District 1 - Jack Henderson (D) with 78.1%, no Republican fielded a candidate. Jack Henderson retains his council seat, one of only two incumbents to do so.
District 2 - Jeannie Cue (R) with 35.9%, will run against Philip Oyler (D), uncontested. The seat was unclaimed after Westcott decided not run again.
District 3 - David Bell (R) with 76.9% will run against David Patrick (D) with 59.9%. Roscoe Turner is unseated.
District 4 - Blake Ewing (R) with 59.4% will run against Kenneth Brune (D) with 53.7% Maria Barnes is unseated.
District 5 - Karen Gilbert (R) with 41.0%, no Democrat candidate was fielded. Gilbert wins the seat, and Chris Trail is unseated.
District 6 - Byron Steele (R) with 62.2%, will run against Robert Gwin, Jr (D), uncontested. Jim Mautino is unseated.
District 7 - Thomas Mansur (R) with 54.2% will run against Michael Rainwater (D) with 78.9%. Seat was unclaimed after Eagleton decided not to run.
District 8 - Philip Lakin Jr (R) with 54.3%, will face off against William Suliburk (D), uncontested. Seat was unclaimed after Christiansen decided not to run.
District 9 - GT Bynum (R) with 70.9%, will face off against Mike Batman (D), uncontested (owner of Batman Convenience Store at Pine and Mingo).
All the other runoffs contain no incumbents, so we will be getting 7 new council members. I wonder how Jack and GT are going to feel about that....
Definitely a bad night for incumbents. Mayor Bartlett may be the biggest winner tonight.
Quote from: DTowner on September 13, 2011, 09:43:04 PM
Definitely a bad night for incumbents. Mayor Bartlett may be the biggest winner tonight.
I"m not so sure about that. When the vote for charter change comes up, this could definitely be an indicator.
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2011, 09:44:23 PM
I"m not so sure about that. When the vote for charter change comes up, this could definitely be an indicator.
Bartlett's the winner tonight. November is a new day. It will be interesting to see how such a near complete change in the council will impact the charter change proposal vote. It would be nice to see how the new council functions before changing the government system.
Quote from: DTowner on September 13, 2011, 09:56:31 PM
Bartlett's the winner tonight. November is a new day. It will be interesting to see how such a near complete change in the council will impact the charter change proposal vote. It would be nice to see how the new council functions before changing the government system.
Still say it will hurt Bartlett because if we go to a city manager gubmint what will the puppet-Mayor do?
Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G using fat fingers
I did not see that coming for D-5 at all. If anything, I assumed Roop had the money and influence to get the seat. I see the Democrats turned on Maria in D-4. Not entirely unexpected and I stand by my previous comments that she seemed curiously detached and not well-informed at times since she got re-elected. That should be an interesting race come November between Ewing and Brune.
The most interesting district is #3. I'm sure a Republican has run for that seat before, but I sure can't remember who that was. It's always been between the Patrick's and Roscoe, with Patrick running as an Ind to get around him in the primaries. Really curious to see the outcome on that one.
D-1? Henderson again? Really? Talk about learned helplessness...
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2011, 10:22:18 PM
Still say it will hurt Bartlett because if we go to a city manager gubmint what will the puppet-Mayor do?
Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G using fat fingers
Fire Simonson since he's the one with his hand up the puppet's butt.
OK guys, made some glaring mistakes here...I didn't include those races with just one running, so give me a minute to correct them. My apologies.
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2011, 10:29:28 PM
OK guys, made some glaring mistakes here...I didn't include those races with just one running, so give me a minute to correct them. My apologies.
"Well...There you go again!"
(http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/05/21/mn_a8_obit_reagan_ny.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2011, 10:38:58 PM
"Well...There you go again!"
(http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/05/21/mn_a8_obit_reagan_ny.jpg)
Do it right, have JC do it!
I think the burden is now on the mayor. He's got the new council he wanted. At least 7 will be new, with the pretty certain exceptions of Jack and GT. If the mayor gets into the same kind of squabbles with his new council, and if there is not much progress in terms of the tone at city hall, I think that it's safe to say the blame will fairly and squarely rest at the mayor's feet. At that point, good luck to him in his next election...
Quote from: tulsaboy on September 15, 2011, 09:43:25 PM
I think the burden is now on the mayor. He's got the new council he wanted. At least 7 will be new, with the pretty certain exceptions of Jack and GT. If the mayor gets into the same kind of squabbles with his new council, and if there is not much progress in terms of the tone at city hall, I think that it's safe to say the blame will fairly and squarely rest at the mayor's feet. At that point, good luck to him in his next election...
