Christiansen decides against re-election bid
Bill Christiansen
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 5/27/2011
City Councilor Bill Christiansen announced Friday that he has changed his mind and will not seek re-election.
The Republican has held south Tulsa's District 8 seat since 2002.
Christiansen told the Tulsa World that he decided to reveal his decision now so that there's plenty of time for a "good candidate" to come forward for the July filing period of the fall elections.
"I have very much enjoyed serving the citizens of Tulsa for the last 9 1/2 years, and I greatly appreciate the support given to me by the citizens of District 8," he said.
Christiansen said he's leaving his options open about whether he will seek another political office in the future. The mayor's post is up for election in 2013.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110527_334_0_CityCo186408
for city council...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 27, 2011, 09:58:53 PM
Christiansen decides against re-election bid
Bill Christiansen
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 5/27/2011
City Councilor Bill Christiansen announced Friday that he has changed his mind and will not seek re-election.
The Republican has held south Tulsa's District 8 seat since 2002.
Christiansen told the Tulsa World that he decided to reveal his decision now so that there's plenty of time for a "good candidate" to come forward for the July filing period of the fall elections.
"I have very much enjoyed serving the citizens of Tulsa for the last 9 1/2 years, and I greatly appreciate the support given to me by the citizens of District 8," he said.
Christiansen said he's leaving his options open about whether he will seek another political office in the future. The mayor's post is up for election in 2013.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110527_334_0_CityCo186408
Well, crap.
I like Bill and I think he's been a good councilor, however, I don't think anyone should be on the city council 10 years. Time for fresh ideas. Scott?
Phil is running, not sure who else.
Now I'll never get a chance to use the slogan "Phil and Bill are Phull of Bull"
I thought Christiansen did a good job while in office. I didn't agree with him on every issue, but I thought he represented the district well.
My questions for Lakin are:
(1) Will he simply be a rubber stamp for Kaiser / BOK / TCF opinions on issues?
(2) Given Kaiser / BOK / TCF involvement on issues, is this a conflict of interest on a number of issues the city council will face? Will he exclude himself from votes on these issues? If so, how well will he represent the district?
(3) Does he have enough time to commit to the district? He is the CEO of TCF and he sits on the board of no less than 8 boards that I can count. I believe he also has 3 young children. I simply question whether or not he has enough time to fairly represent the district.
I am not saying that Phil could not do a good job representing the district. These are simply questions that I want answered before I cast my vote.
I would like it if he would run for mayor
He said the same thing last time...
...and then was raising money and set to announce a mayoral bid. We can see how that turned out.
Quote from: Shely on May 28, 2011, 10:43:53 PM
I thought Christiansen did a good job while in office. I didn't agree with him on every issue, but I thought he represented the district well.
My questions for Lakin are:
(1) Will he simply be a rubber stamp for Kaiser / BOK / TCF opinions on issues?
(2) Given Kaiser / BOK / TCF involvement on issues, is this a conflict of interest on a number of issues the city council will face? Will he exclude himself from votes on these issues? If so, how well will he represent the district?
(3) Does he have enough time to commit to the district? He is the CEO of TCF and he sits on the board of no less than 8 boards that I can count. I believe he also has 3 young children. I simply question whether or not he has enough time to fairly represent the district.
I am not saying that Phil could not do a good job representing the district. These are simply questions that I want answered before I cast my vote.
You do realize Lakin and Kaiser are not even members of the same political party? Just asking.
Quote from: sgrizzle on June 01, 2011, 02:29:58 AM
You do realize Lakin and Kaiser are not even members of the same political party? Just asking.
That leads to a philosophical debate...should political parties be involved in the municipal &/or county government? Is what Kaiser, Lakin, et al believe about the direction of the metropolitan area really going to be affected by the
politics policies their national parties are
ruining running Washington with.
Quote from: rdj on June 01, 2011, 08:44:49 AM
That leads to a philosophical debate...should political parties be involved in the municipal &/or county government? Is what Kaiser, Lakin, et al believe about the direction of the metropolitan area really going to be affected by the politics policies their national parties are ruining running Washington with.
Our city and county elections could and should be non-partisan, but the Tulsa county chapters of the Dem and Rep parties wouldn't hear of it because they would become less relevant and someone's wittle ego might be hurt.
