Another Letter to the Editor

The organized campaign by the Pro-Recall cabal to pepper the Tulsa World letters to the editor with letters opining about my "arrogance toward the suburbs" and other myths created by John Benjamin and Jim Burdge continued today.

"There was a letter by a Mr. Don den Daas, of Tulsa who takes exception with Ken Neal's assertion that CfRG should stop the recall effort and focus on beating me in next year's elections. Mr. den Daas writes:

"His comment about how Chris Medlock Inc. has treated elected officials of neighboring cities is right on. Medlock's arrogant and condescending behavior has placed these officials in a position to watch Tulsa's city government with jaundiced eyes.

However, I disagree with Mr. Neal about the timing of citizens expressing their wishes at the ballot box. The people of Medlock's and Jim Mautino's districts have spoken. They want an opportunity to vote on these two councilors again at the earliest possible date. The petition names have been correctly validated by the city clerk."

Such a strong statement was worthy of some investigation. So I got on the internet and started looking for anything that I could learn about Don den Daas.

What I found first is that Mr. den Daas lives in my district. In fact, he's only a couple of blocks from my house, as the crow flies. That then led me to check to see if he was, by chance, a signatory on my recall petition. So I pulled up the list from my own web site and did a CNTR-F check for his name. Lo and behold, there he was along with his wife, Judith.

It took me about three minutes to retrieve the file in which I keep my copy of the recall petition, and a just a couple of minutes more for me to find signatures of the den Daas'. Who would you guess was the circulator of the petition the couple signed? No...no...not Jim Burdge. No...it was none other than John Benjamin of Bixby. You know, the former Tulsa city councilor who recruited current councilors Randy Sullivan of District 7 (by way of District 9) and Bill Christiansen of District 8.

The fact that Benjamin circulated the petition signed by this citizen who so eloquently wrote of my arrogance and the need to " have an opportunity to vote on [a] Tulsa city councilor change as soon as possible," wasn't that strange, in and of itself. However, I dug a bit more.

I went to Google and ran a few searches, starting with the gentleman's full name, Donald Roeland den Daas. When that pulled up nothing, I just kept reducing the formality of his name until I got to, "Don den Daas." That was the ticket!

If you click on the hyperlink above, you'll see three hits. The first one is by far the most interesting. It simply says, "Bowling Team." Click on this hyperlink and you are directed to a web page dedicated to the bowling team of none other than the Southside Rotary Club.

Once viewing the page, one can scroll down a tad and...saints preserve us...there he is...John Benjamin of Bixby, himself! He's wearing a broad smile and is holding up a single index finger, which either declares his team's relative ranking among all other Rotary Club bowling teams, or identifies his favorite implementation tool for cleaning clogged nasal passages.

The good news from Mr. den Daas is, that he was declared to be this year's "Most Improved Bowler." The bad news is, at least for those that read my blog, Mr. den Daas' credibility as an objective commentator on recent events took a major blow.

The Southside Rotary Club is ground zero for the recall efforts. The club, among many other notable members, proudly counts among its members such luminaries as:

• Bill Christiansen
• Randy Sullivan
• Mike Buchert--Public Works Exec and Golf Commentator

Further digging found that Mr. den Daas will be the "Rotarian of the Day," on May 12th, which will afford him the honor of inviting that week's speaker. Perhaps he can invite Ken Neal himself, so that that they can get the straight skinny about Medlock, Inc. from that man that named it such. After all, it's been some time since Mr. Jon Davidson of CfRG2004 was invited back in January, (by ROD John Benjamin) to the Southside Rotary to whip up them into a frenzy of petition signing.

Remember to, that it was at the Downtown Rotary, that Mayor Bill LaFortune first called for the business community to call their councilors to complain about the council not reappointing Messrs. Cameron and Reynolds. That venue, too, is where a few months later, Bob Poe took some of his more vitriolic shots at my character.

