http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090901_298_0_SomeTu408828
Firefighters union accused of using improper campaign tactics
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 9/1/2009
Some Tulsa city councilors on Tuesday accused the firefighters union of "thuggery" and "intimidation" in its attempts to oust some councilors in this year's elections.
They told City Attorney Deirdre Dexter she needs to defend the City Charter section banning the activity. Councilor Rick Westcott, who is one of the union's targets with Councilors Bill Martinson and Eric Gomez, said he's disturbed the firefighters have gotten so involved in campaigning.
"If any union gets their candidate elected, then that union controls that candidate," he said, during the council committee meetings. "If any union gets enough candidates elected, then that union controls the City Council and controls city government. That would be a death knell for our representative form of government."
Roughly two-thirds of Tulsa's firefighters live outside the city, Westcott noted. Numerous of Westcott's constituents have relayed stories to him about firefighters out walking his district and knocking on their doors, he said. "They were campaigning for my opponent," Westcott said, "and then politely said, 'Gee, it sure would be bad if your house caught on fire and we didn't have enough firefighters to properly respond. Gosh, that would be awful. We sure would hate it if your house caught on fire and we couldn't come out and take care of the problem.'"
Westcott said, "It's like an old black-and-white movie," calling the activity wrong on principle and wrong legally." Martinson said the city has a charter for a reason: "To protect the citizens."
"I've had people tell me they are afraid to put up my yard signs because they fear retaliation," he said. "The unions are swarming the neighborhoods. Folks, when you are afraid of the very people you expect to protect you, we have a huge problem on our hands." The councilors are being targeted because they wanted more time to consider a proposal from Martinson to cut the Police and Fire Department budgets, which consume all of city's two-penny sales tax for operations.
While police and fire officials warned this would require manpower cuts due to union rules, Martinson said the city needs to be able to renegotiate salaries with the unions in such a bleak economic time. Firefighters Local 1176 Stan May maintains that his union members have the right to campaign, as long as they are not in their city uniforms and not doing it while they are working.
May said he "had a hard time believing" the anecdotes that councilors relayed about what firefighters are saying to voters. He urged citizens to call the union with any complaints. Police union members are also participating in the campaigning efforts.
Tulsa's City Charter specifically states that "no chief, officer or sworn member of the Fire Department shall take an active part in any campaign for the election of officers of the city, except to vote and privately state a personal opinion." But Dexter said the city takes its cues from state law, which allows such campaign activity under the First Amendment protections on free political speech.
Councilor John Eagleton, an attorney, gave a lengthy presentation about the city's history with this issue, concluding that it comes down to the charter. Three previous city attorney opinions dating back to 1984, 1990 and 1991 have indicated that charter provisions relating to local concerns prevail over state laws.
One says that those who violate the charter can be disciplined. Eagleton also cited a 1981 Oklahoma attorney general's opinion that says no employee in the classified service can take part in any political campaign. Also, the governor had to approve Tulsa's charter as to be not in conflict with the Constitution or state laws, he pointed out.
Dexter has countered using a 2009 state attorney general opinion that states that the supremacy of state law over a city charter depends on whether the issue is a general matter of the state or strictly a municipal affair. This issue of political campaigning by unions is a general matter of the state, Dexter maintains.
In February 2008, before last year's election cycle began, Dexter sent an email to all city employees stating that the City Charter and Oklahoma law prohibit anyone in the classified service from taking an active part in any municipal campaign. Weeks later, she reversed herself to her current position on the issue that it is allowed while off-duty and not in a city uniform, citing also citing state law.
Martinson said Dexter "dismally failed in this exercise" and that she was trying hard to justify her result. Dexter said that is not true, adding, "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree." Eagleton said, "I expect the city attorney to defend the City Charter."
Westcott added, "Deirdre, I have never been more disappointed in a public official that I am with you as the city attorney." Dexter said she takes her duties seriously and that, "I am not going to compromise my principles for anyone, and I don't care who tries to browbeat me."
I knew there were firefighters out working in district two and five, but did not realize they were also working in district four. Why no comment from Councilor Gomez?
These same firefighters campaigned for Mayor Bill LaFortune in the last Mayor's race. Why didn't these councilors get involved then? I remember a couple of elections back, the whole city council in Claremore was replaced by a slate of politicans that were backed by the firefighters union in that town.
It is certainly interesting that city workers want to get involved in city politics. I don't have a clue if it is allowed or not, but it seems understandable. Council and Mayor decisions have a real impact on their job. But shouldn't there be some protection of these same workers? What if they were working for an incumbent and felt pressured to campaign?
QuoteHe urged citizens to call the union with any complaints.
Seems the point of the story is they're scared to do anything like that due to possible repercussions.
I hope these stories are being blown up a bit.
Dexter is 100% correct.
You can't tell 4500 people they have absolutely no right to put a bumper sticker on their car or a yard sign in their lawn simply because of their employment status.
I can agree those same employees can't put bumper stickers on their fire trucks or yard signs at the fire station, but don't tell me their employer can dictate what they do on their off-duty time, not wearing any type of uniform.
Eagleton and Westcott must feel the pressure. I wonder what their stance would be if the firefighters' union was out campaigning FOR them? Much different I suspect.
Public employees are more involved in politics around here than seems healthy to me. Teachers, police, firefighters . . . they all have an interest in politics for personal gain. I don't think you can tell a person they can't do whatever they damn well please on their own time (not in uniform, etc.), but it makes me uncomfortable when people receiving public salaries use their power to make sure they have influence over the people that control he purse strings. Sometimes it seems like the Firefighters and Police run the city counsel (what zoning do you want? How wide do you want that intersection? You want us to stop investigating that?).
And I'm not accusing the firefighters of any nefarious activities in this. I am not familiar enough with the issues to say anything in an educated about their actual position. Hell, if I was a public employee I'd campaign for whomever wants to give me more money or make my job easier. It's just as a matter of principle, it is a bit unsettling to me.
Furthermore, how many of those firefighters campaigning in Tulsa live in Owasso? A Tulsa employee living in Owasso telling Tulsans how to vote just seems odd. I have a mixed opinion on allowing city employees to live in far flung locales (most cities have a distance limit you can live from the city), let alone allowing them to drive city vehicles as commuting vehicles.
Am I just being spiteful?
Gomez is staying out of it because it's lose-lose.
The issue I see is that why state in the charter that no civil servant can campaign, if it's not an enforceable position? The charter should be enforced or amended. Pick one.
