I just wanted to start talking about the upcoming elections. The filing period is only about eight weeks away.
The election board has the filing period for Tulsa city council offices January 14, 15 and 16. The primary is only seven weeks later and the general election is only four weeks after that. The actual date of the general election is April 1st (insert your own April fool's joke here).
I read that Roscoe Turner has already announced a bid for re-election and heard that Maria Barnes is having an announcement event this weekend.
Do we know any other incumbents that have announced? Do we have any names of challengers?
I heard Cason Carter is not running again--is that correct? If so, District 9 should be an interesting race.
We should get challengers from the forum for each district.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
We should get challengers from the forum for each district.
Don't you live in District 4? You willing to run?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I heard Cason Carter is not running again--is that correct? If so, District 9 should be an interesting race.
Carter is running for state Senate to seek the term limited seat of James Williamson. It's been common knowledge since before he was elected as Dist 9 Councilor that he was really interested in being a Senator, and the Council was just a steppingstone. I heard Troyer(District 6) won't seek re- election.
I thought Grizzle Acres was in south Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I thought Grizzle Acres was in south Tulsa.
The GrizPalace is in district 8 - Christiansen.
I guess I could run on the "just shut up and build the dang sidewalk" ticket against christiansen.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I guess I could run on the "just shut up and build the dang sidewalk" ticket against christiansen.
Under the idea that Councilor Eagleton brought up (and which they use for city elections in Minneapolis (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/minneapolis-uses-ballot-descript.html%22)), you'd be able to put an abbreviated form of that ticket name on the ballot next to your name. (Minneapolis allows three words.)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I guess I could run on the "just shut up and build the dang sidewalk" ticket against christiansen.
Under the idea that Councilor Eagleton brought up (and which they use for city elections in Minneapolis (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/minneapolis-uses-ballot-descript.html%22)), you'd be able to put an abbreviated form of that ticket name on the ballot next to your name. (Minneapolis allows three words.)
Hmm... Three words or less?
Scott Grizzle (R) - Not Christiansen
Scott Grizzle (R) - Free beer
Scott Grizzle (R) - Will fix roads
I don't know what my three words would be.
RecycleMichael - Man with plan.
RecycleMichael - Larger than life.
RecycleMichael - Friendly, Funny, Furry.
It would probably be smart to have words that would show up in search engines...
RecycleMichael - Britney, Hillary, Sex.
RecycleMichael - Enter and win!
Maybe the strategy should be to use words that help convince them to choose you...
RecycleMichael - Just do it.
RecycleMichael - Check this box.
RecycleMichael - Already declared winner.
I could also just lie (I am probably expected to as a politician)...
RecycleMichael - Invented the Internet.
RecycleMichael - Tiger's Golf Coach.
My best chance is probably just to be myself.
RecycleMichael - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't know what my three words would be.
RecycleMichael - Man with plan.
RecycleMichael - Larger than life.
RecycleMichael - Friendly, Funny, Furry.
It would probably be smart to have words that would show up in search engines...
RecycleMichael - Britney, Hillary, Sex.
RecycleMichael - Enter and win!
Maybe the strategy should be to use words that help convince them to choose you...
RecycleMichael - Just do it.
RecycleMichael - Check this box.
RecycleMichael - Already declared winner.
I could also just lie (I am probably expected to as a politician)...
RecycleMichael - Invented the Internet.
RecycleMichael - Tiger's Golf Coach.
My best chance is probably just to be myself.
RecycleMichael - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
Your slogan should be:
Spin to Win
Tulsa World Editor Ken Neal discusses low voter interest in these council races...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectID=212&articleID=071103_7_G6_Voter52705
Voter disinterest
By KEN NEAL Senior Editor
11/4/2007
Low turnout expected in next city election
Why is there so little interest in the Tulsa City Council positions? The filing period for candidates for nine council seats is only a little more than two months away and there is hardly enough interest in the races to fill a political gossip column. Incumbents have an advantage in most political races. That's even more important in the city races. For an incumbent, the less said about the coming election, the better. The timing of the city elections is such that holidays occupy the public attention and then boom, it's too late for most challengers to mount a campaign.
So if you're an incumbent it's best to mention the election in whispers. It's a far cry from the days when most City Hall races were hotly contested; when all city commissioners ran citywide and mayors served for two years. The voter turnout since the mayor/council form of government was adopted in 1989 suggests that interest in city politics has steadily declined. Is that the fault of the form of government?
There is speculation that the almost constant bickering that comes with dividing the city into nine districts has turned off many voters. That does show up in the voting for the councilors. In the last comparable City Hall election, the non-mayoral race year of 2004, less than 8 percent of the registered voters even bothered to cast a ballot.
For example, District 1 Councilor Jack Henderson won that race in which only 1,403 voters of about 20,000 eligible cast ballots. There was a pattern of low turnout in the district races. The lack of a mayoral race on the ballot in 2008 probably will result in another low voter turnout. But in even the hotly contested race of 2006, Mayor Kathy Taylor and incumbent Bill LaFortune attracted less than 27 percent, or about 77,000, of the city's registered voters. That's shameful. In some European countries, a turnout of less than 50 percent of the voters is not considered a valid election.
When was the record voter turnout in a city election set? You have to go back 23 years for that record. In 1984, Terry Young beat Jim Inhofe, now a U.S. senator, by fewer than 1,000 votes of 96,000 cast, still the record for a city election. That race was one of the last of the commission form of government under which Tulsa functioned until 1989. In that system, four commissioners and the mayor ran citywide. Clearly, that generated more voter interest and thus more voter participation than the current form.
Under the commission form, all voters got to vote on six races (including the city auditor). Under the mayor/council form, voters cast ballots on but three races, the mayor, the auditor and a district councilor. Ironically, the council system, intended to provide more direct citizen representation, has discouraged voter participation. One of the consistent complaints of voters is that the ward politics that go with a district system so disgusts voters that they are discouraged from voting.
