I have liked what Mark brings to the table over Adelson and Bartlett since I found out he was running for mayor. However like all independent candidates, at least in Oklahoma, I realized he probably couldn't compete with the 'big boys'. However with the mud slinging going on between Adelson and Bartlett, and the general lack of interest in either of them, I wonder if Mark could make a run? He is young and seems fresh and upbeat, with lots of good ideas.
I think he will get more votes than previous independents, but will he win? No.
Knowing a bit about being a political third wheel, if he can raise money and endorsements then yes. Having no party backing you... makes it hard to get either one. I keep waiting for some massive advertising, endorsements, etc and I haven't seen it yet. Time is running out.
My prediction:
Adelson - 46
Bartlett - 40
Perkins - 14
Perkins won't get 14%.
He is very likable and will someday run as a republican for other office. The Independent registered voter is less likely to vote in an election like this.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 30, 2009, 02:02:41 PM
Knowing a bit about being a political third wheel, if he can raise money and endorsements then yes. Having no party backing you... makes it hard to get either one. I keep waiting for some massive advertising, endorsements, etc and I haven't seen it yet. Time is running out.
My prediction:
Adelson - 46
Bartlett - 40
Perkins - 14
My prediction:
Bartlett - 46
Adelson - 40
Perkins - 14
From spoiled to spoiler?
Quote from: FOTD on September 30, 2009, 04:05:50 PM
My prediction:
Bartlett - 46
Adelson - 40
Perkins - 14
From spoiled to spoiler?
I know we live in dumbf*ckistan, but do you really think there are enough dumf*ckistanians to elect screwy Dewey?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 30, 2009, 04:36:53 PM
I know we live in dumbf*ckistan, but do you really think there are enough dumf*ckistanians to elect screwy Dewey?
Here, they are Tulsalites...and within the center of town, Deweys neighborhood, TA gets the votes.
But Dewey has sold his soul to the
company store bible thumpers and zealots. Certainly dirty industry wants him. The outer areas will elect Dewey unless a better effort of getting Screwy to tell us his ideas for a futuristic city persists.
Death to the two party system. Worst thing to EVER happen to American politics. Worse than the Red Scare, Jimmy Carter, and Sarah Palin put together.
Quote from: FOTD on September 30, 2009, 04:59:12 PM
Here, they are Tulsalites...and within the center of town, Deweys neighborhood, TA gets the votes.
But Dewey has sold his soul to the company store bible thumpers and zealots. Certainly dirty industry wants him. The outer areas will elect Dewey unless a better effort of getting Screwy to tell us his ideas for a futuristic city persists.
Best I can tell he hasn't. I talked to people from TARA, OKSAFE, and other groups like that and they wantedf nothing to do with Dewey.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 01, 2009, 09:27:58 AM
Death to the two party system. Worst thing to EVER happen to American politics. Worse than the Red Scare, Jimmy Carter, and Sarah Palin put together.
Again with the attacks on the Republican 2012 nominee! Tow the line!
Mark who ?
With Adelson and Bartlett in a b!tch fight, does anyone think Perkins picks up even more votes? I think a lot of people are sick of Adelson and Bartlett and Perkins is the only alternative.
It's starting to look more like Perkins will get my vote instead of Adleson
Quote from: custosnox on October 21, 2009, 09:42:40 PM
It's starting to look more like Perkins will get my vote instead of Adleson
You'd vote for a complete novice for our Mayor?
To answer the original question:
No. Perkins has no chance.
Quote from: FOTD on October 21, 2009, 11:24:51 PM
You'd vote for a complete novice for our Mayor?
And the other candidates have had how much experiance as mayor of a city?
He has a chance but I worry. I think a lot of people that are fed up with Bartlett and Adelson are just not going to vote and that is sad. Some people don't even know about Perkins so I hope he gets his name out there with more advertising. Bartlett and Adelson are scared of Perkins being taken seriously because they know he can take votes from both of them. I like Mark Perkins and I hate both parties.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on October 22, 2009, 08:14:54 AM
He has a chance but I worry. I think a lot of people that are fed up with Bartlett and Adelson are just not going to vote and that is sad. Some people don't even know about Perkins so I hope he gets his name out there with more advertising. Bartlett and Adelson are scared of Perkins being taken seriously because they know he can take votes from both of them. I like Mark Perkins and I hate both parties.