Many years ago, in cities like Chicago and New York and -- going farther back -- even at the federal level, campaigning for a candidate could get you a patronage job in government. Every job from janitor to police officer to firefighter to department manager was subject to the "spoils system" -- to the victor belongs the spoils -- and a change of administration meant the entire staff would be swept away.
At some point, reformers succeeded in establishing the notion of civil service protection. Workers wouldn't lose their jobs and citizens wouldn't lose experienced workers just because someone new was voted into office. But the trade-off for that protection was that you couldn't get involved in campaigns.
For federal workers, there's the Hatch Act (http://"http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm"). The Hatch Act will sometimes apply to employees of state and local governments if federal grant money is paying their salaries. Oklahoma has similar laws for the state civil service. Tulsa's City Charter grants civil service protection to city workers and firefighters, but also very explicitly restricts them from involvement in local campaigns beyond voting and voicing a private opinion.
The Hatch Act was upheld as constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in two cases (http://"http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/hatch-act"): United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell (1947) and United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973). It was watered down in 1993, when the Democrats had control of Congress during the first two years of the Clinton presidency.
The restriction on political activity was there when the firefighters joined TFD.
Based on the T-shirts I saw at the Beer Summit and signs in front of the union hall at 13th & Detroit, the union is backing Rhoades (2), Patrick (3), Barnes (4), Trail (5), Troyer (6), and Christiansen ( 8 ). Eagleton didn't draw an opponent.
To me, it's a very simple issue.
If they say, "HI, I'm [name], and I'd like to encourage you to vote for [candidate] because s/he supports public safety.", it's fine.
But, if they say, "HI, I'm from the fire deptment and we want you to vote for [candidate]...".
Showing up in a union shirt represents themselves as fire department, just as if they had pulled up front in a fire truck.
They agreed not to campaign and are doing it.
They need to stop, change their methodology, or be fired.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 02, 2009, 09:49:02 AM
Public employees are more involved in politics around here than seems healthy to me. Teachers, police, firefighters . . . they all have an interest in politics for personal gain. I don't think you can tell a person they can't do whatever they damn well please on their own time (not in uniform, etc.), but it makes me uncomfortable when people receiving public salaries use their power to make sure they have influence over the people that control he purse strings. Sometimes it seems like the Firefighters and Police run the city counsel (what zoning do you want? How wide do you want that intersection? You want us to stop investigating that?).
And I'm not accusing the firefighters of any nefarious activities in this. I am not familiar enough with the issues to say anything in an educated about their actual position. Hell, if I was a public employee I'd campaign for whomever wants to give me more money or make my job easier. It's just as a matter of principle, it is a bit unsettling to me.
Furthermore, how many of those firefighters campaigning in Tulsa live in Owasso? A Tulsa employee living in Owasso telling Tulsans how to vote just seems odd. I have a mixed opinion on allowing city employees to live in far flung locales (most cities have a distance limit you can live from the city), let alone allowing them to drive city vehicles as commuting vehicles.
Am I just being spiteful?
"Awww, gee, it'd be an awful shame if you had a fire and we couldn't put it out..."
By common reason when a fireman or policeman, singularly or in groups, canvas an area distributing by word or signs, defining themselves as such does without doubt intimidates many citizens when the citizen is forewarned by the media of their coming. When they do so as their citizens rights but by the nature of the act, which distorts those rights, they are identifying themselves as a part of the sworn officers of the city and there should be no question that they are violating the policies set out in the charter. Thus if any voter calls to say they were intimidated by the act of reciting that they are of a group, connected to the city in any such way, they should be disciplined for violation of their oath as a sworn officer.
This should also apply to the legal department in accepting such action which can be construed easily as an presumed act to intimidate even the placement of signs of opponents in the citizen's own yard. It has all gone too far.
What was that story that they were a policeman or fireman 24 a day even when the were off duty? Seem that has been brought up in the union's negotiations. Does that mean if not home at the time when they observe an act they just say "Now stand right there while I go home and change to my uniform?" Remember the story on drive home cars?
Quote from: shadows on September 02, 2009, 11:15:23 AM
What was that story that they were a policeman or fireman 24 a day even when the were off duty? Seem that has been brought up in the union's negotiations. Does that mean if not home at the time when they observe an act they just say "Now stand right there while I go home and change to my uniform?" Remember the story on drive home cars?
Wow. Great point Shadows. When it is the right to carry a gun, drive a city vehicle, or negotiate wages and benefits you are always "on duty." But if being "on duty" effects them in other ways it doesn't seem to apply.
A group of firemen supporting Rhoades came to our door on Saturday. I immediately told them I was supporting Westcott. I wouldn't say that I felt "intimidated", but they got very defensive and maybe a bit aggressive with "Why don't you like Rhoades?" I simply told them "I don't dislike Rhoades, I like Westcott." I gotta say it was a bit uncomfortable...but then they left.
Hmm, I'm trying to decide if "Three councilors and a bunch of firemen" would be better as the name for a rock group or a porno flick.
Some of you attorney's, help me out. Pro Gratis.
Under Oklahoma Contract Law, a breach of contract voids the entire contract, right?
In a breach, it's not one of those, "....if any clause herein fails test, all other conditions remain in force..." type issues.
Intentional, or even unintentional, breach would void the contract, I think.
So, is the fireman's union ready to sit down and re-negotiate ALL terms of their contract with the City? Can you say, pay cut?
Quote from: MichaelBates on September 02, 2009, 10:27:43 AM
...the union is backing Rhoades (2), Patrick (3), Barnes (4), Trail (5), Troyer (6), and Christiansen ( 8 ). Eagleton didn't draw an opponent.
Three incumbents and four challengers...
Four Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent...
Sounds diverse and planned out to me.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 02, 2009, 01:19:27 PM
Under Oklahoma Contract Law, a breach of contract voids the entire contract, right?
In a breach, it's not one of those, "....if any clause herein fails test, all other conditions remain in force..." type issues.
Short answer yes with an if, or no with a but . . .
Generally if a contract is void, it's void in its entirety. Bear in mind that you can contract around that issue with some simple language ("should on portion of this contract be found void it shall have no effect on the force of the remainder of this contract" or "a breach of one portion of this contract constitutes a breach of only that portion and shall not hinder nor disrupt performance on the remainder of said contract"). OR, a judge can decide to "blue pencil" the contract and remove the offending part (which they are not supposed to do). But usually when a breach voids a contract - it's a package deal.