He was on Ch. 6 this morning and said he plans to run again. I don't see why anyone would want the job for any amount of money.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 15, 2011, 11:24:35 PM
He was on Ch. 6 this morning and said he plans to run again. I don't see why anyone would want the job for any amount of money.
I doubt he wins. Just for the humor factor alone it would be great for him to run (some electronics store might offer him free cell phones in case his catches fire). But with the sour taste left in the mouths of most citizens, I'm betting another R runs against him and I'm betting he doesn't get out of the primaries.
From TW:
QuoteAlthough there are four proposals seeking to change the city's current form of government and seven City Council races on Tuesday's general election ballot, voter turnout is expected to be fairly light, Tulsa County Election Board Secretary Patty Bryant said.
"We've looked at past races and we've had as low as 7 percent and as high as 19 percent turnout," she said. "We hope with the ballot questions that we get the higher turnout."
We can hope for a better turnout tomorrow.
QuoteThe most important issues before voters are the four ballot questions that seek changes to the city's government, ranging from tweaks to a total replacement.
If voters want no changes then they must vote against the proposals.
If the no vote does not prevail, those changes approved will be implemented.
One or all four of the proposals could pass. If that occurs, and the approved proposals have areas of conflict, the proposal with the greatest yes vote will decide the conflict.
One of the four ballot proposals is sponsored by the council, while the other three were placed on the ballot through an initiative petition process by the local nonprofit group Save Our Tulsa.
Proposition 1: A majority of city councilors are seeking to replace the current strong mayor-City Council form of government with a council-city manager structure. The mayor would join the council and essentially be on the same footing as the councilors.
The proposal also would extend council terms to four years, institute a 12-year term limit for Tulsa's elected officials and switch to nonpartisan races.
Initiative Petition Proposition 1: The proposal placed on the ballot by Save Our Tulsa would add three at-large councilors to the current nine-member council and have the mayor control the council meetings and agenda topics.
Initiative Petition Proposition 2: Also pushed by Save Our Tulsa, this proposal would return City Council terms to two years and bring municipal elections in line with the state and federal cycles.
Initiative Petition Proposition 3: The final proposal initiated by Save Our Tulsa would change the current partisan municipal races to nonpartisan. Candidates could identify themselves as Republican or Democrat while campaigning, but the party affiliation would not be on the ballot. At the primary stage, the candidates whose votes make up a majority would advance to the general election.
The ballot also will contain seven of the nine council races - Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Two races were decided in September's primary. In District 1, Councilor Jack Henderson, a Democrat, was re-elected in September's primary, while in District 5, newcomer Karen Gilbert defeated Councilor Chris Trail and another candidate in the GOP primary to win the seat.
District 2: Republican Jeannie Cue, a retired nurse, will face off against Democrat Phillip Oyler, an information technology consultant. Republican Councilor Rick Westcott did not seek re-election.
District 3: Democrat David Patrick, a mechanic and former councilor, will compete against Republican David Bell, a retired Oklahoma Highway Patrol lake patrol officer. Democrat Councilor Roscoe Turner was defeated in the primary.
District 4: Republican Blake Ewing, a downtown entrepreneur, is vying for the seat against Democrat Ken Brune, an attorney. Democrat Councilor Maria Barnes was knocked out in the primary.
District 6: Republican Byron "Skip" Steele, a computer repairman, will face Democrat Robert Gwin Jr., a convenience store clerk. Republican Councilor Jim Mautino lost in the primary.
District 7: Republican Thomas Mansur, a civil engineer, is competing against Democrat Michael Rainwater, a former Department of Human Services supervisor. Republican Councilor John Eagleton did not seek re-election.
District 8: Republican Phil Lakin Jr., Tulsa Community Foundation CEO, will battle Democrat William Suliburk, a retired banker. Republican Councilor Bill Christiansen did not run for re-election.
District 9: Republican Councilor G.T. Bynum, a government relations consultant, will try to stave off a challenge from Democrat Mike Batman, a car salesman.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20111107_11_A1_Althou326716
Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. For those who want to vote early, in-person absentee voting will be available from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday at the Tulsa County Election Board, 555 N. Denver Ave.