In the comparable campaign of 2004, only six of the nine councilor races were on the general election ballot. The other three councilor posts had been decided in the primary election that year. What kind of a campaign and voter turnout is expected in 2008? If 2004 is a guide, less than 14,000 of the city's 243,090 voters will bother to vote. In some councilor districts, fewer than 2,000 votes were cast. No district attracted more than 3,000 voters.
Odds are, Tulsans will greet the 2008 city elections with a big yawn. But the antics of the council fills the newspaper columns and the airwaves between elections. Councilors elected with a margin of a few hundred votes act as if they have won in a landslide. If there is a suggestion that at least some of councilors ought to be elected citywide, there are howls of protest, usually from district councilors and their supporters.
The filing period for city offices is Jan. 14, 15, and 16. The primary election is March 4; the general election for April 1. Sadly, the voting record suggests that not many Tulsans care.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I just wanted to start talking about the upcoming elections. The filing period is only about eight weeks away.
The election board has the filing period for Tulsa city council offices January 14, 15 and 16. The primary is only seven weeks later and the general election is only four weeks after that. The actual date of the general election is April 1st (insert your own April fool's joke here).
I read that Roscoe Turner has already announced a bid for re-election and heard that Maria Barnes is having an announcement event this weekend.
Do we know any other incumbents that have announced? Do we have any names of challengers?
Due to the vote on increasing the salaries of the councilors and them taking on more time of their own to run the city from an off stage position, it would appear that very true leaders would not consider running for council. As one is aware there seems no one among us on this form that has the gift of leadership that can bridge the gap between the citizens and those who want to dictate the rules.
If the council was made full time at a $100,000 dollars a year and eliminate the Trusts and Authorities, making the obligation designated an implied duty, as a republic form of government, subject to the voting public and abandon this one person rule we have installed as an amended charter.
Councilors sitting five days for eight hours in session would be much more productive in reversing the down sliding of the city responsibility to the public. They could have a hand on duplicating services and funds. When the founders hired the lamp lighter they didn't hire a person to carry the ladder nor light the match for him.
The bottom line will lie with how much time it will consume and how much will it pay.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Tulsa World Editor Ken Neal discusses low voter interest in these council races...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectID=212&articleID=071103_7_G6_Voter52705
Voter disinterest
By KEN NEAL Senior Editor
11/4/2007
Low turnout expected in next city election
Why is there so little interest in the Tulsa City Council positions? The filing period for candidates for nine council seats is only a little more than two months away and there is hardly enough interest in the races to fill a political gossip column. Incumbents have an advantage in most political races. That's even more important in the city races. For an incumbent, the less said about the coming election, the better. The timing of the city elections is such that holidays occupy the public attention and then boom, it's too late for most challengers to mount a campaign.
So if you're an incumbent it's best to mention the election in whispers. It's a far cry from the days when most City Hall races were hotly contested; when all city commissioners ran citywide and mayors served for two years. The voter turnout since the mayor/council form of government was adopted in 1989 suggests that interest in city politics has steadily declined. Is that the fault of the form of government?
There is speculation that the almost constant bickering that comes with dividing the city into nine districts has turned off many voters. That does show up in the voting for the councilors. In the last comparable City Hall election, the non-mayoral race year of 2004, less than 8 percent of the registered voters even bothered to cast a ballot.
For example, District 1 Councilor Jack Henderson won that race in which only 1,403 voters of about 20,000 eligible cast ballots. There was a pattern of low turnout in the district races. The lack of a mayoral race on the ballot in 2008 probably will result in another low voter turnout. But in even the hotly contested race of 2006, Mayor Kathy Taylor and incumbent Bill LaFortune attracted less than 27 percent, or about 77,000, of the city's registered voters. That's shameful. In some European countries, a turnout of less than 50 percent of the voters is not considered a valid election.
When was the record voter turnout in a city election set? You have to go back 23 years for that record. In 1984, Terry Young beat Jim Inhofe, now a U.S. senator, by fewer than 1,000 votes of 96,000 cast, still the record for a city election. That race was one of the last of the commission form of government under which Tulsa functioned until 1989. In that system, four commissioners and the mayor ran citywide. Clearly, that generated more voter interest and thus more voter participation than the current form.
Under the commission form, all voters got to vote on six races (including the city auditor). Under the mayor/council form, voters cast ballots on but three races, the mayor, the auditor and a district councilor. Ironically, the council system, intended to provide more direct citizen representation, has discouraged voter participation. One of the consistent complaints of voters is that the ward politics that go with a district system so disgusts voters that they are discouraged from voting.
In the comparable campaign of 2004, only six of the nine councilor races were on the general election ballot. The other three councilor posts had been decided in the primary election that year. What kind of a campaign and voter turnout is expected in 2008? If 2004 is a guide, less than 14,000 of the city's 243,090 voters will bother to vote. In some councilor districts, fewer than 2,000 votes were cast. No district attracted more than 3,000 voters.
Odds are, Tulsans will greet the 2008 city elections with a big yawn. But the antics of the council fills the newspaper columns and the airwaves between elections. Councilors elected with a margin of a few hundred votes act as if they have won in a landslide. If there is a suggestion that at least some of councilors ought to be elected citywide, there are howls of protest, usually from district councilors and their supporters.
The filing period for city offices is Jan. 14, 15, and 16. The primary election is March 4; the general election for April 1. Sadly, the voting record suggests that not many Tulsans care.
Do I smell another push for at-large councilors? Maybe this would be the opening salvo in the push for non-partisan elections? That seems weird because non-partisan elections result in even lower voter turnouts. I love those cherry picked examples they cited as being an honest overall representation. At least they had enough shame to keep it on the editorial page for once.
You know this description thing will get abused. It's only a matter of time before someone puts on theirs "Opponent barbecues babies," or "Opponent screws goats."
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You know this description thing will get abused. It's only a matter of time before someone puts on theirs "Opponent barbecues babies," or "Opponent screws goats."
Mine should be:
Wurking Class donkey
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Tulsa World Editor Ken Neal discusses low voter interest in these council races...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectID=212&articleID=071103_7_G6_Voter52705
By KEN NEAL Senior Editor
11/4/2007
Low turnout expected in next city election
Why is there so little interest in the Tulsa City Council positions?