However, generally when a contract is breached the contract is not void. The non-breaching party can seek a remedy under the contract without necessarily voiding the contract. IE - when you fail to pay on a note you have breached the contract, but whomever holds the note can sue you for the breach (you owe me arrears) and still seek to enforce the remainder of the contract (you keep the car and continue your payments, which would be stupid in that instance).
Finally, it is worth noting that in labor law and labor contracts a specific set of construction norms may apply. I do not specialize in labor law, but in my ancillary dealings contract language generally covers such issues. For union contracts, few if any actions will outright void the contract (again, in my limited experience).
/2 minute analysis
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 02, 2009, 10:52:19 AM
To me, it's a very simple issue.
If they say, "HI, I'm [name], and I'd like to encourage you to vote for [candidate] because s/he supports public safety.", it's fine.
But, if they say, "HI, I'm from the fire deptment and we want you to vote for [candidate]...".
Showing up in a union shirt represents themselves as fire department, just as if they had pulled up front in a fire truck.
They agreed not to campaign and are doing it.
They need to stop, change their methodology, or be fired.
I agree with that and I believe that is what the law/charter also means.
Quote from: jamesrage on September 02, 2009, 06:26:42 PM
I agree with that and I believe that is what the law/charter also means.
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!
A union in no way represents the fire department. It represents the union and its members. An organization paid for by a group of citizens who just happen to be firefighters. While that just happens to also mean they're government employees doesn't change the fact the City has no say in their organization or membership. The City does not pay one red cent for this organization to exist, thus they have no say in their activities.
The firefighter's union, plain and simply, is just a PAC. I'm not crazy about any PACs, but I just don't understand why we single out the firefighters. There is a Homebuilders PAC, a Realtors PAC, and apparently even a certain bank in Tulsa has a PAC. Each tries to pool funds, and influence elections, sometimes effectively. If people who buy & sell homes can influence elections, why can't people who risk their lives for our safety? If you have the homebuilders PAC trying to persuade councilors not to adopt the latest fire safety regulations, wouldn't you want the firefighters PAC/Union fighting to impose them (at least to provide a balance)?
As for firefighters living outside the city limits, well at least they WORK here. Recent reporting shows that people who live outside of the state have donated money to some of the campaigns. Not sure where the Bok PAC gets all of its money, but I bet some of it comes from outside the state. Why should we allow that, but not allow those whose jobs and safety depend on city council decisions?
If you think the unions have too much power, don't support their candidates. They only have power in so much as voters choose to follow their endorsements. If someone threatens you to vote one way or another, contact the police. It is a felony to intimidate a voter. I would also contact the candidate. I can't imagine that any candidate would want a person intimidating potential voters.
Everyone is talking about what is fair and reasonable. Is it fair and reasonable that the firemen are campaigning as individuals on their off-hours? Is it reasonable that firemen who do not live in Tulsa are involved in Tulsa campaigns?
Why not take it a step further.
Is it reasonable or fair that Westcott, Martinson and Eagleton berated the city attorney, Diedre Dexter at this week's Public Works meeting to the point where Ms. Dexter, an ex-judge, was having her abilties challenged on television?
Is it reasonable that when Gomez saw a fireman in a Chris Trail shirt at the TyPros event Gomez told him he would be sorry for wearing that shirt?
Is it fair or reasonable that Westcott, Martinson and Eagleton are trying the firemen in the public media and using the offices of the city council to hurl slanderous comments where the firemen have no way of defending themselves?
Is it reasonable that at last night's LWV forum, Gomez told a group of Barnes supporters that their handouts indicating the firemen supported Maria Barnes were illegal but when he was asked in public at the forum if he believed the firemen should be campaigning he passed and refused to answer?
Wake up, Tulsa! Be very careful who you consider to be fair, reasonable and representing your best interests.
The fire fighters campaigned for Bill LaFortune and there was no problem. I think we are witnessing a classic case of Gomez, Westcott, Martinson and Eagleton acting like a bunch of bullies and trying to control the city. Grow up, babies. Real men don't act this way.
Quote from: pmcalk on September 02, 2009, 07:49:24 PM
The firefighter's union, plain and simply, is just a PAC. I'm not crazy about any PACs, but I just don't understand why we single out the firefighters. There is a Homebuilders PAC, a Realtors PAC, and apparently even a certain bank in Tulsa has a PAC. Each tries to pool funds, and influence elections, sometimes effectively. If people who buy & sell homes can influence elections, why can't people who risk their lives for our safety? If you have the homebuilders PAC trying to persuade councilors not to adopt the latest fire safety regulations, wouldn't you want the firefighters PAC/Union fighting to impose them (at least to provide a balance)?
As for firefighters living outside the city limits, well at least they WORK here. Recent reporting shows that people who live outside of the state have donated money to some of the campaigns. Not sure where the Bok PAC gets all of its money, but I bet some of it comes from outside the state. Why should we allow that, but not allow those whose jobs and safety depend on city council decisions?
If you think the unions have too much power, don't support their candidates. They only have power in so much as voters choose to follow their endorsements. If someone threatens you to vote one way or another, contact the police. It is a felony to intimidate a voter. I would also contact the candidate. I can't imagine that any candidate would want a person intimidating potential voters.
None of those other PAC's signed a contract and took a public pledge saying they wouldn't.
No one's trying to stop individuals from expressing their opinion. They agreed to keep it at that. But, they've exceeded that by organizing via PAC, union or Fire Dept. Doesn't matter.
Besides, to the public, a person showing up in a union shirt is generally indistinguishable from a fire dept employee. That's representation.
Question: How many union members are not firemen?
Ms. Dexter is taking a political position with her reversal of her own prior OPINION. It's not a legal ruling.
Guess it's going to take years and long court journey's to straighten this out.
People, and their self-serving interests.
Starting to make me wonder how many of them are qualified to put out fires.
So you are wondering if Gomez, Westcott, Eagleon and Martinson are qualified to put out fires?
Actually, now that we've opened this up, union's representing fire dept employees probably shouldn't even issue candidate endorsements.
We let them get away with that, so naturally, they want more.
Should anyone point out that the contract is between the City and the union in the first place?
They can't both represent our firefighters and a PAC at the same time.
Quote from: Limabean on September 02, 2009, 08:35:24 PM
So you are wondering if Gomez, Westcott, Eagleon and Martinson are qualified to put out fires?
...that the best ya got?