Here are the results as reported by KJRH. Looks like our city government will not change except to make the elections non-partisan.
http://www.kjrh.com/generic/news/political/Election-Results (http://www.kjrh.com/generic/news/political/Election-Results)
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 2
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Jeannie Cue (R) 1,755 69%
Phillip Oyler (D) 795 31%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 3
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> David Patrick (D) 1,157 53%
David Bell (R) 1,014 47%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 4
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Blake Ewing (R) 3,186 57%
Kenneth Brune (D) 2,433 43%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 6
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Byron Steele III (R) 1,365 77%
Robert Gin (D) 419 23%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 7
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Thomas Mansur (R) 2,244 74%
Michael Rainwater (D) 781 26%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 8
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Phillip Lakin, Jr. (R) 4,316 75%
William Suliburk (D) 1,406 25%
Tulsa County Tulsa City Council District 9
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> GT Bynum (R / Inc.) 4,624 80%
Mike Batman (D) 1,154 20%
Tulsa County Tulsa Prop (City Council-City Mgr Form of Gov't)
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> No 24,501 76%
Yes 7,558 24%
Tulsa County Tulsa Special Election Prop 1 (Re-Structure)
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> No 23,780 73%
Yes 8,675 27%
Tulsa County Tulsa Special Election Prop 2 (Dates & Terms)
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Yes 18,742 58%
No 13,460 42%
Tulsa County Tulsa Special Election Prop 3 (Non-Partisan)
100% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Yes 17,766 55%
No 14,560 45%
So which party took the beating? I do not follow Tulsa council business very closely.
The Incumbant Party....
Won't really matter now, as starting with the next council vote, you aren't required to disclose your party affiliation. I say good. Can't remember the last time I gave a squat about what some municipal politician's stance was on legalized abortion.
Quote from: Hoss on November 09, 2011, 06:21:06 PM
Won't really matter now, as starting with the next council vote, you aren't required to disclose your party affiliation. I say good. Can't remember the last time I gave a squat about what some municipal politician's stance was on legalized abortion.
But do you think this will keep them from doing everything they can to make sure everyone knows their political party?
Quote from: custosnox on November 09, 2011, 06:39:56 PM
But do you think this will keep them from doing everything they can to make sure everyone knows their political party?
Spot on. Making an election non-partisan will not stop candidates from doing precisely that.
Quote from: guido911 on November 09, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
Spot on. Making an election non-partisan will not stop candidates from doing precisely that.
Possibly, but should it do what I hope then maybe it will make people think about who they're voting for and ask questions, instead of voting on the party line. If Blake Ewing had been my councilor, knowing what I know about him, I could care less about the letter in parenthesis next to his name. It just isn't as relevant when it comes to municipal office.
Quote from: Hoss on November 09, 2011, 07:00:34 PM
Possibly, but should it do what I hope then maybe it will make people think about who they're voting for and ask questions, instead of voting on the party line. If Blake Ewing had been my councilor, knowing what I know about him, I could care less about the letter in parenthesis next to his name. It just isn't as relevant when it comes to municipal office.
I think one of the biggest advantages on this is it is going to end the habit of stopping things at the primary. This way everyone in the district can actually vote.
Yes, that and the fact that practically everyone in Tulsa is republican anyway. The reddest city, in the reddest state in the reddest of times. Actually is a deficit to put the D next to your name. You never see them on the signs thats for sure.
I thought it strange how strongly the charter change was voted down. It seems clear to me that we need professional management and a dilution of the mayoral/council feuding. I guess it was too complicated for the public to support. Bartlett probably won this one. For now.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 09, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
Yes, that and the fact that practically everyone in Tulsa is republican anyway. The reddest city, in the reddest state in the reddest of times. Actually is a deficit to put the D next to your name. You never see them on the signs thats for sure.
A lot different than my memory of when our family moved here from PA in 1971.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 09, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
Yes, that and the fact that practically everyone in Tulsa is republican anyway. The reddest city, in the reddest state in the reddest of times. Actually is a deficit to put the D next to your name. You never see them on the signs thats for sure.
I thought it strange how strongly the charter change was voted down. It seems clear to me that we need professional management and a dilution of the mayoral/council feuding. I guess it was too complicated for the public to support. Bartlett probably won this one. For now.
I'd be curious as know for certain the political leanings in this forum because it seems pretty even.
As far as active members? Probably even. Lurkers? Probably the same ratio as the city council. Are there 2 Dems now?
Yes, RA, the city has changed a bit since 1971.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 09, 2011, 08:44:48 PM
Yes, RA, the city has changed a bit since 1971.
