John McGrath 3-7-08
James 'Jim' D. Dunn 3-7-08
Scott Dickman 3-7-08
Mayor, ex officio
So many "J" names...significant? What do you think, Wrinkle? [/sarcasm off]
They have no Jack, no Joe, no Jesus.
How can we trust them?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY (City)
Five-year staggered terms; meets bi-monthly at Metropolitan Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. Purpose: To stimulate economic growth and
development of Tulsa by acting as a vehicle for tax-exempt financing.
Term Expires
John Goodwin, Chair 3-7-10
Jeff Stava 3-7-08
John Favell 3-7-08
Joan P. Parkhurst 3-7-10
John McGrath 3-7-08
James 'Jim' D. Dunn 3-7-08
Scott Dickman 3-7-08
Mayor, ex officio
So many "J" names...significant? What do you think, Wrinkle? [/sarcasm off]
Are these real names?
Good-wind?
Dick-Man?
Stavka (Soviet Military High Command)
Gym Done?
Park-hearse?
McGraft?
Oh, and FIVE of their terms expired back in March.
Oooops!
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY (City)
Five-year staggered terms; meets bi-monthly at Metropolitan Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. Purpose: To stimulate economic growth and
development of Tulsa by acting as a vehicle for tax-exempt financing.
Term Expires
John Goodwin, Chair 3-7-10
Jeff Stava 3-7-08
John Favell 3-7-08
Joan P. Parkhurst 3-7-10
John McGrath 3-7-08
James 'Jim' D. Dunn 3-7-08
Scott Dickman 3-7-08
Mayor, ex officio
So many "J" names...significant? What do you think, Wrinkle? [/sarcasm off]
What, no Jesus?
Actually, I'm more concerned an organization like this is operating with 5 of the 8 Trustees on expired terms.
Remember, less than three more months and the Council gets to replace these. But, suspect there to be an intentional hold up here. Ya know, sucker punch when exiting the building. But, most likely, she'll reappoint them all anyway, like she did for others.
Something else is wrong. When the Authority was initiated, each of the 8 Trustees had saggered terms, seperated by one year. So, it would take an 8-year period for all Trustees to be replaced. Apparently, that all changed when we went to a new Charter, perhaps. Don't know for sure.
If they're now still on staggered terms and appointed for 5-year terms, how is it 5 expire on the same date, with the remaining two also together, only two years later? I can imagine one or two might have operated on expired terms for longer than a year prior to the new resolution requiring such appointments to be made within six months of expiration. But, FIVE all together?! Seems maybe two per year should expire, thus requiring four years for complete turnover. But, actually, all probably should be at the discretion of the Mayor each year, for best results.
Gives a good opportunity for wholesale change here which, as usual for now, far outlasts the current Mayor's term.
Since the Chamber has veto power, it probably doesn't really matter much. It's their deal, not the City's due to that fact.
But, it also means the City isn't liable for what they do, as in GPA.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I can see you have no interest in continuing your political career, based on how you handle yourself on here. I think I speak for many around town when I say:
THANK YOU, SIR!!!!!
I am glad his Medlockness has rejoined the fray, knowing the level of grief he would attract must not have been easy. He must have had quite the following when the Pres of the Chamber called him a Nazi, huh? Or when a group of anonymous mensches wasted our time with a recall. JUST NOW though he has stepped over the edge? HA!
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why do you think this deal unfolded in negotiations? Keeping the lawyers at bay made the deal close. Besides, the city got legal services for free from Kathy Taylor as with her wages.
Fighting the city on legal issues is like pissin' in the wind.
Hmmm...if Kathy Taylor continues to not draw her salary for the next 69 years, the city should just about break even for her borderline malfeasance.
She's not drawing her salary because she's a Florida resident (No state income tax in Florida; VERY important for millionaires).
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
TULSA INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY (City)
Five-year staggered terms; meets bi-monthly at Metropolitan Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. Purpose: To stimulate economic growth and
development of Tulsa by acting as a vehicle for tax-exempt financing.