QuoteStarting to make me wonder how many of them are qualified to put out fires.
Just to clarify, since that can be interpreted a couple of ways...(but not with regard to councilors).
You see, once a bunch starts compromising their record keeping, it's hard to know or be sure which records are accurate anymore.
I was suggesting that if the same methodologies used to achieve EMS certifications were also used to certify fire fighting personel, we can no longer be sure who's actually qualified at this point.
...may mean they all need to re-certify at this point.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2009, 01:15:40 PM
Hmm, I'm trying to decide if "Three councilors and a bunch of firemen" would be better as the name for a rock group or a porno flick.
Seem the price of the initiation fee to join the group is awful high for just to be a part time player. There must be some fringe benefits attached for the public to dole out that kind of money to spend Tulsa into prosperity. If they play in the BOK arena how much will the tickets be?
Glad you brought up the BOK Arena which reminded me of something else Gomez said at the LWV District 4 Forum.
When asked if they approved the building of the new ballpark, Gomez told the audience that (excuse my paraphrase) "Look, the Drillers were going to leave Tulsa if we didn't build them a new ballpark."
So were the Drillers threatening the citizenry of Tulsa to leave? Was this a scare tactic?
At least the firefighters can actually save your life.
Quote from: shadows on September 02, 2009, 09:24:48 PM
Seem the price of the initiation fee to join the group is awful high for just to be a part time player. There must be some fringe benefits attached for the public to dole out that kind of money to spend Tulsa into prosperity. If they play in the BOK arena how much will the tickets be?
Good one Shadows...
Quote from: Limabean on September 03, 2009, 08:06:43 AM
Glad you brought up the BOK Arena which reminded me of something else Gomez said at the LWV District 4 Forum.
When asked if they approved the building of the new ballpark, Gomez told the audience that (excuse my paraphrase) "Look, the Drillers were going to leave Tulsa if we didn't build them a new ballpark."
So were the Drillers threatening the citizenry of Tulsa to leave? Was this a scare tactic?
At least the firefighters can actually save your life.
Yes, the Drillers were moving to a new facility and at the time, the only offer was in Jenks.
Quote from: Limabean on September 02, 2009, 08:09:25 PM
Is it reasonable that when Gomez saw a fireman in a Chris Trail shirt at the TyPros event Gomez told him he would be sorry for wearing that shirt?
Oh please, I've known Gomez for years. He doesn't talk like that you rumor mongering idiot.
Nobody outside film noir talks like that.
"you'll be sorry" (fist in air shaking back and forth)
Gomez did tell me last night that either his sister or sister-in-law lives in D-5 and the fire farters showed up on her doorstep. Apparently she was real upset with them. I've not seen them canvassing my 'hood. I'm in D-4, but just barely.
The firefighters walked my hood. I can tell because there are Chris Trail signs in quite a few republican homes.
As a democrat, they didn't talk to me this time.
apparently, even though they support Troyer, they haven't started hitting this area.
Quote from: Limabean on September 03, 2009, 08:06:43 AM
Glad you brought up the BOK Arena which reminded me of something else Gomez said at the LWV District 4 Forum.
When asked if they approved the building of the new ballpark, Gomez told the audience that (excuse my paraphrase) "Look, the Drillers were going to leave Tulsa if we didn't build them a new ballpark."
So were the Drillers threatening the citizenry of Tulsa to leave? Was this a scare tactic?
At least the firefighters can actually save your life.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but...
At the forum, Gomez claimed that the real danger, the need to act quickly on the ballpark, was not Jenks, but that the Drillers were going to Wichita, which lost its team a couple of years ago to Springdale, Ark. That's the first I'd heard of that alleged threat.
I don't think the Drillers were threatening anyone to go anywhere. A Jenks developer wanted them to anchor the River District, then the mayor and other downtown boosters wanted them to come downtown instead. I'm sure Mr. Lamson is happy to have a new facility to play in, but I didn't get the impression he was driving the process.
Michael, I know you don't like to read the local paper, but there is quite a bit of a paper trail regarding Lamson meeting with Jenks and discussing moving the team. Indeed, one major explanation at the city council meeting approving the stadium was that they wanted to keep the tax money in Tulsa. Whether Lamson was serious or not could be a question for debate, but he certainly availed himself of the press in order to encourage Tulsa to act. He certainly drove the bus on this.
Quote from: Wilbur on September 02, 2009, 07:25:32 PM
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!
A union in no way represents the fire department. It represents the union and its members. An organization paid for by a group of citizens who just happen to be firefighters. While that just happens to also mean they're government employees doesn't change the fact the City has no say in their organization or membership. The City does not pay one red cent for this organization to exist, thus they have no say in their activities.
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!(Look I can type that too).
Last time I checked fighters are paid for by tax payers, so there are no privately ran fire fighting companies nor would a fire fighters union allow non-fighters to join their union. SO yes they are still using their position as city employees to endorse/campaign a political candidate. If the city charter says you can't campaign for a political candidate as a city employee then that includes city employee unions since they are still using their status as city employees. Because they are basically advertising the fact that they are city employees with their union. The fact that tax payers do not pay for the city employee unions themselves is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact the Union openly advertises that they consist of city employees.
Quote from: Gold on September 03, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Michael, I know you don't like to read the local paper, but there is quite a bit of a paper trail regarding Lamson meeting with Jenks and discussing moving the team. Indeed, one major explanation at the city council meeting approving the stadium was that they wanted to keep the tax money in Tulsa. Whether Lamson was serious or not could be a question for debate, but he certainly availed himself of the press in order to encourage Tulsa to act. He certainly drove the bus on this.
I guess I missed the story about Lamson threatening the Fair Board that he'd move if they didn't build him a new stadium.
I have no doubt that Lamson took full advantage of the interest and offers that were coming his way, but I don't have the impression that he initiated any of this, and Gomez's statement was the first time I heard anything about the possibility of moving to Wichita.
Quote from: jamesrage on September 03, 2009, 01:38:55 PM
Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!(Look I can type that too).
Last time I checked fighters are paid for by tax payers, so there are no privately ran fire fighting companies nor would a fire fighters union allow non-fighters to join their union. SO yes they are still using their position as city employees to endorse/campaign a political candidate. If the city charter says you can't campaign for a political candidate as a city employee then that includes city employee unions since they are still using their status as city employees. Because they are basically advertising the fact that they are city employees with their union. The fact that tax payers do not pay for the city employee unions themselves is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact the Union openly advertises that they consist of city employees.