Please. Perkins has no chance. Yes, he may hurt one of the candidates by peeling away a few votes. But the major parties have such a huge advantage -- especially with two candidates who have major name recognition -- that a nobody such as Perkins has zero odds of winning.
Saying Perkins has a chance is like those fools four years ago who insisted that Ben Faulk had a chance, too. But Faulk ended up with Paul Tay-type numbers.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 22, 2009, 08:56:26 AM
Please. Perkins has no chance. Yes, he may hurt one of the candidates by peeling away a few votes. But the major parties have such a huge advantage -- especially with two candidates who have major name recognition -- that a nobody such as Perkins has zero odds of winning.
Saying Perkins has a chance is like those fools four years ago who insisted that Ben Faulk had a chance, too. But Faulk ended up with Paul Tay-type numbers.
Not voting for a candidate who may be well-qualified because he or she "doesn't have a chance" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know of people who would vote for him but think it's throwing away a vote. If people would get over that notion and vote their conscience on this race, he probably
would have a chance.
I honestly, in all good conscience can't see myself voting for Adelson or Bartlet (sic). Their snipey campaigns have been a complete turn-off. Tom should have let the negative ads roll off his back, ignore them and run on issues instead of getting snared into an ugly pissing contest which has highlighted an ill temperment. How's that going to play out when there's a conflict with the city council if he can't even deal with an adversarial candidate in an election? I don't see many good character qualities in Dewey either that are going to help him as an administrator. Just more of the GOB network.
I think Perkins deserves a second look.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 22, 2009, 09:17:35 AM
Not voting for a candidate who may be well-qualified because he or she "doesn't have a chance" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know of people who would vote for him but think it's throwing away a vote. If people would get over that notion and vote their conscience on this race, he probably would have a chance.
That's making the rash assumption that people care enough about Perkins to "vote their conscience" and give him a fighting shot. But history all but guarantees otherwise.
Third-party candidates simply don't do well, unless they're well-known celebrities such as Jesse Ventura.
If you want to vote for him, fine. I have no problem with that. I've done it myself.
But the question was asked of whether Perkins has a chance, and he doesn't. That's just the way it is.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 01, 2009, 09:27:58 AM
Death to the two party system. Worst thing to EVER happen to American politics.
It's a natural consequence of our voting system (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law"):
Quote
In political science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system....
A two-party system often develops from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP). In an SMDP system, voters have a single vote which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. The winner of the seat is determined by the candidate with the most votes. This means that the SMDP system has several qualities that can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties....
Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute. Instead he suggested that SMDP would act to delay the emergence of a new political force, and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force — PR would have the opposite effect.
We have a three party system....the GOP has been bisected.
CoCo, get a breathalyser on Perky. Didn't we go through this with Bush and a previous mayor?
Alchies hangin' together?
This TW cartoon sums it up pretty well..
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/Thumbs/20091022_plante20091022_opinion.jpg)
Quote from: FOTD on October 22, 2009, 01:07:39 PM
We have a three party system....the GOP has been bisected.
CoCo, get a breathalyser on Perky. Didn't we go through this with Bush and a previous mayor?
Alchies hangin' together?
At least I'm willing to admit I made a mistake in choosing a candidate if there's something that surfaces down the road that I don't like in a candidate.
I have no clue about Perkins personal life. You seem to know quite a bit about it.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 22, 2009, 01:41:17 PM
At least I'm willing to admit I made a mistake in choosing a candidate if there's something that surfaces down the road that I don't like in a candidate.
I have no clue about Perkins personal life. You seem to know quite a bit about it.
Politicians should have to go through a psychological profile evaluation....and the public should be exposed to the results before the vote.
Quote from: FOTD on October 22, 2009, 02:41:40 PM
Politicians should have to go through a psychological profile evaluation....and the public should be exposed to the results before the vote.
First you would have to assume that the majority of the population would understand such results, which quiet frankly most wouldn't. Second, given this criteria, we wouldn't have any poloticians.
Quote from: custosnox on October 22, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
First you would have to assume that the majority of the population would understand such results, which quiet frankly most wouldn't. Second, given this criteria, we wouldn't have any poloticians.
My point exactly....ergo the ego, these guys are all koo koo.
Quote from: FOTD on October 22, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
My point exactly....ergo the ego, these guys are all koo koo.