Because for the most part, even though they aren't anything special, they aren't that goof-wad Medlock. Who was also, nothing special, except for the goof-wad part. Heck, with all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits he generated, he might have even been terrible, or maniacal even.
Medlock the Maniacal, has a nice ring to it.
Hey! I've got an idea. Lets vote to abolish the City Council form of government and get Tulsa back on track.
We need a City Manager form of government like most cities have already gone to.
Or we could just feed our current city councilors to lions every 4 years!
Can we do that?
Sure we can do that.
I live in district 4. I gave a run at City Council about 30 seconds worth of thought. I don't need a second job which requires more hours than my day job and pays a lot less.
I do have a couple of sock-puppets in mind though...[;)]
I have heard that one of the TYpros was running as a republican against Maria Barnes in district four.
He is an investments broker named Jay Matlock who works for Longbow Asset Management. His biggest leadership accomplishment so far was that he was bonfire committee chair while at TU.
Here is his website...
http://www.jaymatlock.com/
I clicked on the issues part of his website...it looked thin to me. He is for schools and jobs and against crime.
No kidding.
His entire website is like when I tell people "That is an issue and we are working on it" which just means you acknowledge the problem without stating you have a solution, timetable, or a real desire to fix it.
I think I'll run.
My platform will be as follows.
Lure entire city councel into new time capsule and seal for 50 years.
Just kidding. Our city council has accomplished amazing things over the years that really put Tulsa on the map. I just can't think of a single one of them. Not one!
Anytime we have an opportunity to do something important as a community, the Tulsa City Council makes sure we are held back.
I'll see you all at the Jenks Drillers games.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I have heard that one of the TYpros was running as a republican against Maria Barnes in district four.
He is an investments broker named Jay Matlock who works for Longbow Asset Management. His biggest leadership accomplishment so far was that he was bonfire committee chair while at TU.
Here is his website...
http://www.jaymatlock.com/
I clicked on the issues part of his website...it looked thin to me. He is for schools and jobs and against crime.
No kidding.
C'mon RM, bonfire chair is a huge responsibility- sourcing lighter fluid, firewood, volunteers for human sacrifices. I mean that's definite qualification to help run a city.
TYPros and YPTulsa- the guy likely spends a lot of time at McNellie's which means he's up on city news.
Maybe not as important as "second TulsaNow forum postee to reach 4000 posts", but still quite impressive. [}:)]
Where's the pro-life, one-man-one-woman marriage beliefs? That's REAL important on city councils and county commissions.
I'm not against a prospective politician who spends some time in bars.
I am against a prospective politician who spends time in admittedly nice but frou-frou bars like McNellie's.
If you want to get the opinions of working-class Tulsa, go to a bar like It'll Do and bend a few ears (and elbows).
Good working-class bars should have at least two Hanks in the jukebox. Three would be ideal. And in Tulsa, it's a cardinal sin to not have Bob Wills.
^^ spot on!
I don't know him...he is probably a good guy.
But his political opinions shown on his website portray him as a real amateur.
You have to start somewhere and he should be applauded for wanting to serve, but this is a real important seat. District four encompasses half of the historic neighborhoods and zoning battles and also has downtown.
This district probably has more activists and policy wonks than any other district. It is a hard place to begin your political career.
Trying to say he should have started in HS student council?
City council is about the lowest level you can "try-out" for politics in Oklahoma.
What the hell, I'll give the kid 10 bucks and buy a keg for his watch party.
He kind of reminds me of "Flounder" from Animal House.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
I think I'll run.
My platform will be as follows.
Lure entire city councel into new time capsule and seal for 50 years.
Just kidding. Our city council has accomplished amazing things over the years that really put Tulsa on the map. I just can't think of a single one of them. Not one!
Roscoe holds some really energetic protests
Y'know, I'm all about encouraging these young people to run for office and all -- I just wish every once in awhile they actually looked to see where there was a need and what they were qualified for and ran for THAT office. Like that last absurdly unqualified TYPRO who ran for auditor (can't remember his name) against the absurdly qualified Phil Wood, this one looks like another guy who just looked around and thought, "Hey, that looks like a cool way to impress the chicks!"
Haven't agreed with Maria on everything, but she is hard-working, lives and breathes neighborhood, and understands working class issues. These young'uns looking for something to do need to go find the people doing a crappy job and run against them!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I have heard that one of the TYpros was running as a republican against Maria Barnes in district four.
He is an investments broker named Jay Matlock who works for Longbow Asset Management. His biggest leadership accomplishment so far was that he was bonfire committee chair while at TU.
Here is his website...
http://www.jaymatlock.com/
I clicked on the issues part of his website...it looked thin to me. He is for schools and jobs and against crime.
No kidding.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I'm not against a prospective politician who spends some time in bars.
I am against a prospective politician who spends time in admittedly nice but frou-frou bars like McNellie's.
If you want to get the opinions of working-class Tulsa, go to a bar like It'll Do and bend a few ears (and elbows).
Good working-class bars should have at least two Hanks in the jukebox. Three would be ideal. And in Tulsa, it's a cardinal sin to not have Bob Wills.
Well said. Don't forget Johnny Cash.
If he was that well connected, he would know someone who can do a website and not use a wizard. Also, the typros and yptulsa are strikes in my book. They are fraternities and sororities for people who wear dockers to work.
I like Mcnellies but don't believe it makes me "connected to Tulsans" by going there.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
If he was that well connected, he would know someone who can do a website and not use a wizard. Also, the typros and yptulsa are strikes in my book. They are fraternities and sororities for people who wear dockers to work.
I like Mcnellies but don't believe it makes me "connected to Tulsans" by going there.
A fortyish friend of mine called TYpros an organization for leftover fraternity types who couldn't figure out what to do with themselves after college.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
A fortyish friend of mine called TYpros an organization for leftover fraternity types who couldn't figure out what to do with themselves after college.
Hey, MB, is Jesse running again?
^^You mean against Jeannie? I heard yes--already had a fundraiser.
