Council Should Make TDA Appointment

[Wrinkle]

According to today's TW, our Mayor has again 'postponed' a Council vote on her re-appointment of shamed TDA Board Member George Shahadi.

This is the second 'postponement' for this appointment, which expired July 31, 2008.

The new ordinance concerning appointments state that if this appointment is not made within 60 days of expiration, the Council may appoint and vote on a replacement Board member.

The Mayor's 'delays' or 'postponements' do not affect this time frame, as the World attempted to promote in today's article.

The 60-day period end September 29, 2008. So, it's time for the Council to make this appointment.

Put it on the agenda.

If the Mayor wants to argue, let her be the one to challenge it, don't ignore the Council's responsibilities.

Besides, Shahadi needs to go and would never be approved by the Council.

[RecycleMichael]

I thought the name had to be submitted within 60 days, not appointed or approved within that time frame.

I am not disagreeing with the need for a new person, I don't know this man, but generally prefer to find new members to serve on boards, authorities, and trusts.

[Wrinkle]

It says the appointment must be made within 60 days. If not, the Council gets to appoint.

I'll let the Mayor take task with the differences between 'postponed' and 'withdrawn'.

If she wants a start/stop timeclock for any period over which the appointment is active, she could carry this thing on for years.

That clearly is not the intent.

[Wrinkle]

One could also argue 'appointment' means 'completed', that is, voted upon and placed.

And, that clearly is not done.

[Vision 2025]

Actually I believe, the Mayor has made the appointment.  What has been deferred is confirmation.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Actually I believe, the Mayor has made the appointment.  What has been deferred is confirmation.

That's true. However, the wording of the Charter change (voted up and passed by the populous) gives the right of deferral to the Council, not the Mayor.

[Wrinkle]

[PonderInc]

One comment on the so-called "ethics" violation of a TDA member working for Williams and not recusing himself from a vote, when Williams was a donor to the ballpark...

Williams is a big company.  You can work there for years and never actually speak to an executive.  The only political "peer pressure" that I've ever seen Williams executives exert upon the company's thousands of employees is to encourage people to donate to the United Way.  

I personally can't imagine any real conflict of interest that would preclude Shahadi from voting on that TDA case.  Sounds more like people were stretching to find something to complain about.

If there's some real violation of ethics, I fully support people bringing it to light.  This just sounds like sour grapes to me.

Unreasonable personal attacks just discourage people from wanting to serve on public boards.  Who wants to endure all the b.s. just to serve your community as a volunteer?

[RecycleMichael]

The mayor did make this within the 60 day period.

I think you answer your own question, wrinkle.

The mayor made the appointment, the council decides when they want to hear from the applicants and confirm.

Your interpretation would mean that the council could just refuse to confirm a mayoral appointment, then appoint whomever they want.

That would give the power to the council to stall and circumvent the Mayor. That is not what we voted on.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The mayor did make this within the 60 day period.

I think you answer your own question, wrinkle.

The mayor made the appointment, the council decides when they want to hear from the applicants and confirm.

Your interpretation would mean that the council could just refuse to confirm a mayoral appointment, then appoint whomever they want.

That would give the power to the council to stall and circumvent the Mayor. That is not what we voted on.

I think you've misinterpreted. The Mayor did indeed make the appointment within the 60-day window, in mid-August, before delaying it the first time. She can call it whatever she wants ("deferral" not "withdrawal") but the fact remains her appointment is either in place or withdrawn, at least from her vantage. It's the Council's option as to whether that would be extended or not, and only with 'good cause'. There is no good cause for delay (the outcome of the $1.5 million plan for Tulsa, City of, to pay up has no bearing). That 'plan' is being developed by the City, not by TDA. But, even if it were, that's actually more reason to replace him than to delay.

As for the Council appointing the replacement, that could not happen until the first issue is resolved, either voted up/down or withdrawn, but timeout isn't an option without Council authorization.

Either the appointment or a Council-initiated extension (of specific length) MUST be acted upon.

So, to help resolve, either Shihadi is nominated, or not. If he is, then Council should prepare to vote. If not, then Council should make the replacement since it's well over 60-days at this point (almost 90).