Term Expires
John Goodwin, Chair 3-7-10
Jeff Stava 3-7-08
John Favell 3-7-08
Joan P. Parkhurst 3-7-10
John McGrath 3-7-08
James 'Jim' D. Dunn 3-7-08
Scott Dickman 3-7-08
Mayor, ex officio
...forgot.....ding, ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!
Bonus: Kiss of Death from Randi Miller.
(Assuming, of course, these are accurate, which I do assume).
I asked my "conspiracy" eight ball for the answer.
The reason there are so many "j"s is because the code word for their black ops is "Plan J"
You've heard of Plan "I" Tulsa. This follows it.
I want to know all about Plans "A" through "H".
quote:
I want to know all about Plans "A" through "H".
Reserved for the river.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I asked my "conspiracy" eight ball for the answer.
The reason there are so many "j"s is because the code word for their black ops is "Plan J"
You've heard of Plan "I" Tulsa. This follows it.
I want to know all about Plans "A" through "H".
They have a permanent display and archive for "A" through "H" at The Meadows in Colorado. I thought all along you were on the super-secret board and roomed with Colonel Sanders every year when they have their conclave. That was the Colonel's Macaroni and Cheese recipe, yes?
I'm smelling more than a simple conspiracy here...
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I asked my "conspiracy" eight ball for the answer.
The reason there are so many "j"s is because the code word for their black ops is "Plan J"
You've heard of Plan "I" Tulsa. This follows it.
I want to know all about Plans "A" through "H".
Read Cronley's column in today's Lorton's World.
He recites Plan A through Plan Y for downtown.
Pretty funny.
[8D]http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080701_206_A9_spancl229908 (//%22http://%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
QuoteAny time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.
If you had that much reach you'd be in office right now, huh?
Sometimes I question democracy and if people are educated enough to vote, and I get apathetic. Then I see Tulsa voters making sure Chris Medlock can't touch the city council with a ten foot pole and I sleep happily at night.
Sincerely,
20-something age, 20-something salary
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
QuoteAny time you want to compare the "reach" that I have, or Michael Bates has, to the reach you have, I'll happily play.
If you had that much reach you'd be in office right now, huh?
Good work!
LOL at Medlock.
Then again, he may have been referring to his reach in the tapping/ pounding the miscrophone episode. Or his success at stopping the F&M bank that he made such a hubub over.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.
[;)]
Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.
Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.
I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.
Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.
I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.
As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.
Wah... Wah..... Wah....
Baby want a binky..?
So after the lengthy amount of time you spent on the Great Plains disaster they pulled the plug on spending any more money...BFD
That was the one thing that prevented you from finding out "the truth"....Right
That anything like Karl Rove's "the math"..?
So...............When you called Bates and told him "Billy" wanted to talk....or when you had the "behind closed doors" session with "Billy" to warn him about the threat of Kathy Taylor... you were just acting as a Good ole Republican...
Chris I have to say... If you were not offered any money then you were the only one left out...or so it would seem... "Billy" even offered payola to the FOP membership that he would bring wages for the Police up to where they should be if they would endorse him.
But Chris, I have to say, the one area that you have excelled in is the application of your education to furthering the well being of the citizen's of Tulsa.....
Hey this "Track Kathy's plane thing" love it....
All that education.... all that "Road Scholar" type book learning.... and go all the way to working for Rupert "FOX" Murdock..... That man is untouched by questionable activity.
Bravo...! you have joined the ranks of such illustrious individuals as.....
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/BillO.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.
[;)]
Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.
Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.
I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.
Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.
I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.
As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.
Wah... Wah..... Wah....
Baby want a binky..?
So after the lengthy amount of time you spent on the Great Plains disaster they pulled the plug on spending any more money...BFD
That was the one thing that prevented you from finding out "the truth"....Right
That anything like Karl Rove's "the math"..?
So...............When you called Bates and told him "Billy" wanted to talk....or when you had the "behind closed doors" session with "Billy" to warn him about the threat of Kathy Taylor... you were just acting as a Good ole Republican...