Sorry, but wrong again. You might check with the firefighters' union, as many public safety unions allow associate memberships with reduced rights.
Being a private union is no more a city organization than the firefighters' bowling league, also paid for, I guess in your mind, by taxpayer dollars. I suppose the city owns every employee's house since it was bought with taxpayer dollars?
The charter says you can't run for municipal public office while an employee and you can't actively campaign for a candidate as a city employee. Telling all 4500 employees they've lost all their rights to be involved in politics on their off time is crazy, and would never hold up in any court of law.
We complain in this city about money being wasted. Have the city attorney tell any of the unions they can't participate in elections and the money thrown down the tubes by the city to lose those lawsuits would be ridiculous.
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
Quote from: T-town girl on September 03, 2009, 02:41:49 PM
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
Congratulations, you got me to visualize my eyes rolling.
Quote from: T-town girl on September 03, 2009, 02:41:49 PM
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
Yes. Of course.. THAT is what the discussion is about.
I'm not going to argue with the size of the Tulsa police force, it should be larger, but I have a real fundamental question. Why do we have so many firefighters? I don't know specific numbers for Tulsa, but Jenks has something like 20 firefighters in two stations to take care of much less than a fire a month for a city of under 20,000 people. I think Tulsa has something like 700 firefighters. Does even Tulsa have more than a fire or two a week for that many employees?
I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.
I know a couple of people in TFD and even with working other kinds of calls they really don't do anything most of the time. They all seem to have second jobs or side businesses because they have a lot of time on their hands. This really seems like an area where we need a county fire department at about half the size we have today and we should refocus on only using the fire department in rescue situations on calls to non fires.
Quote from: T-town girl on September 03, 2009, 02:41:49 PM
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
So it's a part of our first amendment rights to represent our employer on a political event without the consent of said employer? When They knock on doors with shirts that say Tulsa FireFighters (that is what most people see, not the union part of it), then they are in effect campaigning as representatives of their employer, the City of Tulsa. It would be the same as if you worked for mazzios and went out campaiging with a bunch of your co-workers wearing your mazzios shirt then you would be doing so while representing your employer (a group makes a louder statement then an individual), and if your employer had a policy saying not to, I bet you wouldn't be making pizza's for them for much longer. It's the same idea here. When they campaign with shirts that say Tulsa Firefighters on them, or in their message say "hello, I'm so and so with the Tulsa Firefighters..." they are representing that entity.
Quote from: swake on September 03, 2009, 02:59:55 PM
I'm not going to argue with the size of the Tulsa police force, it should be larger, but I have a real fundamental question. Why do we have so many firefighters? I don't know specific numbers for Tulsa, but Jenks has something like 20 firefighters in two stations to take care of much less than a fire a month for a city of under 20,000 people. I think Tulsa has something like 700 firefighters. Does even Tulsa have more than a fire or two a week for that many employees?
I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.
I know a couple of people in TFD and even with working other kinds of calls they really don't do anything most of the time. They all seem to have second jobs or side businesses because they have a lot of time on their hands. This really seems like an area where we need a county fire department at about half the size we have today and we should refocus on only using the fire department in rescue situations on calls to non fires.
I think the reason for having such high numbers it to have all the stations fully staffed at all times. It's not so much as to how many fires break out, but as to making sure that there is enough firefighters on hand, in a close proximaty, to fight the fire if it should break out. One of the tenates of better safe then sorry
Quote from: T-town girl on September 03, 2009, 02:41:49 PM
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
First of all, no. No they do not have the same rights as other citizens to express their political opinions. Neither do many other governmental employees including judges and soldiers. In exchange for the benefits associated with working FOR the public, your rights on political speech are limited. Otherwise you end up with powerful unions of public employees having massive influence over city affairs in far too many respects; inflated budgets, salaries well above the area average, cozy retirement packages and near immunity to scrutiny. I believe Mr. Bates covered the basics on the history of such measures above.
But to address the actual intent of your post:
About 100 firefighters die while on duty every year. Just over 50% of those are killed in driving accidents and much of the remaining deaths are in fighting forest fires (a unique firefighting occupation). Far too many deaths to be sure, but the illusion of the firefighter rushing into save people at their own peril is relatively rare. Deaths from such actions even more so.
Many more people die "putting their lives on the line" making sure we have food to eat (farm or fishing accidents), goods on our shelves (truckers) and houses to live in (construction). Many more people die cutting the timber to build our houses, manufacturing the goods we use every day, or working in the mines or oil fields to provide various resources. General aviation pilots and even pizza delivery boys have a statistically more dangerous job than firefighters. On the list of people that might expect to die any given day at work, firefighters are a good ways down the list.
With no disrespect to firefighters, I don't believe their livelihood is any more honorable than millions of other men and women who face their jobs day in and day out, working full shifts 5 or 6 days a week, for less money, less benefits, often having to travel, with no set pension structure or early retirement, and a much higher chance of workplace injury or death. So until people start talking about truck drivers and pizza delivery men "putting their lives on the line for us," I'll disregard that aspect as having no effect on most conversations.
When a firefighter dives into a smoke filled house to save a grandmother, he's putting his life on the line- as anyone else would be who had the balls to do the same. But when most firefighters work 2 or 3 days a week washing firetrucks, doing EMT work, and responding to oil slicks after accidents: it's a well paying job that 10 men would love to do in his place. Let's reserve the "putting their lives on the line" anecdote for when it really applies and not when a guy is showing up and doing his job.
(note: this is not directed at firefighters, as most firefighters I know [and half my inlaws are firefighters] don't play the hero/life on the line card in any way, shape or form. They'd rather brag about getting having a great job that allows them to play with cool toys AND keep a second job on the side. And yes, they're just trying to make me jealous, and succeeding. :-P )
Quote from: Wilbur on September 03, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
The charter says you can't run for municipal public office while an employee and you can't actively campaign for a candidate as a city employee.
I'm a little confused. They were shirts identifying themselves as Tulsa City employees. Their talking point includes the fact that they are a Tulsa City employee. Then they tell someone who to vote for. And that doesn't fall under the prohibition?
What exactly does the prohibition really do?
- - - -
Quote from: swake on September 03, 2009, 02:59:55 PM
I'm not going to argue with the size of the Tulsa police force, it should be larger, but I have a real fundamental question. Why do we have so many firefighters? I don't know specific numbers for Tulsa, but Jenks has something like 20 firefighters in two stations to take care of much less than a fire a month for a city of under 20,000 people. I think Tulsa has something like 700 firefighters. Does even Tulsa have more than a fire or two a week for that many employees?