As is everyone else, as long as you read the "psychological profile" at the right angle. Kinda like people who refer to themselves in the third person are often narcissistic and possibly even suffering from a dissociative disorder.
Quote from: custosnox on October 22, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
As is everyone else, as long as you read the "psychological profile" at the right angle. Kinda like people who refer to themselves in the third person are often narcissistic and possibly even suffering from a dissociative disorder.
That just caused me to pierce the silence in my office with roaring laughter. I think they are going to call Parkside on me.
Great one!
Hey, FOTD is more exposed than any of you people. Just being on this forum categorizes you in with me. Why do you think Guido goes dark. He's gonna freak one day when he finds out we are in the same room. Crushie too.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S. Thompson
Quote from: FOTD on October 22, 2009, 03:41:20 PM
Hey, FOTD is more exposed than any of you people.
this is one of the many things we are worried about. And most people eventually have to get registered because of this.
Sitting on the sidelines watching the selecting of a mayor unfold where hundreds of thousands of dollars are being donated to determine which will do the most harm in being in charge of the city for four years is unbelievable.
Is there some reason for this flow of money other than good affordable governing of the mediocre city of Tulsa?
Is it possible that it is a contest between those who will profit if their choice is elected?
Does the new qualifications for mayor include one must be a millionaire?
Is it to be assumed that the meek will never inherent the earth.
Don't the voters believe that both leading candidates have stepped beyond the bounds of human dignity thus insulting the electoral process?
Is this how citizens of Tulsa are suppose to select their leaders?
Quote from: shadows on October 22, 2009, 10:03:04 PM
Sitting on the sidelines watching the selecting of a mayor unfold where hundreds of thousands of dollars are being donated to determine which will do the most harm in being in charge of the city for four years is unbelievable.
Is there some reason for this flow of money other than good affordable governing of the mediocre city of Tulsa?
Is it possible that it is a contest between those who will profit if their choice is elected?
Does the new qualifications for mayor include one must be a millionaire?
Is it to be assumed that the meek will never inherent the earth.
Don't the voters believe that both leading candidates have stepped beyond the bounds of human dignity thus insulting the electoral process?
Is this how citizens of Tulsa are suppose to select their leaders?
No, this isn't supposed to be at all how we choose our leaders. Good points.
Whatever. Did you ever think that Dewey's handlers knew that alienation and apathy might be their best team player? Do you think his pollster said, "if enough voters fail to show up, you will win?" Now, could the negative campaign been bait for Adelson to hook it up? Should Adelson not have taken the ad bait his chances might be better.
As far as young Perkins, he has a chance of playing spoiler and that's all. And he can create an identity for future platforms and his legal practice. Bet he hasn't spent %5 of the other two individual budgets.
Adelson and Bartlett are good, decent, thoughtful, well connected, and committed to doing their best for Tulsa. FOTD takes a dig at all these candidates knowing it could be worse. Homeboys who will not be any worse than every Mayor since, are you sitting down, Jimmy Inhofe.
Quote from: custosnox on October 22, 2009, 01:34:01 AM
And the other candidates have had how much experiance as mayor of a city?
We Have a complete novice for President.....
Would not there be a more show of a persons intent by letting the council appoint the mayor based on the price the candidate is willing to pay for the job. Naw! The leaving mayor's performance encumbered the citizens for the next 30 years under a no salary platform who's residence is like the president birth certificate .
Seems there are some persons still upset because Inhofe shut down the prostitute girls sitting on concrete blocks on north Boston.
Everyone make sure and vote.
FOTD makes a kind gesture to Mister Inhofe's term as mayor and the two biggest sucker punchers on TNF come out of the shadows and attack the President, obviously off topic.
The mayor needs to sit on the city council, get paid what they do, and let the council hire a city manager. This is getting ridiculous all these funds devoted to buying leadership.
I will vote for any candidate who says screw downtown.
Quote from: FOTD on October 23, 2009, 01:00:57 PM
FOTD makes a kind gesture to Mister Inhofe's term as mayor and the two biggest sucker punchers on TNF come out of the shadows and attack the President, obviously off topic.
How long has it been since you threw a non sequitur W jab into a thread? Here, I'll tell you: not long enough for you to gripe about anybody else doing anything like the equivalent, Mr. Pot.
QuoteThe mayor needs to sit on the city council, get paid what they do, and let the council hire a city manager. This is getting ridiculous all these funds devoted to buying leadership.