Given that Mr. den Daas appears to be service club brother with the man that has bragged that he's the "brains behind recall," as well as two of my fellow city councilors, who lamely claimed not to have any real opinion on recall just before certifying the petition that Mr. den Daas signed an Mr. Benjamin circulated, I think it might be interesting to do a similar check on some of the other names that have recently written pro-recall letters to the Tulsa World.

Stay tuned. I let you know if my research bears fruit.

Until then, be contrite in the knowledge that Mr. den Daan's letter proves one thing for sure. When it comes to "spin," no one can top a Rotarian.

And The Answer Is? Inept.

Friday's Tulsa World posted the following clarification on Pg. A3.

"A Thursday Tulsa World article reported that City Councilor Chris Medlock called some Economic Development Commissioners, who also are chamber members, corrupt. It was a former Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce official that accused Medlock of calling the members corrupt. Medlock denies that he ever accused the officials of corruption."

Don't you love that the correction sounds like, "Oh Yeah, he said it. We just are printing that he denies it!"

How about, "No official record exists of Medlock ever making such an accusation?"

Isn't that just as accurate, and yet more in the spirit of correcting a glaring screw up that amplifies already existing rhetoric and mythology created by the Chamber and the World editorial staff?

It never ends.

Inept or Disgustingly Biased?

In what should have been an article that served to some degree as vindication for some of the most slanderous lies told about me by Bob Poe and other "good ol' boys," the Tulsa World, in a single paragraph, committed one of the most grievous examples of media bias I've ever encountered.

City government reporter P.J. Lassek wrote an article entitled, "Chamber, development panel conflict is noted," that appeared today on page A-14. The fifth paragraph in the far right-hand column reads:

"Medlock said the issue started with his talking publicly about good government in dealing with conflict of interest and exploded to his accusing EDC members who also were chamber board members of being corrupt."

A simple reading of this paragraph conjures into the mind of the reader that I started out well (talking about important things like good government and conflicts of interest), but eventually went off the deep end, the result of which is my exploding with public accusations that the Chamber's board members were corrupt!

What I actually said to Ms. Lassek was something to the effect of, "I started out talking publicly about good government in dealing with conflicts of interest, and this thing exploded into accusations that I was calling chamber board members like Larry Mocha and Paula Marshall-Chapman corrupt."

What I was referring to was Bob Poe's farewell speech to the chamber in January, where he made just such an accusation. Mr. Poe never had any reservations in creating his own inference from my actions or statements, so as to make the wildest of claims to prove how I was to blame for everything bad that's happened to Tulsa since the Great Depression.

What is particularly disturbing about this misreporting of fact is that it will more than likely be used against me in some future election, including a recall election. One can already imagine the TV ad showing a Tulsa World masthead and the paragraph in block quotes splashed on the screen. You can hear the announcer's voice, roiling with outrage, saying:

"Tulsa's respected newspaper of record, the Tulsa World, exposed Medlock's heinous nature, reporting on his accusations that some of our city's most respected business leaders were corrupt! Isn't it time we silenced his rantings?"

I will of course request a correction, that may or may not be granted. Even if it is, though, it will be buried deep in the bowels of the Saturday issue, where only a handful of people will see it.

It seems our staggeringly biased paper is so vested in the rhetoric it has authored, that they can't even print a story that offers even a crumb of vindication, without purposely perpetuating their mythology.

What a pity.

"Annoy Christopher Hanson"

Michael Bates over at www.batesline.com, is joining in on the attempt to annoy Baltimore Sun writer Christopher Hanson by proving him correct that all bloggers are self-absorbed self-promoters.

Bates chose to do so by posting several photographs, one of which featured himself, Congressman John Sullivan and me. Thought I might as well dive into the fun.

First is my photo with G. Gordon Liddy outside of the
convention hotel in NYC. Hey, maybe I accosted the man, but it's Liddy.
Just approaching Liddy takes chutzpah.