Quote from: sgrizzle on June 01, 2011, 02:29:58 AM
You do realize Lakin and Kaiser are not even members of the same political party? Just asking.
I do realize they are not members of the same political party. Since when are issues like repayment of the BOK loan for GP Airlines, moving City Hall to the Cube, tax assessment district for ONEOK Field, etc...Republic or Democrat issues. They are Tulsa issues. Kaiser, Lybarger (spelling?), Levitt and company all have their opinions on these issues. The point is will Lakin represent the District or be a rubber stamp for Kaiser et al.
Quote from: Shely on June 01, 2011, 02:23:12 PM
The point is will Lakin represent the District or be a rubber stamp for Kaiser et al.
Somehow I feel that you have your own opinion and it won't matter what is said.
Don't know where Lakin resides. Will he remain in District 8 if the proposed council re-districted is enacted?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2011, 09:43:13 AM
Our city and county elections could and should be non-partisan, but the Tulsa county chapters of the Dem and Rep parties wouldn't hear of it because they would become less relevant and someone's wittle ego might be hurt.
As much as I agree that party politics shouldn't play a role in determining for whom you vote, I don't think that eliminating party identification in council elections would be a good thing. My experience shows that the vast majority of citizens don't know who their councilor is, let alone their party affiliation. During mayoral elections, I suspect that hundreds--if not thousands--of voters will walk into a booth with no idea of whom to vote for city council. Which sits easier with you--that they choose based upon a D or R (which at least has some reflection of their core beliefs in government) or that they choose based upon who has a nicer sounding name? Or who is first on the list? Yes, people should be more responsible, and do more research, but reality is different. If you don't think that is the case, look at the school board election between Brian Hunt and Radious Guess. Quick, who do you think won? Of course, Brian Hunt was a great candidate, and has proven to be a good school board member, but the fact that he won by 77% probably has something to do with her name. On non-mayoral years, I suspect that lack of party affiliation will just drive voting numbers down. People--who are busy with other things in their lives--need a clear cut delineation between the candidates that doesn't require too much thought. R and D is as good as any.
I wouldn't object to Michael Bates's suggestions that candidates be allowed to come up with their own form of identification, except that I see that as potentially being abused or deceitful.
I get your points and they are very logical. I simply think there are people who use party affiliation as an excuse to not have to research their candidates. Name recognition or one name sounding better than another might not be so great either. I approached it from the following:
If I were to run as an (R) for city council, there are, no doubt, Democrats in D-4 who would mistakenly assume I was a homophobic Tea Partier. If I ran as a Libertarian, people would assume I was probably a dope smoker because of the mistaken assumption that the Libertarian party is just another cover for NORML. If I ran as a Democrat, Hannity and Limpbaugh listeners would assume I was a tax and spend liberal.
In reality, I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative who believes in a strong national defense and I'm pretty sensitive to 2nd Amendment rights. I obviously don't buy my party line hook line and sinker and I've given much thought to registering as an independent but then I would give away my right to vote in primaries in a county which leans heavily GOP in national elections. I vote for the best candidate and have voted for more than a few Democrats and Inds. over the years. I also take my responsibility more serious as a voter and take time to learn about who I'm voting for instead of assuming party affiliation is some sort of positive endorsement of a candidate.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2011, 09:58:37 PM
I get your points and they are very logical. I simply think there are people who use party affiliation as an excuse to not have to research their candidates. Name recognition or one name sounding better than another might not be so great either. I approached it from the following:
If I were to run as an (R) for city council, there are, no doubt, Democrats in D-4 who would mistakenly assume I was a homophobic Tea Partier. If I ran as a Libertarian, people would assume I was probably a dope smoker because of the mistaken assumption that the Libertarian party is just another cover for NORML. If I ran as a Democrat, Hannity and Limpbaugh listeners would assume I was a tax and spend liberal.
In reality, I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative who believes in a strong national defense and I'm pretty sensitive to 2nd Amendment rights. I obviously don't buy my party line hook line and sinker and I've given much thought to registering as an independent but then I would give away my right to vote in primaries in a county which leans heavily GOP in national elections. I vote for the best candidate and have voted for more than a few Democrats and Inds. over the years. I also take my responsibility more serious as a voter and take time to learn about who I'm voting for instead of assuming party affiliation is some sort of positive endorsement of a candidate.