As far as I can tell, every political office of consequence is bought.
Quote from: buckeye on October 23, 2009, 03:12:11 PM
How long has it been since you threw a non sequitur W jab into a thread? Here, I'll tell you: not long enough for you to gripe about anybody else doing anything like the equivalent, Mr. Pot.]As far as I can tell, every political office of consequence is bought.
How appropriate... Freudian slip up?
Quote from: FOTD on October 23, 2009, 01:00:57 PM
FOTD makes a kind gesture to Mister Inhofe's term as mayor and the two biggest sucker punchers on TNF come out of the shadows and attack the President, obviously off topic.
Was it not written of Caesar "the evil men do live after them"? In the instant case if it was not for the off subject innuendoes the comments would be very limited? From the lack of donations, silent is the lamb who only stumbled in the slaughtering house to serve Tulsa's citizens.
Runaway inflation sure plays a part in the Tulsa election system now days.
I went to watch the Mayoral Mashup debate at Jewel last night. It was sponsered by TYPros and broadcast on KRMG. I think Mark Perkins won the debate. Granted the crowd was more of a younger group and he is the youngest candidate, but still he made the best points and got the most applause. Tom Adelson said he would not get paid as mayor just like Kathy Taylor. The other 2 said they would take the pay check. Mark Perkins is not rich like the other two and he said it would be a bad financial decision to not take the paycheck. Adelson did seem to connect some when he talked about "green" initiatives. Bartlett did not impress me at all. Adelson and Bartlett had all kinds of handlers in black suits everywhere. The main thing with Perkins is that he is running his campaign on his own with only a few volunteers. He is not spending thousands on ads bashing others and he does not have to be in debted to a political party.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on November 04, 2009, 09:32:08 AM
I think Mark Perkins won the debate.
People always think their favorite candidate wins the debate.
Unfortunately, this was not much of a "debate". It was more like E-Harmony for politics.
I was at the Mayoral Mashup too last night. Perkins did a good job but there were a few questions that he didnt answer or answer quickly enough that got resounding Boos from die hard Republicans...such as the NRA question...he should have just answered "thats not in the Mayor's pervue". Besides that, he connected with the younger voters most certainly....you could tell from the cheers that age is playing a factor in support.
But does Perkins have a chance? Talking to a Republican Party insider last night, he says Perkins has somewhat factured the party by pulling away votes from Bartlett that could cost the party the election while he stated Perkins didnt have a chance...I'd like to believe that if Perkins had gotten more of his message and face out and if he still can, he would stand a much better chance.
While the campaigning has been predominately negative from the Adelson and Bartlett camps...name recognition in any form is vital. After all, PT Barnum said it best, "all publicity is good publicity"
Quote from: DowntownNow on November 04, 2009, 09:54:00 AM
I was at the Mayoral Mashup too last night. Perkins did a good job but there were a few questions that he didnt answer or answer quickly enough that got resounding Boos from die hard Republicans...such as the NRA question...he should have just answered "thats not in the Mayor's pervue". Besides that, he connected with the younger voters most certainly....you could tell from the cheers that age is playing a factor in support.
But does Perkins have a chance? Talking to a Republican Party insider last night, he says Perkins has somewhat factured the party by pulling away votes from Bartlett that could cost the party the election while he stated Perkins didnt have a chance...I'd like to believe that if Perkins had gotten more of his message and face out and if he still can, he would stand a much better chance.
While the campaigning has been predominately negative from the Adelson and Bartlett camps...name recognition in any form is vital. After all, PT Barnum said it best, "all publicity is good publicity"
I would say Bartlett fractured the party before Perkins spent a $ on advertising. I would venture to say that I was at more republican pre-primary events than Bartlett was.
I have no doubt of that Grizzle based on what I've found, heard and seen regarding Bartlett. Was a curious perspective from that insider...though I suppose you have it on two sides in two parties all the time. Maybe why Im leaning independent lol.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2009, 10:04:47 AM
I would say Bartlett fractured the party before Perkins spent a $ on advertising. I would venture to say that I was at more republican pre-primary events than Bartlett was.
Here's where the devil is in the details we do not get to hear about. Let's see, what denomination of the republicans seem alone on a limb? The conservatives? Yes, this demon will go to bat for Bartlett not bringing the faith based tribe into the election. Unfortunately, he did allow their ad men from DC to stink up the contest with pathetic ads.