Chris I have to say... If you were not offered any money then you were the only one left out...or so it would seem... "Billy" even offered payola to the FOP membership that he would bring wages for the Police up to where they should be if they would endorse him.
But Chris, I have to say, the one area that you have excelled in is the application of your education to furthering the well being of the citizen's of Tulsa.....
Hey this "Track Kathy's plane thing" love it....
All that education.... all that "Road Scholar" type book learning.... and go all the way to working for Rupert "FOX" Murdock..... That man is untouched by questionable activity.
Bravo...! you have joined the ranks of such illustrious individuals as.....
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/BillO.jpg)
Very narcissistic of you to put O'Reilly's head on your body.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The city of Tulsa might technically, legally be able to spend a couple of million dollars on lawyers to get out of this debt that the city council and mayor (a previous version) entered into with Bank of Oklahoma. Then again the city probably would not be able to win such a case and then would also probably be responsible for interest on the debt and maybe even the millions Bank of Oklahoma would spend on legal fees pressing the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but, the issue seems pretty simple, the city guaranteed a loan to a second party by putting up collateral that was not legal for them to use as collateral. That was the manner the city used to securitize the loan, it does not mean that suddenly the city doesn't "owe" Bank of Oklahoma on the default.
If the courts were to allow the debt to be removed based on this securitization error then shady borrowers all over the nation would start to attempt to use illegal collateral on loans and then upon "discovery" of the error clear the debt of the loan and walk away with the capital from the loan free and clear. That simply makes no sense and for any court to rule in favor of the city would potentially be very damaging to the U.S. banking system. This case is an easy loser for the city of Tulsa.
Even worse if the fact that pressing a lawsuit on this debt that the city certainly did incur (the only question is that city put up illegal collateral) might well, in fact probably would create an acrimonious relationship with one of Tulsa's largest headquarters company and the city's wealthiest citizen and greatest current philanthropist. A positive relationship with Bank of Oklahoma and George Kaiser has mean something in the range $100 million dollars in charitable donations to city needs in just the last couple of years. Would might a difficult and strained relationship yield? To try to save seven million dollars that the city does morally and more than likely legally owe? What if he stopped donating and moved all or part of his company? Would that have been worth the seven million?
A conservative should see that the city owes this money and should pay it. Simple, pay what you owe. Why is the "conservatives" now want to run to the courts just like kid with the stupid slip and fall in another thread?
Excellent.....*****^
Wonder if Medlock went to TU to work on an A.M. talk show..?
Wonder if he ever finished TU....?
Wonder exactly how he feels he is qualified to tell Tulsa what it should and should not be doing....
When he was on the Council he spent an overabundance of time on the "Great Plains" issue........no smoking gun.. whole lot of fizz and no pop...
When he was touting himself as an alternative to "Bill" he had not finished TU..(clerical error) for sure..
That is before he and Bates were offered $$$ to work for LaFortuna... Then "Bill was the man.
[;)]
Congratulations...you have attained full idiot status.
Neal, Baker, Sullivan, Martinson and Christiansen denied us the money we needed to get the paper records.
I was never offered a position in the LaFortune administration, let alone money.
Not a clerical error, my error to not go back and check if the clerk had changed the grade. I took responsibility from day one.
I have the same authority to comment on events as Ken Neal or David Averill. That is to say that a professional media corporation is willing to pay me to do so.
As for you, your a petty dilettante who lacks class.
Wah... Wah..... Wah....
Baby want a binky..?
So after the lengthy amount of time you spent on the Great Plains disaster they pulled the plug on spending any more money...BFD
That was the one thing that prevented you from finding out "the truth"....Right
That anything like Karl Rove's "the math"..?
So...............When you called Bates and told him "Billy" wanted to talk....or when you had the "behind closed doors" session with "Billy" to warn him about the threat of Kathy Taylor... you were just acting as a Good ole Republican...
Chris I have to say... If you were not offered any money then you were the only one left out...or so it would seem... "Billy" even offered payola to the FOP membership that he would bring wages for the Police up to where they should be if they would endorse him.
