Medlock/Miller Sighting

Most likely, the rumor has already begun to spread that Randi Miller and I were spotted this morning having fried mozarella sticks at Baxter's Interurban Grill, downtown.

How am I so certain? First, because it's true and second, because we walked past four employees of the Public Works Department who were seated four booths away, as we left the restaurant. Given the way rumors rocket about City Hall, why deny it?

So...what was up? Long and short of it, on Tuesday, Commissioner Miller called me to discuss what was happening to our yard signs and other campaign issues that are common conversations between primary opponents. At the end of the conversation she said we should get meet sometime, if I got the chance. I aked her, "before? Or after?"

I meant...of course...before or after the primary election?

She told me before.

So, I checked my schedule and found that I had time available to meet this morning. I told her so during yesterday's Mayoral Forum at the TU Law School, so we set up the meeting for today at 11 AM at Baxter's.

I was a little early and she was a little late, so I read this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly, especially concentrating on Michael Bates' column on the TREC Forum that went so well for our campaign, as well as Barry Friedman's take on the situation with ORU and the Miller campaign.

The conversation lasted less than twenty minutes and was very amicable, as are almost all of the conversations I've had with Randi.

It was agreed, for the most part, that what we talked about was between us and I will keep it that way. However, given the way people like to talk, I think it is fair to disclose what was not discussed.

Neither one of us discussed the other dropping out of the race and joining forces to defeat Bill LaFortune. I have made a commitment to my supporters to stay in the race to the end and to do everything I can to win. I have no doubt, Commissioner Miller has made similar promises.

We were...it is also fair to say...united in the fact that we are both seeking to be Tulsa's next mayor, because of our great disappointment in the performance of our fellow Republican, Bill LaFortune.

With that said, let the rumors fly!

Composition or "Compost?"

Buried in the last two paragraphs of the Tulsa World's coverage of yesterday's mayoral candidate forum held by the Tulsa Real Estate Coalition (TREC) was the following:

"The candidates also spoke of the importance of having a working relationship with the City Council and how they would accomplish that.

"LaFortune blamed his recent discord with the council on the council’s composition."

Hmmm...what exactly does that mean?

Does Bill LaFortune expect, as mayor, that he should have a council that agrees with him on everything? Isn't the challenge of executive leadership exemplified by an ability overcome differences to reach desired end? Just exactly which councilors does Mr. LaFortune work closely with?

The possibility exists that the current reality in which Bill LaFortune finds himself, just four short weeks prior to the mayoral primary vote, might change. However, to date, this startling fact remains.

The incumbent Republican mayor of the City of Tulsa, can not list a single Tulsa City Councilor who is endorsing him for re-election. This is especially stunning given that the current make up of the council with regard to partisan "composition" is six Republicans and three Democrats.

Can anyone envision a sitting governor not having most of the legislator's from his party supporting his re-election? How about a president and his party's congressional delegation.

No...the problem isn't one of composition. The problem is more one of "compost." As in, "keep spreading it on thick and maybe some votes might sprout."

Joe Kelley and Questionable Content

Thought that would get you to look!

Joe Kelley has posted his thoughts on why he is opposed to the renewal of the County's sales tax packages. Set for a vote tomorrow (Dec. 13), Kelley says he opposes any increase in taxes until such time that the elected officials prove they have cut everywhere they can. [You can read his blog posting here.]

I tried to respond to him using the comments feature on his site, but was told that I had a "Comment Submission Error." Why? Apparently "due to questionable content."

So, I'm posting my response here. Read it thoroughly and tell me if you can guess what the questionable content might be. This is your chance to join the list of they hyper-critical, giving you full license to not only disagree with my message, but also my spelling and punctuation.

Joe,

While I strongly agree with you in general, I have spent the past three Summers pouring over our city's budget, trying to determine which basic services should be ended in order to balance our budget.

I've often said that if the city hadn't had its budget crisis, we'd have had to invent one, because it's the only way we've been able to get the city's beauracracy to seriously take a look at cutting costs. But at a certain point, you can cut so much fat that you begin to hit muscle.