Next is my impromptu shot with Newt Gingrich. I was the
only member of the Oklahoma delegation that listed Newt as my "Most Admired
Republican." Just wish I could've enlisted a photographer that I could
admire. This shot of a lifetime was taken by an attorney from the South
Carolina delegation that at the very least managed not to put his thumb over the
lens.

The final picture isn't of me and a celebrity. However,
I am the photographer, which says I was pretty danged close to the Prez and V-Prez
just a scant few second before the Oklahoma delegation was buried under an
avalanche of balloons and confetti.

I'm new at this, but hope I was suitably annoying.

Character Snipers

Sniper

NOUN:
1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place. 2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.


Assassinate

VERB:
1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.

Unfortunately, this selfish recall process...conceived and carried out by a furtive and murky group of nameless figures...have taken their machinations to a new level of ooze.

I have endeavored to use this blog as an alternative medium for attempting to counter-balance to even a minute degree, the onslaught of misinformation that has emanated from some of our notoriously biased local media.

I set the comments section up so that anyone could leave a remark, pro or con, to my postings. I even set things up so that a commenter did not require registration, as I was more interested in the response of all citizens to what I wrote. This policy has worked well for over three months. To date, I have not had to remove a single posting, but that has ended.

Unfortunately, the character snipers have decided to use their cloak of anonymity to lie in the shadows to begin the process of character assassination. I knew it was coming. My family knew it was coming. We are strong and will not be deterred.

However, when the line was crossed to such a degree that my parents are slandered, then some level of control must be put in place.

As such, all future comments will require registration.

I regret the inconvenience this causes any who have chosen to respectfully be part of a dialog on the issues. I greatly appreciate all of you, anonymous or otherwise, who have written in support of me. I hope you understand the need for this action.

I'm sure there will be great wailing by those who are prepared to win at all costs, that "Medlock can dish it out, but he can't take it." I think anyone that has seen or read the cacophony of vitriol that I have been the recipient of for the past nine months knows that is a laughable statement. I will except and leave up all fair criticism that is based on fact, or even reasonable supposition.

As for dishing it out, when I make comments or commentary, the recipients of my words know it is me that is criticizing them. Ken Neal, Bob Poe or even the nefarious Mr. Jim Burdge (based on his passed track record of ultra-negative campaign tactics, the probable author of the strategy that is beginning) know who to respond to.

Anonymous slander is ... (what the heck...dear readers...register to comment and complete this statement in your own way).

God bless.

Medlock, Incorporated

Ken Neal continued his series of ranting editorials, revealing his total lack of understanding of the local political environment. Michael Bates at www.batesline.com does a fine job of dissecting Mr. Neal's latest screed. Read it here.

The general gist of the piece is that everything wrong in our city today is due to the "antics" of yours-truly and my buddies, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson and Jim Mautino. Mr. Neal has been trying for months now to find a team name for us that is vile enough to be worthy of his rage. He is no longer content to call us "The Gang of Five," "The Medlock Cartel" or the "Wrecking Crew," Ken has now tagged us, "Medlock, Inc."

I checked the Oklahoma Secretary of State's web site and there was no listing of any such LLC, registered in my name. To date, the only councilor with a suspicious LLC, the nature of which he refuses to divulge, is the nomadic Randy Sullivan.

I doubt Neal is making reference to my business experience, by now calling us "Medlock, Inc." Rather, he's most likely trying now to compare the reform alliance of councilors to Al Capone's, "Murder, Inc."

If this is the case, Mr. Neal and his partner in slander, Bob Poe, have now inferred that four duly elected officials of the city of Tulsa are akin to...take your pick:

• Jack-booted nazis
• a Columbian drug cartel
• an out of control street gang, and now
• an organized crime syndicate

Given the level of his laughable rhetorical excess, it is difficult how the man was able to write something as blatantly odd as, "Medlock Inc. and supporters have used time-tested political and propaganda methods."

Boy howdy, Ken! We must be some fine propagandists. We currently have the support of the grassroots of both political parties, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP!