As stated before, all candidates are good and decent. Perkins is a head trip. Adelson is an egomaniac shooting for much higher offices in the future. Bartlett seems to be the most qualified based on his previous council experience and he also seems to be open to the mayor sitting on the council and hiring a city manager. Republicans will vote together despite the apparent schism.
Quote from: FOTD on November 04, 2009, 12:27:43 PM
Here's where the devil is in the details we do not get to hear about. Let's see, what denomination of the republicans seem alone on a limb? The conservatives? Yes, this demon will go to bat for Bartlett not bringing the faith based tribe into the election. Unfortunately, he did allow their ad men from DC to stink up the contest with pathetic ads.
As stated before, all candidates are good and decent. Perkins is a head trip. Adelson is an egomaniac shooting for much higher offices in the future. Bartlett seems to be the most qualified based on his previous council experience and he also seems to be open to the mayor sitting on the council and hiring a city manager. Republicans will vote together despite the apparent schism.
Interesting observation, are you considering voting for Dewey now?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 12:30:17 PM
Interesting observation, are you considering voting for Dewey now?
Adelson should have run against Sully and set his stage for Inhofe's seat.
If you thought Mayor Taylor was arrogant, just wait.
Quote from: FOTD on November 04, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
Adelson should have run against Sully and set his stage for Inhofe's seat.
If you thought Mayor Taylor was arrogant, just wait.
Hmmm, sounds like you've done a 180 on Dewey. If what you are saying is true that he'd be willing to sit on the council and hire a city manager, that's not all bad stuff.
Seems like there is a question on the ballot which would make it to where the mayor and council would have to approve any major lawsuit settlements from now on, essentially departing a degree from the strong mayor/weak council concept. Eagleton was talking about it on KRMG this morning. The part I didn't quite catch was whether or not this is a ballot issue or something the council is studying.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 12:51:37 PM
Hmmm, sounds like you've done a 180 on Dewey. If what you are saying is true that he'd be willing to sit on the council and hire a city manager, that's not all bad stuff.
Seems like there is a question on the ballot which would make it to where the mayor and council would have to approve any major lawsuit settlements from now on, essentially departing a degree from the strong mayor/weak council concept. Eagleton was talking about it on KRMG this morning. The part I didn't quite catch was whether or not this is a ballot issue or something the council is studying.
There's been little discussion about the ballot issues here. Two of them looked like they might further hinder a fluid form of city governance.
There is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will have the City Council approving any financial settlements the City wants to enter into over $1 million I think is the number. This comes on the heels of the Great Plains Airlines ordeal.
Quote from: DowntownNow on November 04, 2009, 12:57:47 PM
There is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will have the City Council approving any financial settlements the City wants to enter into over $1 million I think is the number. This comes on the heels of the Great Plains Airlines ordeal.
That's the one they were talking about on KRMG.
1. City Councilors server totaling 3 year terms (3 districts up each year)
2. City auditors must have CIA or CPA certification
3. Council approves all litigation settlements past $1m
1. Dumb
2. If you don't think they can do the job, why would you vote for them anyway? Even the current auditor wasn't certified when he got elected.
3. My concern is that if the Council bickers over what they consider a decent settlement amount and forces it to decision, we could fare even worse.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2009, 01:51:20 PM
1. City Councilors server totaling 3 year terms (3 districts up each year)
2. City auditors must have CIA or CPA certification
3. Council approves all litigation settlements past $1m
1. Dumb
2. If you don't think they can do the job, why would you vote for them anyway? Even the current auditor wasn't certified when he got elected.
3. My concern is that if the Council bickers over what they consider a decent settlement amount and forces it to decision, we could fare even worse.
Here's the problem with #3 though: Whether it was right or wrong to settle the BOK suit in general, our current mayor had the authority to single-handedly approve a settlement with a company she has served as a director for. I don't think one person should make decisions on large settlements without some sort of review process with the council. It's just a little extra checks and balance.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 02:48:36 PM
Here's the problem with #3 though: Whether it was right or wrong to settle the BOK suit in general, our current mayor had the authority to single-handedly approve a settlement with a company she has served as a director for. I don't think one person should make decisions on large settlements without some sort of review process with the council. It's just a little extra checks and balance.