We haven't been able to return pay cuts to city employees. We haven't been able to put water into the vast majority of the city's pools. We haven't been able to fund overtime for police officers searching for serial rapists. We haven't been able to fund code enforcement inspectors to keep our neighborhoods vital and safe.

Tulsa...the City of Tulsa...is in trouble. We need more police officers on the streets. We need to pay our officers a competitive wage to keep other cities from luring them away. We need street lights in high crime areas. We need community based policing to disuade crime before it happens. I wouldn't be pushing for a short-term use of any tax, if we didn't need to stop the bleeding of the last four years.

My proposal will be short lived. I will put renewal...if it is needed...back before the voters before my re-election bid...if wanted...in order to be answerable to the voters in delivering on my promises.

But we need change and need it fast. Tulsa is becoming unsafe to live, work or play.

Tulsa Beacon: "Tulsa County is Fixed." Vote No!

Tulsa's conservative weekly newspaper, the Tulsa Beacon, has joined the chorus of opinion leaders calling for voters to reject Tulsa County's renewal of Four-to-Fix the County. The Beacon writes:

"The projects on the list have merit but some are just not high priorities. County government is essentially closed to public comment on its capital priorities and that is another reason to vote no. The County Commission didn’t listen to the voters when it approved a 75-year contract for a toll bridge on the Arkansas River and it didn’t listen when participants in the Vision 2025 summit said the No. 1 priority should development along the Arkansas River."

If people think the city has been a haven for "good ol' boy" politics and backdoor deals, you haven't taken a close look at the county. I have personally, on two occassions, joined interested citizens in attending County committee meetings to express concern about the direction the County was going on two very divergent issues; one a zoning issue and the second, relating to the Bixby Bridge.

On both occassions, the citizens were met with scowls and truncated meetings, apparently shortened to not have to follow through on plans with opposition in the room.

We need our tax dollars prioritzed for the public good and watched by good stewards, not over-paid officials who believe there is no joy greater than the spending of someone else's money.

Vote No on Tuesday!

Mayor? Cops? Uh...Puh-leez!

It really happened. It was last Tuesday, at an event entitled "Mayor's Night In," and I was there. I, and several dozen invitees from Tulsa's neighborhood associations, heard it with our own ears.

For me, it didn’t sink in immediately. Like a very subtle joke that takes a second to get, it almost got lost among the stream of rhetoric that flowed from Bill LaFortune’s mouth. But my brain wouldn't let me move on until the full impact of the statement had hit me between the eyes.

Running the words over again in my mind, I shook my head slightly and then leaned over to a long time friend who represents one of the city’s neighborhoods, who had bravely chosen to sit next to me.

“Did I just hear our mayor say,” I enquired, hoping she would tell me that it was my ears and not Bill LaFortune’s logic that was faulty, “that hiring more police officers would raise the crime rate?”

“I think you did,” she replied, uncertain herself if it could be true.

A statement this surreal was obviously going to require additional confirmation. I waited a a few seconds and then turned aroundto get the attention of Bobby Holt, blogger and neighborhood activist, who was sitting behind me.

“Tell me I didn’t just hear the mayor of our city say that putting more cops on the streets would increase the crime rate.” It wasn’t a question, I really was seeking, on some level, reassurance that I was wrong.

“I heard it, too,” Bobby whispered.

There is was. Tucked within a stream-of-consciousness-response to a question posed by Michael Bates (who aside from being a blogger, a columnist for Urban Tulsa Weekly, a KFAQ contributor and a neighborhood officer, is also the State Committeeman for the Tulsa County Republican Party);

What were our mayor's exact words? They were these:

"More police officers…means more arrests…means a higher crime rate."

“What? He said what,” those of you that weren’t present must be asking? “Surely, you’re taking him out of context? After all, you’re Chris-Medlock-Who-Is-Running-For-Mayor.”

Okay, let’s put it into complete context. The mayor had been taking various questions from the neighborhood leaders he had coincidentally assembled, in the Civic Center, just a few short hours after announcing his controversial six-year Third Penny sales tax extension package.