But Chris, I have to say, the one area that you have excelled in is the application of your education to furthering the well being of the citizen's of Tulsa.....
Hey this "Track Kathy's plane thing" love it....
All that education.... all that "Road Scholar" type book learning.... and go all the way to working for Rupert "FOX" Murdock..... That man is untouched by questionable activity.
Bravo...! you have joined the ranks of such illustrious individuals as.....
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/BillO.jpg)
Very narcissistic of you to put O'Reilly's head on your body.
Keep sinking that political career.
Did you happen to leave that pic on an old computer?
Unbelievable this guy was on the city council.
So is it wrong for an elected servant of taxpayers to give away their tax dollars when it is not legally obligated, or is it not? Why all the poo flinging in here?
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So is it wrong for an elected servant of taxpayers to give away their tax dollars when it is not legally obligated, or is it not? Why all the poo flinging in here?
The question IS one of legal obligation. Were you prepared to see an extended legal battle to find out? The potential losses, as enumerated within this thread, were too great for taxpayers and the whole thing is an expensive distraction. You cut your losses and move on.
When it comes to pragmatism vs legality in the business/government world, pragmatists rule. We decided a couple decades ago to elect business leaders rather than idealogues to government leadership, so, this is the result. And its not a bad result. We can always teach them idealogy during the campaign.[;)] It is a hard pill to swallow when our leaders screw up but this decision is the correct one.
In light of the settlement described below, the question needs to be asked is why the City of Tulsa does not at least receive [back] the land in question illegally used as collateral for the loan we are now paying off?
We are effectively buying that land to pay off the note as originally prescribed in the equity agreement.
(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/9127/gpasummaryjudgement2008od9.png)
As stated, we are paying for 'unjust enrichment' which cannot be demonstrated. Where's the 'enrichment'?
+1 Wrinkle. If we are paying on the theory of unjust enrichment, what did we gain? Where's the cities $7mil sitting at... as far as I can tell, we have nothing to show for it.
Both the city AND the bank made a bad bet on great plains. The city entering into a deal with blind zeal, the bank running business as usual on a loan. But, at the end of the day - the party that enters in to such deals in the course of regular business throws up their hands... and only the city ends up losing money.
Add the interested parties, the dubious nature of being added to the suit really late, and on and on... do the "pay it and move on" people at least see what it's worth looking at closely? We don't have $6K for a stinking dog park... but can schedule a meeting, vote and appropriate $7mil to pay a non-obligated debt in a week.
*and please, no more chest puffing. I think it's amusing, but start another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So is it wrong for an elected servant of taxpayers to give away their tax dollars when it is not legally obligated, or is it not? Why all the poo flinging in here?
The question IS one of legal obligation. Were you prepared to see an extended legal battle to find out? The potential losses, as enumerated within this thread, were too great for taxpayers and the whole thing is an expensive distraction. You cut your losses and move on.
When it comes to pragmatism vs legality in the business/government world, pragmatists rule. We decided a couple decades ago to elect business leaders rather than idealogues to government leadership, so, this is the result. And its not a bad result. We can always teach them idealogy during the campaign.[;)] It is a hard pill to swallow when our leaders screw up but this decision is the correct one.
The claim of unjust enrichment had no merit and could easily have been thrown out. Hence, no liability for the city. You can keep up this ridiculous fear mongering in a pathetic attempt to justify this settlement, but no one is buying it. The Mayor rushed this through without even so much as discovery, which is the hight of hypocrisy considering that the Mayor forced out City Attorneys for not appealing a judgment against the city that was awarded after the case actually went to court, opting not to contest the judgment. Remember her harsh criticism of the handling of that settlement in that case. Why the double standard here? That pales in comparison to the way she handled this settlement. If she has a shred of integrity, credibility, or professionalism she should resign and hold herself to the same standards she holds her team. If she's gonna talk the talk, she should walk the walk.