I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.
I know a couple of people in TFD and even with working other kinds of calls they really don't do anything most of the time. They all seem to have second jobs or side businesses because they have a lot of time on their hands. This really seems like an area where we need a county fire department at about half the size we have today and we should refocus on only using the fire department in rescue situations on calls to non fires.
I have to go along with being able to "man" enough equipment as a first response.
I was a volunteer fireman in the suburban Philadelphia, PA town where I grew up while in my late teens and early 20s. We had several hundred calls per year in a town of about 30,000 covering about 6 sq mi. We only had a few "code red" structure fires per year. We had a significant number of small kitchen fires. Some were out when we got there but we encouraged residents to call in case they couldn't get the fire extinguished. (We had good response time, usually getting the first truck on the road within 4 minutes even in the middle of the night with no one at the firehouse.) We had a fair amount of brush fires in some of the undeveloped park areas. Most likely kids smoking. There were some car/truck fires. Almost none were news-worthy. We did the traffic wreck scenes since we had the rescue equipment. Yep, we swept the broken glass and parts off the street too. We had weekly (or more) training, both book and actual drills with the equipment. We had schools put on by Phila Fire Dept and some private venues. It was a lot of work.
A city the size of Tulsa should probably not have to depend on volunteers. As such, some of the fire stations will seem over manned. That is, until your house is on fire.
You open your front door and see this:
(http://www.tulsafirefighters.org/pics/L176.jpg)
...and, we're not to assume these are
City of Tulsa Firefighters, that the people wearing shirts with this image are
employees of the City of Tulsa, the
Tulsa Fire Department or have any skills other than campaigning.
Quote from: MichaelBates on September 03, 2009, 02:31:38 PM
I guess I missed the story about Lamson threatening the Fair Board that he'd move if they didn't build him a new stadium.
I have no doubt that Lamson took full advantage of the interest and offers that were coming his way, but I don't have the impression that he initiated any of this, and Gomez's statement was the first time I heard anything about the possibility of moving to Wichita.
Gomez is mistaken.
The Drillers were never in danger of moving to Wichita. Wichita was used as an example of what
could happen if the Drillers didn't get a new stadium. A really disingenuous argument since the Drillers were never in danger of moving outside the Tulsa metro area...
Wichita's ballpark was the only facility in the Texas League that was actually older than Driller Park, and they lost the Wranglers to Springdale, AR.
FYI, Wichita still has a minor league ballclub and they still play on that awkward old astroturf infield/grass outfield....
Last year's Wichita Wranglers are this year's Wingnuts.... lol.
http://www.wichitawingnuts.com/
Quote from: Wilbur on September 03, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
Sorry, but wrong again. You might check with the firefighters' union, as many public safety unions allow associate memberships with reduced rights.
Being a private union is no more a city organization than the firefighters' bowling league, also paid for, I guess in your mind, by taxpayer dollars. I suppose the city owns every employee's house since it was bought with taxpayer dollars?
The charter says you can't run for municipal public office while an employee and you can't actively campaign for a candidate as a city employee. Telling all 4500 employees they've lost all their rights to be involved in politics on their off time is crazy, and would never hold up in any court of law.
We complain in this city about money being wasted. Have the city attorney tell any of the unions they can't participate in elections and the money thrown down the tubes by the city to lose those lawsuits would be ridiculous.
Again when they are campaigning/endorsing a candidate as city employees they are violating city charter. When they are in a city employee union they are advertising as firefighters and using their position as firefighters to campaign.
Quote from: T-town girl on September 03, 2009, 02:41:49 PM
Apparently police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for us everyday don't have the same rights as other citizens to express their first amendment rights!
They have the same rights as citizens to express their first amendment rights, No one is trying to deny them that. If they want yard signs, make commercials or anything to support or endorse a candidate then no one is stopping them if however they wish to use their position as city employees instead of as private citizens to do those things then that is where the problem is.
Having attended the town hall meeting prior to the changing to a complete new charter, we called an amended charter and thus attending the first of many of the council meetings, where total attendance of citizens could be counted by the fingers of one hand and then not having to use all of them, and reading post being submitted on employees of the city laying their lives on the line is another fairy tale. It could be assumed that the greatest danger to the citizen is when they drive on the streets they are laying their lives on the line more so that the firemen. Or lying in bed sleeping or riding a bicycle as required on the streets.
One should be honest to them selves and note that firemen have much extra time as they are on duty, in a well preserved living quarters, for 24 hours and are off 48 hours to engage in extra jobs. The idea that very very few people would be alert and performing any job that is demanded for 24 consecutive hours, is preposterous.
The indications of the ward system kept coming into the change meeting. We are faced with that again when city employees are using the first amendment to establish a ward system when the first amendment on free speech was addressed by Justice Marshall leading up to "Can't stand up in a crowed theater and cry Fire".
Any one that thinks that 400 city employees, canvassing districts, visually implying that they were the citizens protectors, does not implement a ward system where they control with their hand picked elected public officers needs to have before election forethought.
As far as the city legal overriding the wording in the charter they should concentrate on the local duties of pending law suits instead of the city having to rely on hiring out of state firms to defend suits filed against the city. But then too we must consider the attorneys and judges bring into the court the biases instilled in the mindset of the law professor or we would not have the millions of pages of interpretations to search through.
In the final annalist in order to secure a government of the people from special groups formed from the taxpayers employees that in time can become a ragging fire, is step on it before it can get out of control.
The firefighters, through their union have voided their contractual agreement. IMHO
Quote from: swake on September 03, 2009, 02:59:55 PM
I know they work emergency calls and accidents, but should they? When did driving $400,000 trucks to brush away debris from car wrecks and to give three minutes of medical care in emergencies waiting for an ambulance to show up become the job of the fire department? Is that cost effective or even beneficial to the community? I'm not at all denigrating what they do for people, but it seems to me that we have a large case of "mission creep" for fire departments to justify their size and scope.
Wow! Dude, you need to get out more. If that is all you think firefighters do, you are grossly mistaken.
Quote from: Wilbur on September 04, 2009, 08:51:52 AM
Wow! Dude, you need to get out more. If that is all you think firefighters do, you are grossly mistaken.