The invitees had been given egg rolls and other hors d’oeuvres, and were sipping water or iced tea from wine glasses. [Note: who footed the bill? The City of Tulsa, or the LaFortune re-election campaign?] They were given a nice introduction by the new Mayor’s Director for Neighborhoods, who reminded them all that it had been two years since they had last had one of these events. She then dutifully introduced her boss, who immediately jumped into a discussion of the Third Penny.

The mayor talked for about thirty minutes and then began taking questions.

LaFortune tried very hard to not call on Mr. Bates, who had had his hand up for some time. But eventually, Michael’s was the only hand in the air and the mayor had little choice.

Here’s what Bates asked:

"Four to Fix the County comes up for a vote next Tuesday. Of the $62 million that the tax is going to raise, $50 million will be raised within the City of Tulsa…roughly. Of that, only $40 million is going to come back to Tulsa and that includes Fairgrounds and the County Courthouse which is actually there to serve the whole of Tulsa County.

“Is that a good deal for Tulsa? Or would it be a better idea to turn Four to Fix down and raise that tax locally, as Councilor Medlock has proposed, to pay for increased public safety spending within the City of Tulsa to deal with our violent crime rate which is nearly double the national average?”

LaFortune began with what is, to my knowledge, the first public acknowledgment that he supports renewal of the County sales tax. He began,

“Well…in terms of Four to Fix…I’m going to support Four to Fix the County and I’ll tell you why.”

Thinking about his statement now, I find his choice of tense, very LaFortunesque. “I’m going to support Four to Fix the County…” rather than, “I support Four to Fix.” He just isn’t telling us when he is going to support the tax. Perhaps he’s waiting to see if it will win at the polls before choosing to currently support Four to Fix?

He spoke briefly on the economic impact Tulsa will see from the fairgrounds improvement, especially emphasizing the Arabian Horse Show that will soon come to Tulsa. Hopefully, it wasn’t lost on those assembled/ that the show was secured because of the improvements that were made with revenues from the current tax. We won’t be losing those improvements if we turn down the future tax.

But I digress. Eventually, the mayor came around to the question of putting more police on the streets to fight our growing crime epidemic. He explained:

“Let me put this out. Everyone thinks it’s a panacea to just have more police officers. That somehow, that would reduce your crime rate just because you have more police officers. Our police officers work very hard. Very hard. And they’ve sacrificed.

"And we have a lot of work to do, Michael. I agree with your [three inaudible syllables that sound like, “your choice of”] funding their wages, their benefits, but ‘can’ the manpower. More police officers…means more arrests…means a higher crime rate."

He obviously saw the looks of disbelief on the faces of the audience, because it took him a while to put together another complete sentence.

“And yeah…but you can’t…there is some…correlation…of human [inaudible]…talking about. I’ll tell you what…Sheriff Stanley Glanz…”

Still skeptical that he said it? Listen for yourself. Click Here.

So there you have it. Bill LaFortune brought many of the neighborhood activists and leaders to the Civic Center, on a cold and blustery night, to hear him assert the following:

1. Mr. LaFortune supports yet another county sales tax, even though sales taxes are the primary funding mechanism for cities. Ad valorem, or property taxes, are the traditional method of funding for counties.


2. Mr. LaFortune apparently isn’t concerned that the citizens that pay his salary will see the city they reside in footing more of the bill in taxes than they will receive in benefits. As Michael Bates pointed out, Tulsa will be a donor city if Four To Fix is renewed, even though Tulsa’s city budget is suffering while the other Tulsa County communities are seeing record revenue increases.


3. Mr. LaFortune does not support my proposal of using the available sales taxes currently going to the County, in part or in whole, to fund various one-time public safety measures designed to reduce crime and to make Tulsa a safer place to “live, work and play.” He is in effect saying that he favors the building of County roads as a higher priority than City of Tulsa police academies, or street lights in North, West and East Tulsa.