I agree witch checks and balances but in this case there is a court case involved so what the council wants, and what is reasonable, may not mesh. That is my only concern with 3.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2009, 02:54:08 PM
I agree witch checks and balances but in this case there is a court case involved so what the council wants, and what is reasonable, may not mesh. That is my only concern with 3.
I'd rather have nine additional eyes and ears looking into settlements like that, especially when the mayor could have an actual or percieved COI.
I've relied on Councilor Eagleton as my bullsh!t-o-meter at City Hall. For some reason he thought that settlement was just, so I've never been terribly harsh in my comments about it since then. But, what if a council review would have resulted in Richard Studenny's (Dick Stupidity) professional liabilty insurance company picking up the tab for his flawed legal opinion(s)? That would have been major WIN.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2009, 02:54:08 PM
I agree witch checks and balances but in this case there is a court case involved so what the council wants, and what is reasonable, may not mesh. That is my only concern with 3.
Maybe Ms. Kitty could've come to the Council _BEFORE_ joining us into the suit. Before she 'settled' it, she jumped into it for us. Only by a day, though.
Frankly, I wish TAA & TAIT would've gone down in flames.
Ground up reconstruction would be better than then or now.
People here get pretty emotional when they can't just do what they want.
Another or better Resolution would require Council approval prior to having the City join in any suite. The Mayor should not be able to that at a whim.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 04, 2009, 01:51:20 PM
1. City Councilors server totaling 3 year terms (3 districts up each year)
2. City auditors must have CIA or CPA certification
3. Council approves all litigation settlements past $1m
1. Dumb
2. If you don't think they can do the job, why would you vote for them anyway? Even the current auditor wasn't certified when he got elected.
3. My concern is that if the Council bickers over what they consider a decent settlement amount and forces it to decision, we could fare even worse.
1.--What he said-Dumb-I will vote NO
2.-Undecided--I go back and forth-?
3. No--I agree with sgrizzle--no case will ever be settled if the council has to vote on it--It takes major political will to decide to settle a large $ case. Most government officials never agree--because they usually have no personal skin in the game-- and force most cases to trial.
The Alvin McGee case is a good example--$13 million verdict I think--could have been settled prior to trial by LaFortune for $900K--settled post trial by Taylor administration (Baker for Taylor she recused) pending appeal for $11 million. City got a good deal--with interest and plaintiff's attorney's fees it could have gotten up to $14 or 15 million on appeal.
Also remember that these settlements go into the sinking fund and do not come out of the general fund--just passed along to the property tax base. So there is no real incentive to settle to begin with and when you add to the mix the need for 5 more votes on the council to get something settled and you have to air all the merits or demerits of settlement in a public meeting--it will just not get done. So if you don't want the City to settle any large cases and force them all to trial (with major defense costs that will come out of the general budget & disruption of the regular work of the city employees) then you should vote yes.
Tulsa has annual revenues of $605,000,000.00 and employs thousands of people. We have billions in assets. Nearly a million people depend on Tulsa as a hub of business, commerce, entertainment, and as the center of life int he area.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/documents/0809budget/Section02ExecutiveSummary.pdf
But our standards for hiring an auditor are lower than most companies and certainly any publicly traded company? Dollar Thrifty has revenue of $438mil. Nordam has revenue of $160mil. Throw in Braum's and Rib Crib combined revenues of $12mil and we are just over what Tulsa has for revenue. Do you think some massive umbrella company over those corporations would hire an auditor without a CPA, CIA, or audit experience?
That seems crazy to me. No offense to the man holding the job, but perhaps that's why we misplace $100,000,000+ meant to fix the streets. Why our budget is always in crisis mode.
Why not have qualification requirements that fit the job?
Quote from: Bledsoe on November 05, 2009, 08:02:40 AM
1.--What he said-Dumb-I will vote NO
2.-Undecided--I go back and forth-?
3. No--I agree with sgrizzle--no case will ever be settled if the council has to vote on it--It takes major political will to decide to settle a large $ case. Most government officials never agree--because they usually have no personal skin in the game-- and force most cases to trial.
The Alvin McGee case is a good example--$13 million verdict I think--could have been settled prior to trial by LaFortune for $900K--settled post trial by Taylor administration (Baker for Taylor she recused) pending appeal for $11 million. City got a good deal--with interest and plaintiff's attorney's fees it could have gotten up to $14 or 15 million on appeal.