I've heard more talk lately about restoring Tulsa government back to the "commissioner" form.
Why not bump the councilor pay, call it full-time, and make the job two-pronged? Still have the district aspect to keep an eye out for the interests of the district, but also create nine liasion posts which would be over-all city interest in scope and assigned by random draw or demonstrated interest/ability to each councilor.
Create liasion posts for: police/fire/EMSA, Streets, public works/utilities, economic development, tax/finance, city/county cooperation, state/federal legislative, etc. Each councilor winds up with a liasion post.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've heard more talk lately about restoring Tulsa government back to the "commissioner" form.
Why not bump the councilor pay, call it full-time, and make the job two-pronged? Still have the district aspect to keep an eye out for the interests of the district, but also create nine liasion posts which would be over-all city interest in scope and assigned by random draw or demonstrated interest/ability to each councilor.
Create liasion posts for: police/fire/EMSA, Streets, public works/utilities, economic development, tax/finance, city/county cooperation, state/federal legislative, etc. Each councilor winds up with a liasion post.
I don't think throwing more money at it, hiring more people, and making it bigger will fix a poor decision making. It would just be more people to disagree and more political ambitions to fuel.
Over the years there have been more headlines in the news that start with the words "City Council Fails. . . " than I can remember.
I get frustrated sometimes and feel like we should dump the system, but in all honesty it's not the system that is flawed, it's the people. Perhaps if we institute a restrictive term limit of 4 years on the post we can routinely flush the garbage that has camped on the council since it's inception in the 90s.
There are districts of Tulsa that want to see the city blossom and have elected councilers that consistently push for measures that help the city as a whole. But, on the other side of the coin there are other councilers that will block any advances, not because they are bad for the city, but because they were not proposed in their district.
So, rather than talking to constituents and coming up with fresh progressive ideas that stimulate growth in their own districts, they spend all of their energies attempting to block advances in other districts, or attempt to divert the ideas of others to serve their interests.
The idea is to create a system that serves to represent the constituency, while at the same time serves the the city as a whole. Our counselors are like bickering children fighting over who gets to sit on the swing.
The result is, that we get gridlock. Now the exact councilors that are causing the most gridlock are the ones demanding more pay for the position.
I would be in favor of redistricting before creating a bigger meaner, and more expensive system. To a great extent, the districts we have now represent distinct ethnic, and social groups. I think a redistricting strategy that involves districts composed of diverse populations will serve the people better. I also think that redistricting could serve as a cultural bridge between people that in many cases differ greatly politically.
Hmm. . .I want to make T-shirts that say "City Council Fails."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've heard more talk lately about restoring Tulsa government back to the "commissioner" form.
Why not bump the councilor pay, call it full-time, and make the job two-pronged? Still have the district aspect to keep an eye out for the interests of the district, but also create nine liasion posts which would be over-all city interest in scope and assigned by random draw or demonstrated interest/ability to each councilor.
Create liasion posts for: police/fire/EMSA, Streets, public works/utilities, economic development, tax/finance, city/county cooperation, state/federal legislative, etc. Each councilor winds up with a liasion post.
This'd make an interesting topic. I'd really like to hear from some of the old timers. The bits and pieces I've heard seemed to indicate that the commissioner form of government created a bunch of silos, where different departments weren't communicating and were competing with each other for resources. It sounds even more dysfunctional than what we have now, if that's possible.
In contrast, having a city manager who knows how all of the parts work, and knows
how to make them work together efficiently, would be one way to key things down, politically. Well, in theory, anyway.
Spoonbill was thinking that you could dispense with the council, but that's not how it works. A city manager (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council-manager_government%22) effectively replaces the mayor. The mayor is a ceremonial position and presides over the council and, together, they have only one executive duty, which is to hire and fire city manager.
Hey, it's wikipedia civics, but at least it's something.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71
Spoonbill was thinking that you could dispense with the council, but that's not how it works. A city manager (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council-manager_government%22) effectively replaces the mayor. The mayor is a ceremonial position and presides over the council and, together, they have only one executive duty, which is to hire and fire city manager.
You are correct, I guess I diddn't communicate my position effectively, but I was serious about the "feeding to the lions" part.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Over the years there have been more headlines in the news that start with the words "City Council Fails. . . " than I can remember.
Maybe that's because the monopoly daily newspaper feels threatened by councilors who don't march to their tune.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
I get frustrated sometimes and feel like we should dump the system, but in all honesty it's not the system that is flawed, it's the people. Perhaps if we institute a restrictive term limit of 4 years on the post we can routinely flush the garbage that has camped on the council since it's inception in the 90s.
Term limits have their merits, but which councilor is human garbage in your estimation?
Very few councilors have served more than two terms in the history of the City Council. No one has been on the Council since its inception in 1990.
A majority of the current councilors are in their first term, Martinson was elected in 2005, Henderson came on in 2004. Only two councilors have been in office more than four years: Christiansen was elected in 2002. Turner was elected in November 1998 but was out of office between 2002 and 2004.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
There are districts of Tulsa that want to see the city blossom and have elected councilers that consistently push for measures that help the city as a whole. But, on the other side of the coin there are other councilers that will block any advances, not because they are bad for the city, but because they were not proposed in their district.
So, rather than talking to constituents and coming up with fresh progressive ideas that stimulate growth in their own districts, they spend all of their energies attempting to block advances in other districts, or attempt to divert the ideas of others to serve their interests.
The idea is to create a system that serves to represent the constituency, while at the same time serves the the city as a whole. Our counselors are like bickering children fighting over who gets to sit on the swing.
The result is, that we get gridlock. Now the exact councilors that are causing the most gridlock are the ones demanding more pay for the position.
You've done a fine job of articulating the "City Council is an obstruction to progress" meme that the daily paper has been pushing ever since 2004, when for the first time the paper failed to elect a majority of its endorsees to the council. Can you back up your broad assertions with specific examples? It's hard to debate generalities.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
I would be in favor of redistricting before creating a bigger meaner, and more expensive system. To a great extent, the districts we have now represent distinct ethnic, and social groups. I think a redistricting strategy that involves districts composed of diverse populations will serve the people better. I also think that redistricting could serve as a cultural bridge between people that in many cases differ greatly politically.