I don't think that's all they do, but it is a lot of what they do. Is them doing this kind of work cost effective? It's a real question. Why drive a half million dollar ladder truck with five firemen to a choking victim call when two paramedics in a pickup truck would be just as effective, if not more so since the pickup can move and turn faster. And would be far cheaper.
The three councilors are arguing that the firefighters are using "intimidation." Seems to me Eagleton is doing the exact same thing. Yesterday he starts accusing the firefighters of violating federal law. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090904_11_A8_Ctonio982153). I am no expert on the Hatch Act, but here is what 5 minutes of Google turned up for me:
Under the website for the Office of Special Council, permitted activities under the Hatch Act,
Quote
Covered state and local employees may-
run for public office in nonpartisan elections
campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions
https://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm
Making ridiculous claims like this only makes the councilors look desparate.
I think eagleton is just saying that by identifying themselves as firefighters they may violate this part:
Covered state and local employees may not use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
Seems kinda flimsy.
From Eagleton's analysis of the applicability of the Hatch Act (http://"http://www.johneagleton.com/documents/20090902-HatchActSummary.pdf"):
QuoteAccording to a telephone conversation with the Office of Special Counsel on September 2, 2009, if an individual identifies himself as a covered employee while campaigning, they are most likely violating the act. Identification could occur through conversation, distributed literature, or apparel indicating, for example, that the wearer is a "Tulsa Firefighter."
If, however, according to the OSC, the apparel has only a union label on it and it does not specifically identify the individual as a covered employee (i.e. only indicates "IAFF" and/or union symbol), the employee may wear the apparel while campaigning.
What are the penalties for violating the Hatch Act? "If the Merit Systems Protection Board finds that the violation warrants dismissal from employment, the employing agency must either remove the employee or forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years salary of the employee." Office of Special Counsel website, http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm
I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.
But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 09:34:36 AM
I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.
But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?
The outrage is because these councilors were targeted by the Firefighters for raising concerns about the size and rate of growth of the Fire Department budget as a share of city revenues over time, added to Taylor's desire to get back at Martinson and Westcott for opposing her on several issues and asking her questions she didn't want to answer, and that desire for electoral revenge seems to be connected to her at-will employee Dierdre Dexter's conveniently timed reversal of previous City Attorney opinions on city employees campaigning in city elections.
The firefighters have targeted certain races on their own. It is a cheap shot from you to imply that this is some payback from the Mayor against these councilors.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 10:04:51 AM
The firefighters have targeted certain races on their own. It is a cheap shot from you to imply that this is some payback from the Mayor against these councilors.
Well, her hubby gave money to Chris Trail.
If they would wear shirts just saying IAFF and their signs just said IAFF then it would be a non-issue.
As of now, I can see the argument, although not a strong one.
From KOTV-6's website... a memo from the Mayor to city employees:
I wanted to clarify what is and is not permitted by city employees in political campaigns as outlined by the "Hatch Act" (5 U.S.C §1502). According to information on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel website (www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm), to the extent this Act applies to municipal employees the permissible and prohibited activities as specifically outlined in the act, are as follows:
"Permitted Activities
Covered state and local employees may-
* run for public office in nonpartisan elections
* campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
* actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
* contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions"
Prohibited Activities
Covered state and local employees may not-
* be candidates for public office in a partisan election
* use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
* directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate"
Clearly, those employees who are subject to this federal law are not prohibited from exercising one of the most important constitutional rights of our democracy - freedom of speech.
Under any circumstances, personal political activities should only occur when you are on your own time and not dressed in city uniform. Oklahoma Statutes Title 11 O.S. §22-101.1; City of Tulsa Personnel Policies and Procedures, 805.
Quote from: Wilbur on September 04, 2009, 11:48:56 AM
From KOTV-6's website... a memo from the Mayor to city employees:
I wanted to clarify what is and is not permitted by city employees in political campaigns as outlined by the "Hatch Act" (5 U.S.C §1502). According to information on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel website (www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm), to the extent this Act applies to municipal employees the permissible and prohibited activities as specifically outlined in the act, are as follows:
"Permitted Activities
Covered state and local employees may-
* run for public office in nonpartisan elections
* campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
* actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
* contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions"
Prohibited Activities
Covered state and local employees may not-
* be candidates for public office in a partisan election
* use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
* directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate"
Clearly, those employees who are subject to this federal law are not prohibited from exercising one of the most important constitutional rights of our democracy - freedom of speech.
Under any circumstances, personal political activities should only occur when you are on your own time and not dressed in city uniform. Oklahoma Statutes Title 11 O.S. §22-101.1; City of Tulsa Personnel Policies and Procedures, 805.
I think they are very much running afoul of this one:
* use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
Quote from: MichaelBates on September 04, 2009, 10:06:54 AM
Well, her hubby gave money to Chris Trail.
Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.
So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.
Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.
So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.
Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.
I think I'm going to have to call "feh" on the contribution from Lobeck to Chris Trail also. There's nothing for Mayor Taylor to "pay back", she's outta the picture after the general election.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Again with the innuendo...this story (and this thread) ain't about the Mayor. It is about three council races and firefighters involvement in the campaigns.
So what if her husband gave one of the three candidates a small check? What about the other two challengers? The Mayor's husband ain't the topic and you trying to add him is a desperate red herring.
Maybe he is just a fan of Ike's Chili.
Small check? It was for $500. I'll bet Scott Grizzle would have been thrilled to get a check like that.
Now Trail had written a small check -- $50 -- to Mayor Taylor's campaign, back on March 4, 2009, when he still claimed a Sand Springs address (or at least an address within the Sand Springs fence line -- hard to tell from the map on geo.ou.edu).
What I don't know is the source of $1,000 shown as "GRAND TOTAL OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PREVIOUS REPORT" on his August 31 C-1. The City Clerk's office couldn't locate a previous report nor a campaign committee registration (R-1) form. The date of the R-1 would put a bound on the dates of any previous report since Trail is a first-time candidate. His C-1 had 8-24-09 as the end of the period, but the "beginning of period" space was left blank, so it's unclear when that $1,000 would have been received.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 09:34:36 AM
I don't know which side is correct on this argument. I fear that employees campaigning for certain elections could be used against them, but also think they should have some rights to express their wishes. I surmise it will probably be legal. Do a search for firefighters campaigning and you will see examples all over the country where fire unions are actively supporting candidates for all offices.
But where was the outrage from these republican councilors when these same Tulsa Firefighters were campaigning last election for republican Mayor Bill LaFortune? Was it not an issue then because he was a republican or was it because it wasn't against them?
