Friday, March 04, 2005

From Ski Resort to Last Resort

I just received word from city council staff that a special meeting of the Tulsa City Council has been called for Tuesday, March 8th at 2:30 PM in Room 201 of the council offices. The meeting was requested by Council Chairman Randy Sullivan, who apparently is back from his annual ski trip with his bankers, which caused the council to have to delay the acceptance of Airport Investigator Wilson Busby's resignation for another week.

The purpose of the meeting is to take up the issue of certifying the Coalition for Responsible Government 2004's recall petitions and possibly calling for a May 10th recall election to coincide with the special election that the council called to fill the District 5 seat recently vacated by Sam Roop.

Why a special meeting one might ask?

Well, if you're familiar with the shenanigans (sorry Ken Neal, I'm using your favorite word to describe one of your city councilors) of Chairman Sullivan, then the answer will come as no surprise. In fact, if you're further familiar with the twisted machinations of Jim Burdge, political consultant for the recall endeavor (as well as Councilors Sullivan, Neal, Christiansen and Turner), the explanation will have a familiar odor associated with it.

Let's lay the fact out in order:
  1. Wednesday is the last day that the council can take action in time to make the May 10th election date. Given the 60 day posting requirement, Tuesday would be the perfect "11th hour" to take a vote, rush the resolution up to the Mayor's desk for his signature and then rush the document to the 3rd floor for Interim City Attorney Alan Jackere's signature.
  2. By calling a special meeting on a Tuesday afternoon, while the Board of Adjustment is meeting, the recall plotters get a double bonus. First, the larger Francis Campbell City Council Room that could accommodate hundreds of citizens will be occupied by the BOA. Secondly, the TGOV television cameras will be in use recording the BOA meeting, and thus would not be available to record this controversial action.
  3. By having the meeting in the middle of the afternoon, it will be harder for interested citizens to take time off of work to come support Jim Mautino and me.
  4. By giving such short notice, it makes it more difficult for the legal representatives of Tulsan's for Election Integrity to be present to discuss their concerns for the validity of the recall process.
  5. Having all three elections on the same date benefits the well funded CfRG2004 politically. If all three elections occur on the same day, they can use television and radio advertisements more efficiently drive up voter turnout. Remember, to overturn the reformist council, the CfRG only have to win one of the three elections. The reformists have to win all three elections, or the majority tilts to the status quo junkies.

Hopefully, citizens will see this for what it is. Sullivan was apparently to busy schushing on the slopes to bring the vote up at an appropriate time and place, before the window closed for his buddies.

He's spent the last week at a ski resort. Apparently he plans to spend the next week, resorting to a last resort to maintain advantage.

Just one more example of Council District 9's number 2 city councilor showing the world how to "make toast."


Anonymous said...

Councilor Medlock
I do not understand why the acting City attorney or District Attorney or any State Official has not brought forth challenges to the illegally occupied office which Councilor Sullivan holds. It is also interesting that the only person who could vote on the recall petition (without a conflict) to be put on May 10th is Councilor Henderson. It is also apparent that the Mayor could withhold his signature to keep the recall off the same election since he says he does not support the recall.

Anonymous said...

This will be a good time for the Mayor to show us who he really supports...but don't we all know already?

If I can arrange it , I'll be more than happy to tape the meeting Tuesday

Anonymous said...

It's not clear to me why the Proposed Charter Ammendment cannot also be placed on the May 10th ballot?

All I've heard is "next year" now, but don't know why that is.

Seems a simple lack of quorum would halt the efforts to certify the recall patitions. It still takes 5 of 8. Perhaps it's time for your ski vacation. Oops! Sorry Randy, I've got the boards all waxed. He'll understand.

Top Ten Excuses for missing a Council Meeting:

10. "Tuesday" sounded like "Thursday".

9. Got stuck in road construction.

8. Arrive late, depend on bus schedule.

7. Had enormous "Sullivan" type headache.

6. Went to the BOA Meeting at the regular place by accident. Where were you guys?

5. Couldn't find a parking place in downtown vacinity.

4. Mayor is against the recall, why bother?

3. Someone will show up and contest the certification and it'll get tied up in process anyway.

2. Just put me down for "NO".

1. That's the evening I change the oil in my mothers' 4X4.

Anonymous said...

I propose an email and blog campaign to Councilors, Mayor et. al. to express outrage that this meeting is intentionally being held at a time when most cannot attend, cannot be televised and cannot be held at the regular location.

Anonymous said...

What process is involved in bringing Concilor Sullivan's lack of legal footing to call any meeting...being that he's no longer really a Councilor?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's put his replacement on the ballot, too.

Anonymous said...

Its like the lookout on the Titanic crying an ice cube ahead when the iceberg lay dead ahead that sank the ship. All of this is one of the fascicles that went undetected by the voters in the amending of the charter. There are many outright frauds carried on behind the doors of city hall. This is why this recall must prevail as in the future councilors might ask for an independent audit on how the citizens tax money is squandered

The council number of those in attendance by the charter is 5 members to make a quorum and three is all that is required to pass most questions.

The promotion of the bond issue is underway with millions for flood control. The 130,000 plus water meters produce monthly over 3/4 of a million dollars that is dedicated to Storm Water Management. No one questions why we still have flooding in a normal rain but they want another 32 million dollars to send down the same sinkhole without any councilor questioning it. If you build in a floodway you should be responsible for your action and not expect those who build on higher grounds to correct your negligence. Proper planning of the flood plains can only control flooding.

The recall councilors seem to be getting more support opinions from citizens, weary of being pushed around by outsiders. The sleeping citizens need to wake up and exercise their right to elect and support the councilor of their district. The councilors need a longer stick to push that ice cube out of the way and get on with the problems at hand. And they are many along with the many unanswered questions.

Anonymous said...

I noticed the TGOV broadcast schedule has been removed from the Councils' website.

Anonymous said...

A new one will be made soon for this week I imagine

Anonymous said...

Ex-Councilor Sullivan must remember......

It is a matter of time and this will Bite Him In The BU--!!

Can't wait for that, can you??!!

Anonymous said...

NICE ju-jitsu move on today's Reform Alliance use of Parlimentary procedure:

The old Tried-and-True "Lack of a Quorum".

I think that's EXACTLY how the Reform Alliance FIRST introduced themselves to the new City Council about this time last year......

The Cockroach Caucus may wish they had their erstwhile Ally Sam "The Sham" Roop back on the City Council.

Now, the Cockroaches are stymied until they get their man/woman/insect nested in District Council #5.

Keep the Bug Spray handy......

Anonymous said...

Found this on in the comments

...seems this should be the story today.

[begin quote]--------------
March 9, 2005
February 15, 2005
Recall petitions filed

"According to the City Charter, the City Clerk now has 20 days to certify that the petitions are
sufficient, after which CfRG would have an additional 10 days to gather additional signatures
should they fall short of the number needed. The City Clerk then has five more days to report
to the Council, and at that point if there are sufficient signatures, the Council must call an
election at the earliest date permitted by state law, which means no sooner than 60 days, and
then only on certain Tuesdays each month -- it looks like the recall election would be in


By my delicate math, and per the above, the recall attempt has failed.

Twenty days from February 15, 2005 would be (13 days in Feb, 7 in March) March 7, 2005
(day before yesterday). The City Clerk has failed to [properly] certify the signatures on the
petition. ( If a slip is good enough for the Charter Ammendment, it would seem to work here.)
The additional 10 days cannot now be invoked.

At best, the process needs to begin anew.
[end of quote]