4. Mr. LaFortune wants to see the current policemen paid more, but offers no proposal on how to do so.


5. Mr. LaFortune actually believes that putting more officers on the streets would not be effective in fighting Tulsa’s rapidly rising crime rates. In fact, he believes that putting more officers on the streets would INCREASE the crime rates.

The only way Mr. LaFortune’s logic can approach lucidity is if he was talking about the crime figures that the Chamber might use to lure new businesses to Tulsa.

If this is what he intended to imply, then it belies something that is equally troubling then the five revelations listed above. Bill LaFortune is more concerned about the numbers used to describe crime, than he is about the citizens who have been, or might be, the victims of crime.

Either way, his cleverly crafted political event, masked as a legitimate city activity, backfired horribly on our mayor.

The Lack of Voices Said It All

I've been purposely sitting on what I've known about the arena management contract that was awarded last month to the Philadelphia based firm, SMG.

I've known that there were some serious irregularities in the bid process that Bill LaFortune's hand-picked Vision 2025 Oversight Committee used to select the company that will run our huge investment in both the Civic Center and the new arena. This committee, (known originally around City Hall as the Super Six until it grew to twelve members) was supposed to review the sealed bids submitted by the three applicants and then weight the bids on various criteria. The result of the final "weighting," was supposed to...in theory...result in the best applicant for the arena management contract.

I'll get into some of the weaknesses of the process...and the logic of the people involved in the process...later. Right now, before I've bored you to death...let's deal with the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Or, more rightly, the fourteen second pregnant pause that was in the Civic Center Executive Meeting Room at around 10:40 AM on Thursday, December 1st.

The two entities that lost in the bid process were the City of Tulsa's Civic Center management team and a private company called Global Spectrum (GS). The meeting last Thursday was held in order to hear the concerns of GS with regard to what they learned about how the bids were handled by LaFortune's team. In fact, they had earlier requested in a letter to the city's purchasing department, for details in how they might formally protest the decision. Since there is no way it might destroy any drama you might be feeling to tell you now how it ended, the committee very politely rejected GS's appeal.

It took the Tulsa World more than a week following their initial interview with the GS executives, to finally publish a very shallow story on the issue in their paper. Most interestingly, they made a prophet of me with the GS execs, because I told them that Tulsa's paper would either not publish any story critical of the process, or would bury it deep in the Local section on Thanksgiving Day. Guess what? They did publish the story. Did you see it before you stuffed the turkey and/or yourself?

In a November 28th letter addressed to Larry Hood, the Director of Purchasing for the City of Tulsa, Frank Russo, the Senior VP for Sales at Global Spectrum outlined most of their concerns. You can read the letter in it's entirety here. For brevity's sake, let me include the final paragraph to illustrate how unusual an act this protest was for Global Spectrum:

In conclusion we are very disappointed with the selection process. I have personally been competing for private management contracts since 1988 and I have never filed a protest, but this situation is different – it is not simply “sour grapes.” We can’t help but feel that we were simply used to create the appearance of competition. We remain baffled as to why the City seems to be acting against its own best interests.

Even so, GS accepted an invitation from the city to fly one of their execs (Dean Dennis, Global Spectrum Western Region VP for Sales) to fly at GS's expense to Tulsa, to ask questions of the "Super Twelve" about Global Spectrum's concerns. Please note, I said "ask questions." Apparently there was no guarantee that the loss of time and money would result in satisfactory answers. Actually, as it turned out, there was no guarantee of any answer at all!

In a moment, I'm going to suggest you click on the link below to hear a 92 second sound clip that mocks any "spin" that members of the committee might have made to the local "news"paper. One such example of the spin came from District Nine Councilor Susan Neal. Here's what the World reported on Councilor Neal's thoughts on the rejection of GS's request to re-open the process:

City Councilor Susan Neal, one of the 15 committee members, said that to change the committee's decision, "it needed to hear some extraordinary evidence, and it didn't."

"The overall cost of operation, cost effectiveness, cost efficiency, savings to the taxpayers, best bang for the buck, best return on the investment for the longevity of the facility, all of that was considered in those numbers," she said.