Hmm. . .I want to make T-shirts that say "City Council Fails."
I think I see where you're going with this: You want to split up the northside between southside districts so that there aren't enough northsiders in any one district to get one of their own elected or even to influence the outcome in any district, so that the council will be made up solely of "sensible southsiders," without any of those "crazy northsiders" to get in the way.
If that's an accurate depiction of your point of view, you need to read that sermon, "Hidden America," by Marlin Lavanhar (//%22http://www.okdemocrat.com/OKDemocrat/posts/115280.html%22).
One of the reasons we have a City Council is so that the decision-making process is representative of our city's diversity. That wasn't the case under the Commission form of government. Even with a geographically-elected Council, we fall short because our mayorally-appointed boards and commissions overwhelmingly come from affluent neighborhoods in midtown and south Tulsa -- the Money Belt. (That's been true, as far as I know, under every mayor of every political stripe.)
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've heard more talk lately about restoring Tulsa government back to the "commissioner" form.
Why not bump the councilor pay, call it full-time, and make the job two-pronged? Still have the district aspect to keep an eye out for the interests of the district, but also create nine liasion posts which would be over-all city interest in scope and assigned by random draw or demonstrated interest/ability to each councilor.
Create liasion posts for: police/fire/EMSA, Streets, public works/utilities, economic development, tax/finance, city/county cooperation, state/federal legislative, etc. Each councilor winds up with a liasion post.
This'd make an interesting topic. I'd really like to hear from some of the old timers. The bits and pieces I've heard seemed to indicate that the commissioner form of government created a bunch of silos, where different departments weren't communicating and were competing with each other for resources. It sounds even more dysfunctional than what we have now, if that's possible.
In contrast, having a city manager who knows how all of the parts work, and knows how to make them work together efficiently, would be one way to key things down, politically. Well, in theory, anyway.
Spoonbill was thinking that you could dispense with the council, but that's not how it works. A city manager (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council-manager_government%22) effectively replaces the mayor. The mayor is a ceremonial position and presides over the council and, together, they have only one executive duty, which is to hire and fire city manager.
Hey, it's wikipedia civics, but at least it's something.
Just for clarification as Spoonbill noted my lapse in specificity- my idea is that a coucilor would
also assume duty as one of nine specific liasons which have city-wide interest along with having there district interests. I'm not in favor of hiring nine new people for liasion positions.
That might lend itself to criticism that say, the district 1 councilor is the street liasion for his/her term so all the road projects go to district 1. I think with eight other votes on the council that would keep selfish use of the liasion position in check.
Just my version of tinker-toy politics. [;)]
Marvin almost has it right, but it is not as much about race, as it is about socioeconomic status and geographic inequity. Remember the river tax failed in west and east Tulsa, too. This is class war, and the greasers are ready to rumble.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Marvin almost has it right, but it is not as much about race, as it is about socioeconomic status and geographic inequity. Remember the river tax failed in west and east Tulsa, too. This is class war, and the greasers are ready to rumble.
(http://www.manic.com.sg/blog/images/outsiders.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
This is class war, and the greasers are ready to rumble.
I know you often post about how everything is a class war, but I disagree.
I know of many poor people who supported or opposed the river tax and I know of poor and rich who are on every side of every other issue.
Stop focusing on who has more than you and life will be a lot happier.
What does geographic inequity mean? That makes no sense. Obviously, there is nothing inherent in the north or west side that makes it "unequal." If I moved there tomorrow, my vote would count just as much as it does now. I agree with Marlin Lavanhar, that we need to examine race relationships in Tulsa, to really come to terms with what continues to divide us as a city. I also am against returning to the old Commission form of government. However, I grow frustrated with the constant bombastic statements that somehow everything is a vast conspiracy against the north side (or the west side, or the Christians, or whomever). I am sick of people vilifying those with different opinions, instead of really listening and engaging in a true debate. As long as people like AA insist that anyone with a different opinion is a nazi, we will never get anywhere.
I've slept once or twice and drank a whole lot of beer since we went to the council form of government- but, as I recall one of the reasons we made the change to the charter was that the north and west side felt they were consistently left behind by the various commissioners. The council form of government was established to ensure that all geographic areas of the city had an equal seat at the table on streets, sewers, sanitation, public safety, etc.
As I recall some of the jokes were if you wanted to find out where the street commissioner lived, just drive around until you found pristine streets. If you wanted to figure out who was giving him graft, drive around for another 30 minutes until you found more pristine streets.
Now the complaint is, 17 or so years later, that none of the essential services which had an elected official over them have enough oversight or supervisory management which is accountable to voters, it's all run by relatively invisible bureaucrats.
It's an off-the-cuff idea, but giving each councilor an additional supervisory responsibility over an essential service(s) would somewhat bring that accountability back to the voters. Granted, only 1/9 of the city has a say in whether that councilor is re-elected, but let's say the draw for the liasion positions is changed every election cycle and a councilor cannot hold the liasion post more than once.
Having it be a blind draw after all councilors are seated would help keep any one councilor from recieving a disproportionate amount of additional campaign funds directed at them from special interests (as much as there are in city elections anyhow). Also drafting into the rules on this that any councilor who might have a conflict of interest (i.e. an asphalt company owner) could not take a liason post, and would have to recuse and be drawn again for another position.
Seems to me we got what is deserved by acting out of fear to change from the commissioner form of government in the 80's.
I wonder if more people would show up to overturn the current (feudal form back to the previous country club) form of city government than would show up to vote for councilors.
Ask Ken Neal....he knows everything.
Paul Tay has announced he is running for council district nine.
Different circus, same clown.
The item below... Is a portion of the City Council agenda for tonight.
A few of these items may well have an effect on the faces and names that "hear the call to serve" on the new Council...
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Charterchange.jpg)
Again with the council salary issue? Sheesh. I wonder which one of them came up with that?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Again with the council salary issue? Sheesh. I wonder which one of them came up with that?