Also remember that these settlements go into the sinking fund and do not come out of the general fund--just passed along to the property tax base. So there is no real incentive to settle to begin with and when you add to the mix the need for 5 more votes on the council to get something settled and you have to air all the merits or demerits of settlement in a public meeting--it will just not get done. So if you don't want the City to settle any large cases and force them all to trial (with major defense costs that will come out of the general budget & disruption of the regular work of the city employees) then you should vote yes.
Reasonable logic behind this, but you almost make it sound as if the council can never get together as a majority on anything. If that were true, we'd have a back-log of unfinished business at the council level dating back for years. I think councilors would understand what is at stake and be able to come to a consensus in an expeditious manner like they do on a multitude of other issues.
Or to approach it another way, do you think it would have been appropriate for the council to have stepped in when there appeared to be a conflict of interest between the Mayor and plaintiff in the Great Plains case? I honestly can't see where it's appropriate for a former director of the plaintiff to single-handedly approve a settlement with minimal to no discussion. I believe there should, at a minimum, be some sort of oversight function to determine if there could be a conflict-of-interest prior to signing off on a settlement.
If I have my facts twisted on the GP settlement or Mayor Taylor's former involvement with the BOK board, please feel free to correct me.
Not sure about Adelson and Bartlett but Perkins has really used Facebook and Twitter to his advantage over the past few months. He has reached out to the younger demographic which Adelson and Bartlett have really not done at all. I don't think it wins him the election but he will get a lot more votes than many people originally thought.
Quote from: SXSW on November 05, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
Not sure about Adelson and Bartlett but Perkins has really used Facebook and Twitter to his advantage over the past few months. He has reached out to the younger demographic which Adelson and Bartlett have really not done at all. I don't think it wins him the election but he will get a lot more votes than many people originally thought.
I think he's doing the best he can with his comparatively limited resources. If he could afford an all-out media blitz these last few days, I think he could pull it off.
Quote from: SXSW on November 05, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
Not sure about Adelson and Bartlett but Perkins has really used Facebook and Twitter to his advantage over the past few months. He has reached out to the younger demographic which Adelson and Bartlett have really not done at all. I don't think it wins him the election but he will get a lot more votes than many people originally thought.
I am facebook friends with both Adelson and Perkins. I counted the number of political posts and they are the same (13) in the last five weeks. Mark Perkins also posts thoughts about football, asks about restaurants, and thanked everybody for their birthday wishes this week.
I don't think either one of them has done a good job at using social media. It can be such a powerful tool and they need to embrace it and use it every day about everything they want to get out.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 05, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
I am facebook friends with both Adelson and Perkins. I counted the number of political posts and they are the same (13) in the last five weeks. Mark Perkins also posts thoughts about football, asks about restaurants, and thanked everybody for their birthday wishes this week.
I don't think either one of them has done a good job at using social media. It can be such a powerful tool and they need to embrace it and use it every day about everything they want to get out.
But when asked a simple questions about Twitter, only Perkins knew the answer. My bet is Adelson's volunteers have done a lot of his SM.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 05, 2009, 12:41:35 PM
But when asked a simple questions about Twitter, only Perkins knew the answer. My bet is Adelson's volunteers have done a lot of his SM.
And from what my peeps in the media are telling me, a lot of his due dilligence about which way to think on Tulsa issues. For as good a job as I thought he did as a state Senator, he's been a huge disappointment to me in the mayoral race.
I have lost count of the number of cardstock "glossies" I've received in the mail from Adelson. They all have the same picture on the front, so, for the longest time I thought they were all duplicates. ("Why are they spamming me with snail mail?!") If it's not a first class letter, I typically don't look at junk mail very closely. As a result, I would just toss them immediately into the recycle bin.
Just recently I glanced at the back of one, and realized that each one might have had a different message on the back. (I'm not sifting through the recycle bin to find out.) Pretty goofy, expensive, and outdated. Wonder who's doing the PR?
Quote from: PonderInc on November 05, 2009, 02:32:56 PM
I have lost count of the number of cardstock "glossies" I've received in the mail from Adelson. They all have the same picture on the front, so, for the longest time I thought they were all duplicates. ("Why are they spamming me with snail mail?!") If it's not a first class letter, I typically don't look at junk mail very closely. As a result, I would just toss them immediately into the recycle bin.