FWIW, it would appear, the way the new resolution is written, the Council would indeed have the ability to postpone indefinitely if they so chose (as a group, unlikely). Almost the exact opposite of the Charter as previously written (and often used).

But, the Mayor has 60-days from expiration. That's it. And, she has no ability to extend that by herself. That much is very clear.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

One comment on the so-called "ethics" violation of a TDA member working for Williams and not recusing himself from a vote, when Williams was a donor to the ballpark...

Williams is a big company.  You can work there for years and never actually speak to an executive.  The only political "peer pressure" that I've ever seen Williams executives exert upon the company's thousands of employees is to encourage people to donate to the United Way.  

I personally can't imagine any real conflict of interest that would preclude Shahadi from voting on that TDA case.  Sounds more like people were stretching to find something to complain about.

If there's some real violation of ethics, I fully support people bringing it to light.  This just sounds like sour grapes to me.

Unreasonable personal attacks just discourage people from wanting to serve on public boards.  Who wants to endure all the b.s. just to serve your community as a volunteer?

The case was made pretty clear at the time, and again within minutes of the actual vote. The only saving grace for Mr. Shahadi was the City's legal department 'declaring' the City's Ethics Code didn't apply because TDA is a State Agency.

Your claim is way too broad in the "big company" theory. People in Tulsa don't get put onto Boards around here without connections.

BTW, if TDA is indeed a State agency, why is the City of Tulsa paying up the $1.5 million? Seems the State would be responsible. And, for that $400,000 paid last month, too.

[TheLofts@120]

Ponder...

I can assure you that my raising the issue of a conflict of interest and the subsequent ethics complaint was anything but sour grapes.  As a matter of principle, raising an ethics concern os a very serious charge and not something I would take lightly with anyone.  

When you have an executive such as Shahadi that is the Vice President of Real Estate for the Williams Companies in charge of leases, real estate transactions involving acquisitions and dispositions of property (particularly any located in or near the proposed ballpark site) and you report directly to Steve Malcolm (President and CEO of Williams) and he is a proposed ballpark trustee then there is certainly at the very least the perception of a conflict of interest.  A perception is all that is required under the City Ethics Ordinance.  A majority of the Tulsa City Council believed this to be true as well.  There is still some question (as of Council's 10/14/08 Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting) as to whether in fact the TDA does fall under the ethics ordinance or is not subject to if truly found to be governed entirely by state statutes as the Mayor's legal staff purports.  I'm sure they are investigating this further and who knows how that will turn out.  But at the time, I did make a challenge for Mr. Shahadi to recuse.  

He stated in the 10/14/08 council committee meeting that he believed at the time he was bound by the ethics ordinance of the City but had he failed to vote, the TDA board would not have had a quorum and would not have been able to vote on the matter to terminate our agreement.  He did also state that he saw no confict of interest where the City's ethics ordinance was concerned even though the language is quite clear.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

One comment on the so-called "ethics" violation of a TDA member working for Williams and not recusing himself from a vote, when Williams was a donor to the ballpark...

Williams is a big company.  You can work there for years and never actually speak to an executive.  The only political "peer pressure" that I've ever seen Williams executives exert upon the company's thousands of employees is to encourage people to donate to the United Way.  

Shahadi is an executive. He is Williams' director of real estate.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The only political "peer pressure" that I've ever seen Williams executives exert upon the company's thousands of employees is to encourage people to donate to the United Way.  

Williams has got nothing on TW for United Way mobster tactics.  TW requires employees to turn the donation forms back in, and there is no place on the form to check no donation.

pancakes is up with United Way around here?  It is like a cartel.  There are PLENTY of other charities around town equally deserving of donations, but United Way is pushed down people's throats (ESPECIALLY downtown).  The overt pressure to donate to this organization with a history of fraud at the national level is pretty disgusting.

[Wrinkle]

Well, Mr. Shahadi has seen the light.

TW reports this morning that Mr. Shahadi has tendered his resignation, effective immediately, and has withdrawn his own name from reappointment to the TDA Board.

Great news.

Now the Council is free to appoint their replacement choice.

Put it on the Agenda.