After separating out your hyperbole, the question remains. How many people are willing to engage in a protracted legal battle to see who is right and who is responsible? I know you are AA just to get the mayor, but is there anyone here who actually thinks that
A. BOK would lose the suit?
B. BOK would settle for less than the 7mil.? When a lost court case could double the bill with interest accrued?
C. That the taxpayer doesn't end up paying no matter which public entity pays the loan?
If so, then mobilize the public and prepare for battle. Not saying it doesn't bear more scrutiny and criticism. I don't like the way it was done at all. Reminds me of something Inhofe did with the low water dam. Pretty masterful but deceitful.
Waterboy, I'm not sure BOk would win the battle. Was some government entity a guaranteer of the loan, or did we just put on collateral (which was later revoked by the FAA)? The action was not breach of contract, it was for unjust enrichment... follow the elements of unjust enrichment, and this isn't so simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who would win, which leads me to my main premise: Why the rush?
Can't we just slow down and figure out what's going on. I'm nervous because there are too many interested parties on a deal that is not transparent. It very well may be that setting the cash on the table and walking is the best way to go, but please explain to Joe Taxpayer why that's the case. The statements thus far have not convinced me (we have a moral obligation).
I haven't engaged in hyperbole nor conspiracy theories, just what I view as legitimate concerns of a citizen. Do you see the concerns and can you settle them for me?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Waterboy, I'm not sure BOk would win the battle. Was some government entity a guaranteer of the loan, or did we just put on collateral (which was later revoked by the FAA)? The action was not breach of contract, it was for unjust enrichment... follow the elements of unjust enrichment, and this isn't so simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who would win, which leads me to my main premise: Why the rush?
Can't we just slow down and figure out what's going on. I'm nervous because there are too many interested parties on a deal that is not transparent. It very well may be that setting the cash on the table and walking is the best way to go, but please explain to Joe Taxpayer why that's the case. The statements thus far have not convinced me (we have a moral obligation).
I haven't engaged in hyperbole nor conspiracy theories, just what I view as legitimate concerns of a citizen. Do you see the concerns and can you settle them for me?
The Lorton's World just told us at 5:44 p.m. today on their website, unintentionally, of course, why the City's $7 million payment to the bank was needed by June 30, the date of the bank's advance 10-Q.
Like many banks, they are showing more problem loans due to the slow down in commercial and residential real estate nationwide.
Luckily for them, their earnings are not yet really being hammered like the Money Center banks like Citibank, Deutsches Bank, etc.
But, they are diverting away more of their earnings into their bad debt account, presumably for what they think lies ahead.
And, their stock in now at the low end of its 52 week range.
Here's the link:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080702_5__BOKFi45302
Why does anyone think that BOK would have taken the city to court after adding the city? There was only one reason the city was added and that was for the deal KT made with BOK. It was never intended to make it to court thus there is no support to argue that the city might have lost in court, when it was never planned to go that far [;)]
By the way thanks Tulsa Now for all your support to get KT elected and standing behind sooo much still [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I know you are AA just to get the mayor.
I am just holding her to the same standards she holds her team. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Why does anyone think that BOK would have taken the city to court after adding the city? There was only one reason the city was added and that was for the deal KT made with BOK. It was never intended to make it to court thus there is no support to argue that the city might have lost in court, when it was never planned to go that far [;)]
By the way thanks Tulsa Now for all your support to get KT elected and standing behind sooo much still [B)]
My understanding is that it was Mayor Taylor that AGREED last week to have the City of Tulsa added as a Defendant.
The City was never directly a defendant until Kathy Taylor agreed to have us added.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Waterboy, I'm not sure BOk would win the battle. Was some government entity a guaranteer of the loan, or did we just put on collateral (which was later revoked by the FAA)? The action was not breach of contract, it was for unjust enrichment... follow the elements of unjust enrichment, and this isn't so simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who would win, which leads me to my main premise: Why the rush?
Can't we just slow down and figure out what's going on. I'm nervous because there are too many interested parties on a deal that is not transparent. It very well may be that setting the cash on the table and walking is the best way to go, but please explain to Joe Taxpayer why that's the case. The statements thus far have not convinced me (we have a moral obligation).