We supposedly are so "svengali-like" that we can go out at will and cast some "nay-saying" spell on ordinary citizens, turning them into zombie-like drones who come down to City Hall to intimidate ordinary, honest officials who's only sin has been to take money from a handful of development special interests.

I can't believe I'm even spending any of my time responding to something as off-base as Ken Neal's opinions regarding our city. The last several years have seen him becoming progressively angrier and less logical.

Ken Neal has gone past being pitiable. His inability to understand the average Tulsan's backlash against decades of waste and elitism, has brought Ken Neal right to the doorstep of inconsequential.

Clown Prince Ken

How Many Editorialists Can You Fit In a PT Cruiser?

"Provoking" a Hypocritical Lead

The Tulsa World's front page story on the City Council's decision to rule that a change made by the TMAPC was a major amendment and not a scrivener's error, is one of the best examples yet of theTulsa World's bias.

Why wasn't the story the World wrote on October 31st, 2003 [the day after the Council approved the bank zoning in a contentious 5 -4 action] on the front page? The 2003 story was buried at the bottom of page A-18.

But more interesting than it's placement, is the tone of the two lead paragraphs, and the apparent lack of editorial balance. Let's compare the two paragraphs.

10/31/2003

"Despite residents’ protests, the City Council approved a proposal Thursday to build a bank branch and small office park at the southwest corner of 71st Street and Harvard Avenue."

3/11/2005

"A majority of city councilors provoked a lawsuit Thursday after denying F&M Bank a controversial subdivision plat for a branch drive-through at 71st Street and Harvard Avenue."

In October 2003, it took eleven paragraphs before even the hint of the eventual lawsuit filed by Homeowners for Fair Zoning against the city is mentioned. Even then, it's not referred to as "provoking" a lawsuit. Here's the paragraph:

“Either side, we all know, we’re going to go to district court on this,” Councilor Sam Roop said, referring to the likelihood of a probable appeal of the council’s vote."

To have been entirely fair, wouldn't it have been more fair in 2003 to have written:

"A majority of city councilors provoked a lawsuit Thursday, after invalidating the protest petition of a majority of the home owner's who live adjacent to the controversial vacant lot on the southwest corner of 71st Street and Harvard Avenue."

Fair and Balanced...not!

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."

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.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered

Last week, Tulsa's Man-of-Many-Hats, Mike Kier, presented Jim Mautino and me with the certification papers for the recall. Many people have contacted me and asked if we could supply a list of the names of the signatories. It took us a while to get them all entered, but anyone interested in viewing the complete list for District 2 may do so by clicking here.

I'll save most of my comments for when I have more time. However, aside from the analysis done by Curtis Killman of the Tulsa World, which revealed that only 2.6% of the total registered voters in my district were required to force an expensive and destructive recall vote, and that only about one in four signatories even bothered to vote in the election on March 9, 2004, I will share with you this one other interesting bit of analysis.

Of the 770 signatures collected by Jim Burdge, Al Unser, John Benjamin, Josh Fowler, et. al., some 526, or 68.3% live west of the Arkansas river. This, despite the fact that more than half of my district, contrary to popular thought, reside east of the river.

What could account for this disproportionate fact?

Well, it could have a lot to do with reports we received that those soliciting signatures were encouraged to focus not on what the CfRG04 alleged were the reasons for recalling me, but rather that District 2 deserved a councilor "that lived on the Westside."

Hmmm...so add to the list of allegations worthy of recalling an elected official the crime of "unfortunate geography." And the Tulsa World says I'm parochial. Go figure.

"...Come In Ken Neal..."

"Earth to Ken Neal...Earth to Ken Neal...Come in Ken Neal...Are you reading me?"

Well...begrudgingly, after numerous people referrenced your Sunday editorial, asking for my reaction, I've read you.

Gosh Ken...I know it's cold outside in February, but open the vent on that PT Cruiser you cruise about in, and get some oxygen. Then check your facts from a source somewhere other than your own slanted news pages.

