Thursday, March 03, 2005

One More Reason? No..One More Factual Error.

The Tulsa World pubished a letter to the editor yesterday from someone named David Mendoza.

While I'm not so naive as to believe that every citizen is going to agree with me, I do think it's fair to comment on the commenters when they are so far afield from the facts. Mr. Mendoza posed some rhetorical questions. Let me attempt to answer them in the spirit of public debate.

Q: "Do Roscoe Turner and Medlock seriously expect the people of Tulsa to buy into their paranoia?"

A: My new favorite saying is, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Beyond that quip, I'm not sure what "paranoia" Mr. Mendoza is alluding to. I'm assuming he's alleging that our questioning of Mr. Busby's independence, given his apparent relationship with the political consultant behind the recall effort of Jim Mautino and I, is some kind of irrational fear. Such a relationship with both Mr. Burdge, as well as Mr. Busby's law partner's strong support of Councilor Bill Christiansen, who has been a party-of-interest in a federal investigation of Tulsa's airports, makes it harder to argue that conflict does not exist.

Q: "Did not these two vote for Wilson Busby?"

A: Yes I did. But as I stated during last Thursday's meeting, had I known of Mr. Busby's connections to Mr. Burdge and Mr. Christiansen, I would not have supported him as our investigator.

Q: "A grand jury investigation just because someone works across the hall from someone? Thanks for your grandstanding, Mr. Medlock."

A: The fact, Mr. Mendoza, is, that it is Councilor Turner who feels we should move to a grand jury in place of an investigation. I have said numerous times, including on KFAQ radio, that I don't currently think that a grand jury is the answer. We have yet to find illegality, although much of what we've found to date is highly questionable with regard to ethical behavior. As such, it is hard to say I'm grandstanding, assuming that is the foundation, on which the grandstand you've placed me on, is constructued.

Mendoza goes on to write, "Medlock claims to be tight-fisted with city money. So let's spend some more taxpayers' dollars to further Medlock's agenda, whatever that may be."

Fact: I have publicly stated that I don't think additional funds should be spent until we determine if we can proceed without a firm timeline and an investigator we can all trust is without conflict. Fact: The Airport Investigation is not my agenda. It was former Councilor Roop that began the investigation. I merely offered my time and talents for service on what I believe to be a worthwhile endeavor in principle.

'Nuff said.


Anonymous said...

Chris, this is clear and patient response to this clueless letter. I would add that IF the Tulsa World were even remotely transparent or objective, they would immediately invite your response to such an attack letter - Did they?

Anonymous said...

In reading your comments and also comments posted I have to come to the conclusions the answer to any councilor your don’t like can be answered in the future by $2 dollars on $2. Any group of “dirty trick boys” can pose as “good ole boy protecting the citizens”, gather $500 dollars each in a pool of 10 dissatisfied contributors and remove any councilor, duly elected, in the any district in the city of Tulsa. The “dirty trick boys” then can replace the councilor with a hand picked one who have met the requirements in the district as by charter and thereafter even live in the suburbs.

It is a very simple process where you can pay $2 to the solicitor who furnishes the name and address for the ($2) hired passer of the recall petition to acquire signatures of voters, whether they have interest in voting or not. Course this is an assumption but in reality it can or may have happened in the instant recall petition. (“I have the recall petition you wanted to sign”) (that is another $2)

After going through the list of signers you have listed, it is noted that the signatures were gathered in areas with defined parameters, which would contribute to the presumption that such was preformed by paid legal circulators of the recall petition. This again brings in focus the “ward politics” that becomes a plague, which overtakes and defeats the election processes. If this election for recall is not removed from the table then any candidate seeking such an office in the future had just as well write his candidacy with smoke on the winds of March.

The voters should want to hear the unanswered question in this recall if they want to know how their tax money is spent. The right of the councilor to question any action before the council is established by presence during the meetings. This should never be subject to debate.

The underlying cause for this recall has never made the publications but has been used as a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. It is turning into a large threat to democracy as it becomes a weapon for mass destruction and the taxpayers stand silently by. The issue used in the recall is beyond common reasoning and in the instant case reasoning should prevail.