Somebody fill a pothole! Winter is coming!
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Again with the council salary issue? Sheesh. I wonder which one of them came up with that?
Somebody fill a pothole! Winter is coming!
I think the Councilors should make more, but I will oppose this if their pay is based on half of the Mayor's salary, as proposed. The auditor's office should not be appointed, but it should become a non-partisan election with established professional auditing credentials and qualifications as a prerequisite to seek the office of Auditor. The qualified elector change is somewhat vague, does this mean that someone will have to be a qualified elector for the six-month period immediately preceding the first day of the filing period prescribed by law? Will this change the age requirements?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
What does geographic inequity mean? That makes no sense. Obviously, there is nothing inherent in the north or west side that makes it "unequal." If I moved there tomorrow, my vote would count just as much as it does now. I agree with Marlin Lavanhar, that we need to examine race relationships in Tulsa, to really come to terms with what continues to divide us as a city. I also am against returning to the old Commission form of government. However, I grow frustrated with the constant bombastic statements that somehow everything is a vast conspiracy against the north side (or the west side, or the Christians, or whomever). I am sick of people vilifying those with different opinions, instead of really listening and engaging in a true debate. As long as people like AA insist that anyone with a different opinion is a nazi, we will never get anywhere.
Maybe we should all just stay in denial about the dysfunction, stay in denial about the fact that race really was not as much as a factor the river tax defeat, as socioeconomic status as evidenced by the fact that it failed on the east side and west side. Geographic inequity(maybe inequality would be a better description) means certain areas of town get neglected while others get preferential treatment, based on where they are geographically located. It's pretty simple. I'm not surprised that this would be foreign concept to a Maple Ridge resident. Ya know, those folks who know what's best for the rest of us, that Marv was talking about. Latte/limousine liberals, who are so out of touch with the reality faced by so many fellow Tulsans, that they would suggest that those who opposed a regressive river tax on themselves to benefit Maple Ridgers suffer from some sort of mental infirmity or lower intelligence. It might be more palatable for the Triple L's to digest through their faith based daze of denial by blaming race relations(sure, it played a part) as the primary cause of the river tax failure, but the empirical evidence says otherwise.
BTW, is the TMAPC ever going to weigh in on Preserve Midtown's request and petition to enact a moratorium on tear downs and lot splits in districts 4 and 9?
How about the fact that Owasso resident John Smalligo serves on the CITY of Tulsa Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee in direct violation of our charter?
***G. Appoint, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council, the members of all boards, commissions, authorities, and agencies created by this amended Charter, ordinance, agreement, or pursuant to law, and exercise general control and supervision thereof, provided, all appointees shall, as a condition of their appointment and continued service, be qualified electors and maintain their principal residence within the city limits of the City of Tulsa
NOTE: Subsection G of this section was amended to read as above by an amendment voted April 4, 2006, and approved by the Governor on June 6, 2006. There were 61,864 votes in favor of the amendment and 11,757 votes against the amendment. The title to this amendment read:
Shall the Charter of the City of Tulsa be amended to provide members of city boards, commissions, authorities, and agencies shall be residents and qualified electors of the City of Tulsa?
There is nothing more disappointing than conformers who masquerade as reformers to get elected or appointed.
Read your words again, doubleA.
Boards, Authorities and Commissions are formal structures with members appointed and confirmed by the City Council. This is a committee.
There is a difference.
And the preacher's name is Marlin, not Marvin or Marv.
There is no proof that socio-economic status was a factor in the river vote. Very rich Owasso neighborhoods opposed the vote and the low income Overview apartments in southwest Tulsa passed it.
Everything is not class warfare.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Read your words again, doubleA.
Boards, Authorities and Commissions are formal structures with members appointed and confirmed by the City Council. This is a committee.
There is a difference.
And the preacher's name is Marlin, not Marvin or Marv.
There is no proof that socio-economic status was a factor in the river vote. Very rich Owasso neighborhoods opposed the vote and the low income Overview apartments in southwest Tulsa passed it.
Everything is not class warfare.
Talking about Overlook Apartments on 33 W. Ave? Not exactly low income like Cherry Hill at 61st & Union. The quickest thing I could Google suggests rents of $570 to $867 for 2 beds ranging from 765 sq. ft. to 1000 sq. ft. That's on par with many south Tulsa complexes.
Where are you getting the 411 that residents of that complex approved it? If you are basing it on the precinct that serves that complex, keep in mind that there are also some relatively nice housing sub-divisions in the immediate area and Inverness Village (upscale retirement) is about a mile down the road.
<DoubleA wrote:
Maybe we should all just stay in denial about the dysfunction, stay in denial about the fact that race really was not as much as a factor the river tax defeat, as socioeconomic status as evidenced by the fact that it failed on the east side and west side.
<end clip>
Maybe you should have listened to actual westsiders before writing that statement.
It wasn't socioeconomic issues or any of that other mumbojumbo you're spouting. The river tax failed out here because Randi Miller is a screwup and the perception that it was a rushed, half*ssed plan. That's what I was hearing.
AA, first, the comp plan. As I have told you before, under STATE law, the Tulsa METROPOLITAN AREA Planning Commission has ultimate authority over the comprehensive plan. The TMAPC, who will ultimately recommend approval of the plan, has both county (3) and city (6) members. Without some county involvement in the steering committee, you would have some real problems when it came time for adoption. The steering committee simply is not exclusively a city committee. If the planning commission were a city planning commission, I would agree with you. But as long as the TMAPC operates under a joint agreement with the county, you are going to need to involve the county.
As for the rest of your post, thanks for once again proving my point. I was trying to get at the inaccuracy of your statement regarding "geographic inequity." The problems of our city cannot simply be explained based upon where you live. If all of the residents of Maple ridge moved to the north side, I have no doubt that the north side would get the attention they deserve. As Marlin explained, we need to get to the root of what is the true problem. Instead of responding, you simply accuse me of not understanding because of where I live. How ridiculous. Yes, life's problems are much easier to explain when its all about class warfare and geographic inequity. But, in truth, life is full of shades of gray. You know I have defended you in the past, but your "angry young man" routine is getting really old. Keep attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and soon no one will listen. Stop tilting at windmills, and try to engage in real debate.