Just recently I glanced at the back of one, and realized that each one might have had a different message on the back. (I'm not sifting through the recycle bin to find out.) Pretty goofy, expensive, and outdated. Wonder who's doing the PR?
And not very green either...
CoCo,
To rehash all the ins and outs of GP would be too time consuming. It wasn't likely the BOK board decided, just the owner. And it goes something like this, "business is business. The COT made an agreement with the bank which by reason of credit worthiness and, paramount, the integrity of a business relationship this special asset loss needs to be remedied per the original agreement." Then a side deal was made whereby the owner obviously indicated the COT will get back 10 times that amount when the owner decides when and where to spread his generosity to the community. The devil has stated this for the past 3 years to everyone's condemnation on TNF.
The idea of 3 year terms makes good sense.
How could anyone here want to run the risk of having a complete novice who has run zilch run our city? At this stage of his career he is just a twit.
I get a flyer from Bartlett and Adelson roughly every day.
Perkins may not have a chance, but he's clearly hurting Dewey . . . received my first attack mailer against Perkins, "Paid for by Dewey Bartlett for Mayor."
Bartlett points out that "Mark Perkins was the only mayoral candidate to support more regulations on our firearms," which means, "Mark Perkins wants to take away our Second Amendment right to bear arms."
Has Bartlett confused regulation with prohibition?
Perkins is a nice guy, will he win? No.
Does he have a political future? Yes.
Has an Independent ever won anything in Tulsa?
I think Perkins would have much more of a chance if people would stop with the "why waste my vote since he is going to loose anyhow" attitude. There are enough people out there that would like to see him in charge more then they would like to see the opposition, but think that if they vote for Perkins, then they have just thrown out their vote and would rather vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils between Bartlett and Adelson.
Quote from: custosnox on November 07, 2009, 09:37:38 PM
I think Perkins would have much more of a chance if people would stop with the "why waste my vote since he is going to loose anyhow" attitude. There are enough people out there that would like to see him in charge more then they would like to see the opposition, but think that if they vote for Perkins, then they have just thrown out their vote and would rather vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils between Bartlett and Adelson.
More and more people are thinking like you and I. I think he can do it.
How could anyone here want to run the risk of having a complete novice who has run zilch run our city? At this stage of his career he is just a twit.
That new avatar is stupid...
Quote from: Bubblehead on November 07, 2009, 08:47:31 PM
Has an Independent ever won anything in Tulsa?
Houston Adams won the Water and Sewer Commissioner race in 1986 as an independent (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2004/10/that-86-tulsa-e.html), although he was a registered Democrat, picked by the party to file after incumbent Democratic Commissioner Patty Eaton filed to run for Mayor as an independent. Under the old charter, candidates could file as independents up to 10 days before the general election, and Eaton made her move after gadfly Tom Quinn knocked off incumbent Mayor Terry Young in the Democratic primary.
David Patrick was elected as an independent to District 3 City Council in 2008, after winning and losing previous elections as a Democrat.
Under the present 1989 charter and the previous 1909 charter (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/31819/appendices%20s19.pdf), those are the only two in a century.
Quote from: FOTD on November 07, 2009, 11:07:52 PM
How could anyone here want to run the risk of having a complete novice who has run zilch run our city? At this stage of his career he is just a twit.
That new avatar is stupid...
Dumber than the Devil?
Voting my conscience. My conscience says no Dewey or Tom.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2009, 09:15:11 AM
Dumber than the Devil?
Voting my conscience. My conscience says no Dewey or Tom.
Since when did you put your conscience over party loyalty or pocket book? The devil would have supported your choice had it been delivered by a clear conscience. Do you know Mark? Is this support a result of having a mutual interest?
That avatar is a loser...
Quote from: FOTD on November 08, 2009, 09:51:20 AM
Since when did you put your conscience over party loyalty or pocket book? The devil would have supported your choice had it been delivered by a clear conscience. Do you know Mark? Is this support a result of having a mutual interest?
That avatar is a loser...
I've always put personal conscience ahead of party loyalty.
Which mutual interest do you speak of?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kXnVoQ9ZFkQ/Sacr_gmOhXI/AAAAAAAAH4Q/VH97u6cL1uU/s400/i-get-totally-drunk-whats-your-hobby.jpg)
Personally, I don't give two shits what you think of my avatars.
That looks like Perkins....where'd you get his pic?