Your old. ;D O/T. I hope the changes with yesterdays vote lifts the party stuff out of local politics. Hoss is right to a degree that social issues such as LGBT or abortion have little to do with running a city. Still, a candidate's position on immigration, health care, housing, which are part of the national dialogue, do have a place in local politics in my opinion.
Perhaps it will increase participation. I asked the folks I work with if they voted yesterday. Aged 21 to 40. None of them had voted. One didn't even know there was an election till she saw names streaming across her shows which irritated her. We are governed by what, 10% of our population? Shameful.
Quote from: AquaMan on November 09, 2011, 09:19:50 PM
Perhaps it will increase participation. I asked the folks I work with if they voted yesterday. Aged 21 to 40. None of them had voted. One didn't even know there was an election till she saw names streaming across her shows which irritated her. We are governed by what, 10% of our population? Shameful.
It's more than shameful, it's damned embarrassing. Just think about sitting in a movie theater with 100 people and only 10 voted. In a theater with 1,000, only 100 voted....
Quote from: guido911 on November 09, 2011, 09:13:02 PM
You're old.
Yep. Pretty soon all you youngsters will supporting me on Social Security. ;D
Quote from: guido911 on November 09, 2011, 09:31:10 PM
Just think about sitting in a movie theater with 100 people and only 10 voted.
And how many of those 10 actually knew what they were voting for.
More frightening yet.
Quote from: guido911 on November 09, 2011, 09:13:02 PM
Your old. ;D O/T. I hope the changes with yesterdays vote lifts the party stuff out of local politics. Hoss is right to a degree that social issues such as LGBT or abortion have little to do with running a city. Still, a candidate's position on immigration, health care, housing, which are part of the national dialogue, do have a place in local politics in my opinion.
But not to the same extent though, because the local politicians can't really effect change upon any of those to a measurable degree. Sure, they might be able to pass on recommendations to those in higher state or even national offices. Maybe housing moreso, but health care and immigration, as the subjects are understood within the context of the current national dialogue on both, aren't affected in nearly the same way.
What I worry about in a city leader? What are you going to do to fix infrastructure and how do you plan to pay for it? How do you intend to work with the CoC to bring business, and therefore jobs, to the metro area (not just Tulsa because when suburbs win we all win)? What can you do to make sure you balance the budget in a fashion that doesn't break the bank but also lays out a framework to promote this city and area for that matter as not just a destination for businesses, but for people looking for change? How do you retain those young people who have made Tulsa their home for four years at TU to want to work and start a family here.
I know I won't curry a lot of favor when I say this here, but I think the Vision 2025 package was the most progressive and smart thing this city has voted on in years. Sure, it took two tries to get something like it passed, but I think it will pay for itself in spades over the long run. I wasn't a huge fan of Mayor LaFortune, but he deserves big kudos for working that vote over. Even the Boeing part of the vote was smart. It was a win/win. We get the Boeing plant and we would have had a huge job influx. Didn't get it? Who cares? We don't pay for the tax.
My concern now is that the council election will become a free-for-all with 12 candidates running for office in each district. But I think this method will be better overall, because, as I stated before, not only will it force voters to be more diligent about finding out whom they're voting on, it will make candidates less nervous about stating what their stands on issues are. Those that know me know the following:
I'm a registered Democrat (only because of the stupid closed primary rule; if I could register Independent or Whig I would)
I'm a social Democrat. While I'm against abortion, I think it's the woman's right to choose what she does to her body and to live with those consequences, however they affect her.
I'm ambiguous about gay marriage, although I will say it should be their right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
I believe in what Clinton called a 'hand up' and not a 'hand out'.
I believe that Social Security should stay solvent, but we better start looking at other means. In other words, don't touch what I've already put in to the system over the course of my working life. :)
Fiscally, I'm a moderate conservative. I can't understand how we got to this point, although I'm sure two wars (one of which we should never have been in) didn't help.
We need to trim everywhere we can, and nothing is off the table aside from SS for the time being.
We should increase taxes where it's prudent. Everyone should have skin in the game, and it should be equal proportions with the exception of those people deemed to be in poverty (for me, this is those people who choose to work lower-paying jobs to try and stay afloat). These are the people that need the 'hand up'.
Change the tax code. Stop using stupid catch phrases like 9-9-9. Make it simple, but also make it something with feasibility and that is financially viable for the future of this country.
And finally...I know Washington will never read this.
Quit.Bickering. Among.Yourselves.And.Fix.The.Problems.In.This.Country.