The overlook apartments precinct voted in favor of the proposal. They are a westside precinct, yet DoubleA says that the westside opposed the project. I live in East Tulsa, I voted for the tax, yet he says that because of where I live, I vote a certain way.
There is no geographic inequity in issues like this. There are many factors in why most people vote the way they do, location of residence is a small part of that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
AA, first, the comp plan. As I have told you before, under STATE law, the Tulsa METROPOLITAN AREA Planning Commission has ultimate authority over the comprehensive plan. The TMAPC, who will ultimately recommend approval of the plan, has both county (3) and city (6) members. Without some county involvement in the steering committee, you would have some real problems when it came time for adoption. The steering committee simply is not exclusively a city committee. If the planning commission were a city planning commission, I would agree with you. But as long as the TMAPC operates under a joint agreement with the county, you are going to need to involve the county.
As for the rest of your post, thanks for once again proving my point. I was trying to get at the inaccuracy of your statement regarding "geographic inequity." The problems of our city cannot simply be explained based upon where you live. If all of the residents of Maple ridge moved to the north side, I have no doubt that the north side would get the attention they deserve. As Marlin explained, we need to get to the root of what is the true problem. Instead of responding, you simply accuse me of not understanding because of where I live. How ridiculous. Yes, life's problems are much easier to explain when its all about class warfare and geographic inequity. But, in truth, life is full of shades of gray. You know I have defended you in the past, but your "angry young man" routine is getting really old. Keep attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and soon no one will listen. Stop tilting at windmills, and try to engage in real debate.
Actually, I was told he was serving on this committee because the County is contributing funding, yet to my knowledge no county funding has materialized to date. Has it? This is the city of Tulsa comprehensive plan update, not the Tulsa metropolitan area comprehensive plan. It is funded by the city of Tulsa, if Tulsans wanted Owasso residents deciding who will be hired to develop our comprehensive plan they wouldn't have voted for the charter amendment. Cosigning the B.S. speaks volumes. Nice dodge on the Preserve Midtown question, BTW.
I was at a luncheon today where Auditor Phil Wood announced his re-election plans.
He has my support.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
AA, first, the comp plan. As I have told you before, under STATE law, the Tulsa METROPOLITAN AREA Planning Commission has ultimate authority over the comprehensive plan. The TMAPC, who will ultimately recommend approval of the plan, has both county (3) and city (6) members. Without some county involvement in the steering committee, you would have some real problems when it came time for adoption. The steering committee simply is not exclusively a city committee. If the planning commission were a city planning commission, I would agree with you. But as long as the TMAPC operates under a joint agreement with the county, you are going to need to involve the county.
As for the rest of your post, thanks for once again proving my point. I was trying to get at the inaccuracy of your statement regarding "geographic inequity." The problems of our city cannot simply be explained based upon where you live. If all of the residents of Maple ridge moved to the north side, I have no doubt that the north side would get the attention they deserve. As Marlin explained, we need to get to the root of what is the true problem. Instead of responding, you simply accuse me of not understanding because of where I live. How ridiculous. Yes, life's problems are much easier to explain when its all about class warfare and geographic inequity. But, in truth, life is full of shades of gray. You know I have defended you in the past, but your "angry young man" routine is getting really old. Keep attacking everyone who disagrees with you, and soon no one will listen. Stop tilting at windmills, and try to engage in real debate.
Actually, I was told he was serving on this committee because the County is contributing funding, yet to my knowledge no county funding has materialized to date. Has it? This is the city of Tulsa comprehensive plan update, not the Tulsa metropolitan area comprehensive plan. It is funded by the city of Tulsa, if Tulsans wanted Owasso residents deciding who will be hired to develop our comprehensive plan they wouldn't have voted for the charter amendment. Cosigning the B.S. speaks volumes. Nice dodge on the Preserve Midtown question, BTW.
Nice dodge on all other issues, BTW. Unless the city of Tulsa decides to move away from a metropolitan planning commission, the comprehensive plan must be approved by the joint city/county TMAPC. Read the state statute--Title 19A, Section 863 et al. Funding is irrelevant. I have no idea who, beside the funds put in by the city, will ultimately be funding the comp plan. Since we don't know how much it will cost, that's a bit premature. By the way, everyone involved in this process has recognized that it is a two part endeavor--first, update the city, second, update unincorporated county, at least within Tulsa's fence line.
As for PreserveMidtown--from what I have heard, their real interest is in adoption of a conservation district, which Councilor Barnes has unequivocally stated she supports. My understanding is that she has been pulling together information from other cities and previous research, and setting up meetings with key neighborhood advocates. I suspect we will see something very soon with conservation districts. Since all zoning code amendments must ultimately be approved by the City Council, it makes no sense for the TMAPC to act unless and until City Council indicates their support.
I am ready to return to the former form of city government, where citizens knew the identity of the commissioner who was responsible for certain functions of Tulsa City Government, whereas today no one has any responsibility for anything, it is always someones elses responsibility. Just think we could kick the street commissioner out of office for the current conditions of our streets; got a water problem, could contact the Commissioner office who is responsible for the Water department...not satisfied, get that commissioner booted next election.. Today no one is responsible for anything thing.
quote:
Originally posted by BASleuth
I am ready to return to the former form of city government, where citizens knew the identity of the commissioner who was responsible for certain functions of Tulsa City Government, whereas today no one has any responsibility for anything, it is always someones elses responsibility. Just think we could kick the street commissioner out of office for the current conditions of our streets; got a water problem, could contact the Commissioner office who is responsible for the Water department...not satisfied, get that commissioner booted next election.. Today no one is responsible for anything thing.
Yeah, well they changed that because supposedly west and north Tulsa were always ignored. We changed to a representative council form of government and what happened?
After 17 years (it was 1990 when it changed, wasn't it?) The west side and north side still say they are being ignored.