Yep, remember the candidate pretty recently who ran as a Republican for some treasury county post or some such, while baying to the masses that she was pro-life? Who cares, especially if you're running for a post that has no say whatsoever in shaping judicial policy as it pertains to Roe v Wade...
And while I typically side more with Democrats, I'm almost a carbon copy of Conan, but I'm likely a bit more of a social liberal than even he.
I would be a much better voter if I could see pictures. I think we should print the ballots with any picture the candidate wants. Some would use shots from their youth, others maybe glamour shots.
They wouldn't have to put the pictures on the actual ballot, I would be fine with pictures on the wall of the booth.m
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 01, 2011, 10:39:35 PM
I would be a much better voter if I could see pictures. I think we should print the ballots with any picture the candidate wants. Some would use shots from their youth, others maybe glamour shots.
They wouldn't have to put the pictures on the actual ballot, I would be fine with pictures on the wall of the booth.m
Somewhere, somehow race would get thrown about if that was done.
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2011, 10:41:25 PM
Somewhere, somehow race would get thrown about if that was done.
I wouldn't vote for anybody with beady eyes, that is for sure.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2011, 09:58:37 PM
I get your points and they are very logical. I simply think there are people who use party affiliation as an excuse to not have to research their candidates. Name recognition or one name sounding better than another might not be so great either. I approached it from the following:
If I were to run as an (R) for city council, there are, no doubt, Democrats in D-4 who would mistakenly assume I was a homophobic Tea Partier. If I ran as a Libertarian, people would assume I was probably a dope smoker because of the mistaken assumption that the Libertarian party is just another cover for NORML. If I ran as a Democrat, Hannity and Limpbaugh listeners would assume I was a tax and spend liberal.
In reality, I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative who believes in a strong national defense and I'm pretty sensitive to 2nd Amendment rights. I obviously don't buy my party line hook line and sinker and I've given much thought to registering as an independent but then I would give away my right to vote in primaries in a county which leans heavily GOP in national elections. I vote for the best candidate and have voted for more than a few Democrats and Inds. over the years. I also take my responsibility more serious as a voter and take time to learn about who I'm voting for instead of assuming party affiliation is some sort of positive endorsement of a candidate.
I suspect those who rely on party affiliation as an excuse not to research candidates would probably not do any better if you took away party affiliation. On the plus side, I do believe that most elections are won or lost based upon the votes of the people who are actually paying attention and understand the issues. Independents carry a lot of weight, particularly in district 4.
I do think we need to either open up the primaries for city elections, or somehow remove the situation where only one party gets to choose the councilor. Maybe move an election to the general and allow everyone to vote, if members of only one party register.
Quote from: Shely on May 28, 2011, 10:43:53 PM
I thought Christiansen did a good job while in office. I didn't agree with him on every issue, but I thought he represented the district well.
My questions for Lakin are:
(1) Will he simply be a rubber stamp for Kaiser / BOK / TCF opinions on issues?
(2) Given Kaiser / BOK / TCF involvement on issues, is this a conflict of interest on a number of issues the city council will face? Will he exclude himself from votes on these issues? If so, how well will he represent the district?
(3) Does he have enough time to commit to the district? He is the CEO of TCF and he sits on the board of no less than 8 boards that I can count. I believe he also has 3 young children. I simply question whether or not he has enough time to fairly represent the district.
I am not saying that Phil could not do a good job representing the district. These are simply questions that I want answered before I cast my vote.
1. Yes
2. Won't
3. No
I will vote for anyone but this guy. You should too. He does not have Dist 8s best interests at heart....and if you thought Bill was a RINO...welll hahahahaha.
Quote from: rdj on June 01, 2011, 02:49:36 PM
Don't know where Lakin resides. Will he remain in District 8 if the proposed council re-districted is enacted?
Yes
Quote from: inteller on June 02, 2011, 06:12:00 PM
1. Yes
2. Won't
3. No
I will vote for anyone but this guy. You should too. He does not have Dist 8s best interests at heart....and if you thought Bill was a RINO...welll hahahahaha.
You're not in District 8 anymore.