Sorry, didn't mean to put out my agenda. I just want to make sure that when I post something with some semblance of substance (and it hasn't been often lately) that everyone knows where I come from.
But yes, to answer, it does embarass me that only 10 percent of us voted. Your civic duty. I used to complain at my dad when he would grumble about our current president (whatever president it happened to be at the time). My dad has never registered to vote. I finally told him 'you can't complain because unless you're voting, you're not part of the solution'.
Quote from: Hoss on November 09, 2011, 09:48:16 PM
I finally told him 'you can't complain because unless you're voting, you're not part of the solution'.
I have always called my vote the right to complain.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 09:32:52 PM
Yep. Pretty soon all you youngsters will supporting me on Social Security. ;D
Thanks for the grammar fix. I better double check the brief I'm writing tonight....
Quote from: Hoss on November 09, 2011, 09:48:16 PM
But not to the same extent though, because the local politicians can't really effect change upon any of those to a measurable degree. Sure, they might be able to pass on recommendations to those in higher state or even national offices. Maybe housing moreso, but health care and immigration, as the subjects are understood within the context of the current national dialogue on both, aren't affected in nearly the same way.
What I worry about in a city leader? What are you going to do to fix infrastructure and how do you plan to pay for it? How do you intend to work with the CoC to bring business, and therefore jobs, to the metro area (not just Tulsa because when suburbs win we all win)? What can you do to make sure you balance the budget in a fashion that doesn't break the bank but also lays out a framework to promote this city and area for that matter as not just a destination for businesses, but for people looking for change? How do you retain those young people who have made Tulsa their home for four years at TU to want to work and start a family here.
I know I won't curry a lot of favor when I say this here, but I think the Vision 2025 package was the most progressive and smart thing this city has voted on in years. Sure, it took two tries to get something like it passed, but I think it will pay for itself in spades over the long run. I wasn't a huge fan of Mayor LaFortune, but he deserves big kudos for working that vote over. Even the Boeing part of the vote was smart. It was a win/win. We get the Boeing plant and we would have had a huge job influx. Didn't get it? Who cares? We don't pay for the tax.
My concern now is that the council election will become a free-for-all with 12 candidates running for office in each district. But I think this method will be better overall, because, as I stated before, not only will it force voters to be more diligent about finding out whom they're voting on, it will make candidates less nervous about stating what their stands on issues are. Those that know me know the following:
I'm a registered Democrat (only because of the stupid closed primary rule; if I could register Independent or Whig I would)
I'm a social Democrat. While I'm against abortion, I think it's the woman's right to choose what she does to her body and to live with those consequences, however they affect her.
I'm ambiguous about gay marriage, although I will say it should be their right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
I believe in what Clinton called a 'hand up' and not a 'hand out'.
I believe that Social Security should stay solvent, but we better start looking at other means. In other words, don't touch what I've already put in to the system over the course of my working life. :)
Fiscally, I'm a moderate conservative. I can't understand how we got to this point, although I'm sure two wars (one of which we should never have been in) didn't help.
We need to trim everywhere we can, and nothing is off the table aside from SS for the time being.
We should increase taxes where it's prudent. Everyone should have skin in the game, and it should be equal proportions with the exception of those people deemed to be in poverty (for me, this is those people who choose to work lower-paying jobs to try and stay afloat). These are the people that need the 'hand up'.
Change the tax code. Stop using stupid catch phrases like 9-9-9. Make it simple, but also make it something with feasibility and that is financially viable for the future of this country.
And finally...I know Washington will never read this.
Quit.Bickering. Among.Yourselves.And.Fix.The.Problems.In.This.Country.
Sorry, didn't mean to put out my agenda. I just want to make sure that when I post something with some semblance of substance (and it hasn't been often lately) that everyone knows where I come from.
But yes, to answer, it does embarass me that only 10 percent of us voted. Your civic duty. I used to complain at my dad when he would grumble about our current president (whatever president it happened to be at the time). My dad has never registered to vote. I finally told him 'you can't complain because unless you're voting, you're not part of the solution'.
It is well documented that I am a single issue voter: Life. I am anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. It's the Catholic in me and life experience. Taxes, social security, and everything else are a far second.
Quote from: guido911 on November 09, 2011, 10:31:42 PM
It is well documented that I am a single issue voter: Life. I am anti-death penalty and anti-abortion.
I applaud your consistency on this issue. Anti-abortion pro-death penalty people make me go ???.