"Change Makes Sense," But Jon Davidson Doesn't

There he goes again. The inhospitable Recall kingpin from the hospitality industry has his gun half-cocked and his facts half right. But that didn't stop the Tulsa World from printing his opinions in their letters to the editor this morning.

Mr. Davidson's problem, from Day One, has been that facts are far too inconvenient when there are points to be made. Toss in a couple of good, groundless allegations and you've got yourself a "pulpit" from which to "bully." Never forget that it was Mr. Davidson who refused to name the members of his ill-fated coalition humorously known as the Coalition for Responsible Government, because he feared the "terrorist tactics" of Jim Mautino and me.

Under the headline, "Change makes sense," Mr. Davidson writes:

"...the recall provision was included for good reason; to protect citizens of Tulsa from councilors with their own agendas. "

Sensible enough. However, he subtly infers that Mr. Mautino and I only act upon our "own," or selfish agenda. In other words, we needed to be recalled, because we were acting selfishly (for financial gain or power?) and not in the best interests of the people that elected us. Guess we all know what the people that elected us thought of that argument.

It was always my impression that Mr. Davidson never really understood what it was that he was doing, with the recall process. If anyone was acting selfishly, it was he and his team of developers and builders.

But let's move on to his big misconceptions, shall we?

Mr. Davidson further opines:

The provision of "requiring everyone involved in a recall petition be a resident from the recall-targeted elected official's district" is ridiculous.

Strong statement, that. Too bad it has no grounding in fact. Hopefully Mr. Davidson will breathe a little easier to know that there is no requirement that all participants involved in the recall process be a resident of the targeted elected officials district. We're still waiting on the final wording from the City Attorney, but he was directed to craft a charter change that would require all petition circulators and officers to be from the targeted-councilor's district. That's not the same as saying that no one else can be involved.

Next he states:

There are many issues that can surface in one district that affect non-district residents and restricting them from protecting their interests is anti-business.

I'm not really sure what he's trying to say here. Is the problem an issue that might surface in one district, or is it a councilor from one district that might be too effective in advocating an opinion contrary to Mr. Davidson's business interest, that he is worried about? The only thing I can gather from this sentence is that it was tossed in so Mr. Davidson could use the term, "anti-business." It's a favorite phrase of his.

Finally, he writes:

The notion that signatures required should be 25 percent of the voters who voted in the last mayoral election is even more ridiculous. More than 65,000 votes were cast in the last mayoral race, 25 percent equals 16,398. In the last City Council elections, District 2 had less than 2,500 votes. To require 25 percent, or 16,398 signatures from a single district in this case, to recall an errant councilor is something that some of our city councilors would bank on as being an impossibility, which it is.

No Jon, what is ridiculous is that you would so publicly pontificate without knowing what you're talking about. You are referring to an amendment I offered and the council supported, that would require recall signatures on the petition equal 25 percent of the voters who voted in the district in question, during the last mayoral election. Big difference, Jon.

We're not requiring 16,398 to call for a recall of a councilor. The actual math, using the numbers Mr. Davidson cites, can be estimated with the equation, ((65,000 x .25)/9). This equation comes up with a figure I think would be far more to his liking; 1822.

So, Mr. Davidson, is that more to your liking? Hope it calms you down a bit.

Let me make a modest suggestion for the future. Pick up a phone and talk to someone that knows what is going on before you go off making wild allegations.

If you would have done this last year, you might have saved me, my family and the citizens of the City of Tulsa a lot of grief, as well as a lot of embarrassment for yourself.