If we changed back the west side and north side will, surprise, still claim to be ignored.
We changed from a Commission form of government due primarily to a Supreme Court ruling on similar City governments being unConstitutional in representation. Believe it a city in PA which brought the issue. But, Tulsa's was exactly similar and subject to the ruling.
Only then, did leaders decide to change our form of government to representative, yet leaving the 'strong' Mayor (i.e., weak Council) form, which minimizes actual representation.
Under the former charter commissioner form of government the commissioners could be found in their offices where a citizen with a complaint could drop in and discuss their problems.
The amending of the system of government was submitted to the voters previously with eleven councilors which the voter defeated. The Lords of the circle brought a political expert, at a cost of excess of $200,000 dollars who was elected mayor. The city spent $23,000 dollars to revise the eleven representatives to nine. Then the charter was resubmitted which was a new form of government called as amending the charter.
Before the amendments were add (case law allows the amending of any section of a city charter or all sections but you must itemize each section that the voter wants to amend in order for the voter to be selective to that part they want to amend.) The amending of the charter was done by including all the sections under a single ballot title that exceeded the limitation in the number of words.
The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line. The previous system was a mayor/commissioner form which was changed to a dominating mayor who grants permission to the weak councilors before any action is taken.
The archives will show that the changing of city governments had come to be an prevailing issue of the time as the strong mayor concept was acceptable as apathy was being overrun by the inflation factor.
The bottom line is we have increased crime, wagon grade streets and a explosion in the budget process without control over representation .
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line.
Completely untrue.
This Mayor is very easy to talk with. She is at tons of events and tries hard to meet and talk to everybody. You can also write her direct or even e-mail her without going through the Mayor's Action Center.
She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The citizens have less representation as now all thing must go to the mayor through the mayor action line.
Completely untrue.
This Mayor is very easy to talk with. She is at tons of events and tries hard to meet and talk to everybody. You can also write her direct or even e-mail her without going through the Mayor's Action Center.
She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well.
I don't know if this is true or not ("She communicates better.."), but is not a requirement of the position. "Strong" Mayor means near absolute contol of day-to-day with only minimal infliction by Council, and a political price to pay with each adventure.
It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.
Yet it remains minimally representative.
I've had a long-standing suspicion that RM is a shill for the Mayor or her boy-toy. [:D]
Over the last couple of months of being in contact with her on some projects, I've found her to very approachable, very cerebral, considerate, and has a pretty decent sense of humor. I've gotten to observe her in her official capacity and her figurehead ceremonial capacity. I spoke with her about a couple of other issues/projects coming up and was told more or less that the door to the mayors office is always open.
No, I don't expect the mayor to be able to take every call and a smart leader is going to delegate things to the proper person who can best handle the task or issue.
I've really gained a better appreciation for her and what the task of being mayor of the city our size entails, a complete 180 from my previous thougts? Not quite, but she's earned a lot of respect from me- not that she lives for that or anything [}:)]. There are still issues and hires I don't agree with, but I've become aware that she is willing to listen and try to work with people.
<Wrinkle wrote:
It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.
<end clip>
Well, duh.
You could say that about anything. A car, a hammer, a tax-code book.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Wrinkle wrote:
It can be good with the right person, and just as much bad with the wrong one.
<end clip>
Well, duh.
You could say that about anything. A car, a hammer, a tax-code book.
Seems the point slipped right over your head while you were pounding on your book.
In case you remain wondering, it's about checks and balances, of which there are few on a 'strong' Mayor. A good person with few checks can accomplish much, while a not so good one may do much more than nothing in terms of damage.
Most consider the position over the person and demand checks and balances. We have, as I stated, minimal representation in that respect.
Recycle quoted " She communicates better with city employees than any previous mayor as well."
------------------------------
The words of wisdom spoken by one of the group but omitted is the promise that the strong mayor concept would give representation for the taxpaying citizens of Tulsa. One could use the incident of buying a building that has rapidly decreased in value over its lifetime, as a communicated city employee project, in the darkness without the citizens approval, to be paid for by the working poor and retirees.
It is amazing how the mayor communicates with the citizens on the streets and crime. Lets see it is "I'll appoint a committee" or "I'll see if I have another opening on my 16 appointed staff for a $100,000+to look at it but now I have to the rush over for a TV screening."
Did per chance you leave out "SOME city employees" in your statement?
No shadows. You are wrong.
First, I am not a city employee, so your comment about being one of the group is wrong.
Secondly, she has implemented a policy of sending out an internal e-mail every week, to every city employee and just for city employees, talking about what is going on in the city that could affect them.
Communications was never a strength for you, was it?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Most consider the position over the person and demand checks and balances. We have, as I stated, minimal representation in that respect.
I would suggest that this point captures much of what holds Tulsa back. No matter the Mayor, there seem to be parties in this town who will work together to limit his or her initiatives. I don't generally understand the motivations for this--they come under all guises, from wanting to limit government generally, to personal attacks on the executive--but what they have in common is an irrational (to me) distrust of whoever is in charge at the top.
I'm not saying every Mayor is a saint, but this city might reach certain goals faster if the strange, universal opposition in Tulsa would quiet its rhetoric a bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I would suggest that this point captures much of what holds Tulsa back. No matter the Mayor, there seem to be parties in this town who will work together to limit his or her initiatives. I don't generally understand the motivations for this--they come under all guises, from wanting to limit government generally, to personal attacks on the executive--but what they have in common is an irrational (to me) distrust of whoever is in charge at the top.
I'm not saying every Mayor is a saint, but this city might reach certain goals faster if the strange, universal opposition in Tulsa would quiet its rhetoric a bit.
Nice point. They seem to be advocating for structural changes that would leave us in perpetual gridlock. The problems are pretty easy to understand: public safety, transportation, water, sewer, and parks and figuring out how to maintain and grow them. We don't need "checks and balances"...we need accountability. If you don't like how an executive is handling affairs, then toss the rascal out in a couple of years. But don't strip him of his power to make changes in the city.
Rick Westcott is running for re-election according to today's Tulsa World.