The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.
The interpretations of how and why it was placed into the new charter (as amended) is reoccurring again. When it was being put together very little attention was paid by the voting public but is was so written where much is hidden behind a deep smoke screen that can be expanded in enormous directions. It seems the purpose was to restricting the possibility of the city employees from taking the control of the city government as happened in Kansas City some years ago. Then also the ballot title contained many subject along with 1/3 more than is allowed under the statutes which caused many citizens to vote without even reading the ballot.
The old dog is coming home now bring another interpretation as what was intended when it was constructed. There is no question that working for the city does not deprive an employee of free speech. The problem stems from if they, in exercising this right of free speech, identify themselves as an employee who could have a vested interest other than that as a citizen in the outcome of the election.
There have been several incidents where the city charters have prevailed over the statutes and codes. In the instant case one would presume that even after the election a suit could bring up enough paper to sustain standing for a suit in the courts.
Quote from: MichaelBates on September 04, 2009, 05:36:56 PM
Small check? It was for $500. I'll bet Scott Grizzle would have been thrilled to get a check like that.
Still would be. If anyone wants to write me a $500 check, I promise an awesome watch party!
Quote from: MDepr2007 on September 04, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.
That is a good point. There is a difference of level of campaign activity and how appropriate it is.
Do you know that as a fact that there were outside of district firefighters walking neighborhoods? I know that many of them don't live in the city limits, but many of them do.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 04, 2009, 08:54:29 PM
That is a good point. There is a difference of level of campaign activity and how appropriate it is.
Do you know that as a fact that there were outside of district firefighters walking neighborhoods? I know that many of them don't live in the city limits, but many of them do.
No but I'd place money on it if I was on Indian land to legally bet
Quote from: MDepr2007 on September 04, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
The difference to me with the Lafortune campaign is, they went to forums and public places to show support, they were not knocking doors in neighborhoods in a city they don't live in, let alone now it's even districts they don't live in that they are going door to door.
Are you suggesting some sort of ban on ANYONE who lives outside the city of Tulsa being prohibited regarding any type of involvement in a campaign in Tulsa? Contributions? Fund raising? Yard signs? Bumper stickers? Advertising?
I ride my bike through the neighborhoods of south Tulsa near the boarder with Bixby. It is amazing how many Bixby residents have Lakin signs in their front yards. They're in for a rude shock when they go vote.
Did Westcott think it was illegal for the firefighters to campaign when he sought out their endorsement?
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story/Westcott-sought-unions-endorsement/6GzU6Ct9L065N_uinrwoeA.cspx
Quote from: pmcalk on September 05, 2009, 08:47:57 AM
Did Westcott think it was illegal for the firefighters to campaign when he sought out their endorsement?
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story/Westcott-sought-unions-endorsement/6GzU6Ct9L065N_uinrwoeA.cspx
Did it say Westcott was asking them to walk door to door wearing "tulsa firefighters" shirts or put out yard signs saying "Tulsa firefighters?"
Lots of unions endorse candidates, only one that I know of makes their own signs and walks door to door.
Quote from: Wilbur on September 05, 2009, 07:26:08 AM
Are you suggesting some sort of ban on ANYONE who lives outside the city of Tulsa being prohibited regarding any type of involvement in a campaign in Tulsa? Contributions? Fund raising? Yard signs? Bumper stickers? Advertising?
Your point is well made. I own three pieces of property in Tulsa which I pay taxes and fee's on but I am ban from the electoral process when votes to increase taxes are held.
This is what I'm talking about.. The average citizen is not going to understand that a union is doing the campaigning.
They have large yellow yard signs that say:
"TULSA FIREFIGHTERS FOR [whoever]"
[have picture on camera, will post]
The middle of the word "for" is the union logo. There is absoultely NO WAY that you can see the logo from the road. If you could see the logo there is no way a normal person would assume the union was campaigning as it is a tenth the size as TULSA FIREFIGHTERS.
Much like how Steve Gallo uses the Marine Corps logo for his "O", it doesn't mean the Marines are campaigning for Steve Gallo. It goes to show he was a Marine and supports defense. One would assume the union logo would indicate the candidate supports labor unions.
If "TULSA FIREFIGHTERS FOR [candidate X]" and knocking door to door and identifying yourself as a member of a city-employed group doesn't run afoul of the "no campaigning" law, what the hell does? Do they have to have bumper stickers on the fire trucks before it counts?
I need to find a $75,000 a year government job that requires minimal actual work and spend my 4 days off a week campaigning to make sure no one takes a closer look at my Golden Goose.
and then there is this one that was in the right of way
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/P9090010.jpg)
I wonder when the firemen are going to pick up all the signs they put out?
Quote from: TulsaMINI on September 09, 2009, 07:04:07 PM
I wonder when the firemen are going to pick up all the signs they put out?
Surely one would not expect them to cleanup the city on their two day rest period after spending one day a the fire station?
Still seeing a lot of Rhoades signs around...guess the firemen have been really busy.
I wish *some* groups would show that they are responsible and pick up their litter after violating election laws.
On a related note: the firefighters have been given months now to find documentation of required EMT training for all persons receiving an extra $900 a year for having it. For at least 16 firefighters they have been totally unable to come up with the documentation.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090929_11_0_Sxenfr972197
I do CLE every year. While there generally you have to sign in. It is finished I get a certificate showing I did the hours. I file a report with the BAR showing I did the hours. I file an expense report with my firm to be reimbursed for the cost of getting the hours. I could probably show in four different ways that I had my CLE hours last year.
My continued ability to do my job requires additional training hours. I don't get an extra $900 a year for doing what I am supposed to. And I don't get to just sign a piece of paper saying "yeah, I did it." Seriously failure of internal control.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 30, 2009, 09:10:11 AM
My continued ability to do my job requires additional training hours. I don't get an extra $900 a year for doing what I am supposed to. And I don't get to just sign a piece of paper saying "yeah, I did it." Seriously failure of internal control.
CF: You tread into the territory where even the angles refuse to tread. There was a fire and police commissioner who established the police training academy who wanted to change the firemen scheduled to where they worked 8 hour shifts and school the policemen to act as standby firemen thus reducing the number of firemen needed. His theory was they were in communications on the streets and could respond quicker to save lives by removing people from burning buildings as the first responders.
They published the daily fire runs but now I cannot seem to find them. What happened?