I haven't engaged in hyperbole nor conspiracy theories, just what I view as legitimate concerns of a citizen. Do you see the concerns and can you settle them for me?
Wasn't referring to you CF. Mostly AA and those who harbor enmity against KT for a variety of reasons unrelated to this action. I was trying to distill the issues related on this thread into some sort of summary.
Those are good questions, and like I said, she certainly seemed pretty Bushlike in being a "decider" by adding the city to the case then negotiating a deal, take it or leave it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and scratch our heads or spew vitriol over the process. Beats me whats going on or how to affect it. A little light on the dealings would have been good. The county shenanigans are stealing the light now.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The county shenanigans are stealing the light now.
Funny timing on all that, no? Just as the City (read, Mayor) becomes embroiled in the Great Plains boondoggle the Murphy Mafia story pops up. Convenient!
(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Waterboy, I'm not sure BOk would win the battle. Was some government entity a guaranteer of the loan, or did we just put on collateral (which was later revoked by the FAA)? The action was not breach of contract, it was for unjust enrichment... follow the elements of unjust enrichment, and this isn't so simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who would win, which leads me to my main premise: Why the rush?
Can't we just slow down and figure out what's going on. I'm nervous because there are too many interested parties on a deal that is not transparent. It very well may be that setting the cash on the table and walking is the best way to go, but please explain to Joe Taxpayer why that's the case. The statements thus far have not convinced me (we have a moral obligation).
I haven't engaged in hyperbole nor conspiracy theories, just what I view as legitimate concerns of a citizen. Do you see the concerns and can you settle them for me?
Wasn't referring to you CF. Mostly AA and those who harbor enmity against KT for a variety of reasons unrelated to this action. I was trying to distill the issues related on this thread into some sort of summary.
Those are good questions, and like I said, she certainly seemed pretty Bushlike in being a "decider" by adding the city to the case then negotiating a deal, take it or leave it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and scratch our heads or spew vitriol over the process. Beats me whats going on or how to affect it. A little light on the dealings would have been good. The county shenanigans are stealing the light now.
Thanks for finally admitting what is so painfully obvious, that you are completely clueless about what's going on, just like the others out there trying to defend Da Mare with B.S. premises for their lame donkey arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg)
Pretty good likeness.
Do you still have the little pussy?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Waterboy, I'm not sure BOk would win the battle. Was some government entity a guaranteer of the loan, or did we just put on collateral (which was later revoked by the FAA)? The action was not breach of contract, it was for unjust enrichment... follow the elements of unjust enrichment, and this isn't so simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who would win, which leads me to my main premise: Why the rush?
Can't we just slow down and figure out what's going on. I'm nervous because there are too many interested parties on a deal that is not transparent. It very well may be that setting the cash on the table and walking is the best way to go, but please explain to Joe Taxpayer why that's the case. The statements thus far have not convinced me (we have a moral obligation).
I haven't engaged in hyperbole nor conspiracy theories, just what I view as legitimate concerns of a citizen. Do you see the concerns and can you settle them for me?
Wasn't referring to you CF. Mostly AA and those who harbor enmity against KT for a variety of reasons unrelated to this action. I was trying to distill the issues related on this thread into some sort of summary.
Those are good questions, and like I said, she certainly seemed pretty Bushlike in being a "decider" by adding the city to the case then negotiating a deal, take it or leave it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and scratch our heads or spew vitriol over the process. Beats me whats going on or how to affect it. A little light on the dealings would have been good. The county shenanigans are stealing the light now.
Thanks for finally admitting what is so painfully obvious, that you are completely clueless about what's going on, just like the others out there trying to defend Da Mare with B.S. premises for their lame donkey arguments.
Eerie isn't it? Kind of like looking in a mirror. How do you get through each day without a good asskicking?[}:)]
I'd like confirmation by someone with specific knowledge that the $7.1 million transaction has not yet occurred. Since the 'emergency' resolution failed, action could not occur sooner than 30 days, or around July 27.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg)
Pretty good likeness.