First things first, Ken. When you write [once again, remind World VP, Mr. Bair about the Fair Use Doctrine],

"The much-maligned majority on the City Council was rightly concerned about the sales tax decline but poorly advised when it considered trying to squelch growth in the suburbs by raising prices on water Tulsa sold the outlying communities."

are you aware that,

[1] you and your compatriots do most of the maligning?, and
[2] No member of the "Our Gang" ever proposed raising suburban water rates.

Come on over to City Hall some time. Sit in a committee meeting. Listen to what is actually said. I know...I know...that's what you pay PJ Lassek to do. But too often she's busy chatting with council staff or playing video games on her laptop to catch a lot of the facts.

If you had actually been in the numerous meetings in which water rates were discussed, you'd know that we were...

• ...Questioning the rationale behind the decision to reduce the minimum percentage return that the water board would realize on infrastructure built to service suburban customers. Asking for background on previous decisions isn't proposing going back to the previous policy.
• ...Questioning what steps the water board was taking to address the dire warnings of the Metro Chamber's infill development study, which accurately details the inevitable market forces that are causing Tulsa's plight. While halting these forces is as illogical as trying to halt an oncoming tornado, we can take some actions that are the metaphorical equivalent of building a shelter.
• ...questioning whether or the underlying assumptions that supported Tulsa's rate model took into consideration recouping costs associated with the development of the water treatment facilities and the lost capacity, as well as the loss of capacity on our two main transmission lines. Fact is, if we continue to support additional suburban customers, we'll have to build a third transmission line sooner than we would otherwise had to build one if we limited sales to wholesale customers. This questioning lead to further questions about whether or not the suburban customers would assist in the funding of a future third flow line, or if Tulsan's (defined on this website as those living in the city limits of Tulsa) would have to "front" the money out of a future Third Penny package (thus incurring additional opportunity costs via needed street or other infrastructure projects that would have to be put off until later) to be recovered later through water sales to all customers.
• ...questioning why water rates charged to wholesale customers hadn't kept up with inflation. We wondered why the rate (according to an editorial you wrote, which I won't link to for fear that the Lorton's might kvetch) charged to wholesale customers in 1988 was $1.38, is currently $1.98, but if compared to the multiplier of the Department of Labor Statistics is applied, should be at $2.36. We were asking, "Hey Messrs. Cameron and Reynolds? Not saying you don't have a good explanation for this, but could you explain the rationale?"
• ...questioning why it appeared that the priorities of a water board overseeing the operations of a water system that was built by the citizens of Tulsa and populated by a group of private citizens nominated by Tulsa's mayor and approved (disapproving is apparently not a viable option) by Tulsa's city council, often seemed to prioritize projects with economic development potential in suburbs over projects with economic development potential within the city that should be its primary focus.

We had a lot more questions, but I think I've listed enough to make a point.

And that point is,

Questioning does not equal proposing. Speaking in hypotheticals in order to carry a discussion forward, does not equal proposing. Questioning equals attempting to learn. Questioning requests of the questioned, justification for current policy. If none exists, then the policy should be re-examined and new proposals brought forth.

It was your own editorial page that created the myth that we were seeking to raise water rates. When you wrote and told readers about how District 1 County Commissioner told selfish councilors "how the cow ate the cabbage," you certified accusatory rhetoric that was designed to intimidate duly elected officials. You gave credibility to Councilor Bill Christiansen's assertions that we were trying to stop Owasso from taking Tulsa's sales tax by trying to stunt their growth. He called it "voodoo economics." He likes to use that phrase, belying he doesn't really know its derivation or meaning.

If you truly want to engage in a dialog, I'd suggest you quit using your reporters as your transmitters of fact. While they may be friendly and hard working, they aren't (to my knowledge) trained in economics.

Bottom line...if they don't get it, neither will you.

So my suggestion, Mr. Neal? Get in that PT Cruiser with the TU vanity plates and drive on over to City Hall. "...Come In, Ken Neal..." The real facts await you.