Do you still have the little pussy?
I gave it to you and KT when I took that picture of you.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I'd like confirmation by someone with specific knowledge that the $7.1 million transaction has not yet occurred. Since the 'emergency' resolution failed, action could not occur sooner than 30 days, or around July 27.
Would a post dated check fly in the face of the all important emergency clause...?
It's early in the morning on July, 8th 2008...and Medlock is still a bum and not in office.
+1 Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
It's early in the morning on July, 8th 2008...and Medlock is still a bum and not in office.
+1 Tulsa.
+1
That's the thing that cracks me up. There is some basis for concern with how this transaction went down -- so quickly and with little notice to the public. But Medlock's personality is so creepy that it destroys the message, in addition to his tinfoil hat stuff.
Whenever things in this town get me down, I can at least take solace that we were smart enough to run off Delgiorno and keep Medlock out of office.
quote:
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Moral obligation my butt[:I], We all know that Old Man Keizer was a huge financial backer of Kathy Taylor's campaign for mayor. I'm pretty sure that she is his puppet, because one time during an interview I saw on channel 6, I saw his hand up her butt (he may have been just performing a routine colonoscopy) Either way, $7 million is a really big kick-back and morals had nothing to do with it.
quote:
Originally posted by stu8749
quote:
Word out of City Hall is she is giving the full $7 million to BOk based on an argument of a "moral" obligation.
Moral obligation my butt[:I], We all know that Old Man Keizer was a huge financial backer of Kathy Taylor's campaign for mayor. I'm pretty sure that she is his puppet, because one time during an interview I saw on channel 6, I saw his hand up her butt (he may have been just performing a routine colonoscopy) Either way, $7 million is a really big kick-back and morals had nothing to do with it.
New here Stu?
Careful. Don't display assumptions without verification. Intelligent citizens don't let anyone control them. They're into cultivating ideas into reality because they love Tulsa.
The devil advocates giving them the benefit of the doubt. They seem to know business, education, and ethics a lot better than you do, Stu.
Stu Stu boe boo
Banana fana fore foo
Stu ew
Stu, beware of posters who refer to themselves in the third person...
Third person's draw the blood. They serve as patron saints to Hades. [8D] My crime is never explicitly stated. But one takes devilish pride in being an outlaw.....
The city councilors need to focus on doing what they can for our public education and our infrastructure and leave the ballpark to the powers that be. Looks like a grand slam.
Wouldn't it be great if Tulsa could return to the classic public education offered the non-private community that in the 1960's made us nationally recognized?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Third person's draw the blood. They serve as patron saints to Hades. [8D] My crime is never explicitly stated. But one takes devilish pride in being an outlaw.....
The city councilors need to focus on doing what they can for our public education and our infrastructure and leave the ballpark to the powers that be. Looks like a grand slam.
Wouldn't it be great if Tulsa could return to the classic public education offered the non-private community that in the 1960's made us nationally recognized?
I'll take a sea change on the school board, start with Perceful and Livingood.
Back on topic:
City wants court's review of airline settlement (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=16&articleID=20080715_11_A7_hThere924866%22)
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
7/15/2008
Last Modified: 7/15/2008 3:17 AM
The request is a response to a tax-payers' demand filed last week.
The city wants a Tulsa County judge to determine whether it is lawful for the city to pay the Bank of Oklahoma a $7.1 million lawsuit settlement related to a loan default by the defunct Great Plains Airline.
God bless the Tulsa Ten! Whoever you are.
"The mayor's office has confirmed to The News On 6 that it sent a $7.1 million check to the Bank of Oklahoma on Monday.
The payment settles a loan the bank gave to Great Plains Airlines, a start-up that quickly went out of business.
The city paid the settlement out of its sinking fund, which has to be replenished by raising property taxes for three years."
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2115757&db=Tulsa
It is getting good. Crossclaim filed for breach of duty against KKT.
If this judgement goes against her she'll personally have to pony up 21 million dollars.
I hope that jet is fueled up for a quick get away.