"So, when you actually compare the two companies, their bids are so very close, but when you look at their returns, they are not close."

For those of you that pay to read the World online, you can read the entire story here. [Hurry...if you wait until after Friday, Dec. 8, you'll have to pay again.]

During the one hour that GS was allowed to makes its case and to ask questions, they attempted to address all five of the main points outlined in Russo's Nov. 28th letter to the City. However, GS VP Dean Dennis made multiple attempts to get someone...anyone...to answer item two on their list of concerns. Item two reads as follows [note; IFB stands for "Invitation For Bid"]:

2. Global Spectrum was the low bidder for the combined facilities by over $335,000. You can make all the adjustments you want – we were still the low bidder and yet SMG even received a higher score than us on this category!? We used your required IFB Form that leaves no doubt that we were the low bidder.

Those of you that dutifully read the Tulsa World account of the meeting will see no mention whatsoever of this concern on the part of Dennis and Global Spectrum's management. Those of you who know the Tulsa World has no objectivity on such issues are not surprised.

Rather than deal with the very real concerns of lack of logic in the process, the paper chose instead to focus on a letter of recommendation that Tulsa Vision Builder's arena project manager, Bart Boatright, sent to the committee supporting Global's rival, SMG. They used a quote from me to make it appear that this was the main sticking point and that even that contentious Medlock guy said nothing was wrong. At least, for once, they didn't refer to me as "Chris Medlock, who is running for mayor." Here's the actual quote from the paper:

City Councilor Chris Medlock, who attended the protest hearing, said he thinks Boatright had a lapse in judgment as far as the letter but blamed the administration for putting Boatright in an "impossible position."

Who else was in the room? Among others, there was Charles Hardt (CoT Director of Public Works), Mike Buchert (Asst. Dir. of Public Works), Clay Bird (Mayor's Chief of Staff), Susan Neal (Dist. 9 City Councilor), Bart Boatright (Tulsa Vision Builders Project Manager and the guy Clay Bird told the Council in committee two weeks earlier "had all the answers"), Larry Hood (Dir. of Purchasing), Linda Redemann (Asst. City Attorney, who along with Boatright and Hood wrote the IFB), Charles Norman (former City Attorney and the Mayor's fomer boss), and Karen Keith (the Mayor's chief spin doctor). Pretty safe to say, that any question regarding the arena, or the bidding process, should reside in one of these folks' brain, right?

Guess again.

So that brings us to the audio. What P.J. Lassek probably should have written was, Chris Medlock, who attended the protest hearing with a digital recorder that had enough memory to get Global's concerns recorded..."

What you will hear is a 92 second segment of the discussion. The first voice you will hear is that of Global's Dean Dennis, who is pointing to pro forma figures in a section of their bid and comparing it to the equivalent section in SMG's bid. He mentions "synergy savings," which is a term that appeared in SMG's bid, but was not part of the IFB requirements, but was used to explain much of why SMG won the bid.

The first question he asks is to simply ask if his interpretation of the figures is "correct?" Rather than getting confirmation to his logic, Larry Hood reads the two dollar figures in thousands of dollars, confirming that Global was slightly lower in its bid. Remember this, because it is important.

Then Dennis states his hope that the committee wasn't confused by the different ways that the two companies used to state their financial projections (pro formas). If there was confusion, it is possible that they weren't comparing "apples to apples," so to speak.

But then, in a very polite way, Dennis asks the quesiton Global most wants answered. If they were the low bidder on the compensation portion of the bids, why then, did SMG get more points for that section from the appointed members of the committee, with regard to the commitee's weighted scoring? In other words, Global won that section of the bid, and should have been awarded the higher score, right?

In fact, it was learned later in the meeting that Global's score in this section was the second best out of the three, and that SMG's was third out of three. The lowest bid on compensation was the City of Tulsa's Civic Center Management team. So here's how they ranked in bidding from lowest (best) to highest (worst):

1. Civic Center Management
2. Global Spectrum
3. SMG

But how did the committee weigh this section? Here's how:

1. SMG
2. Global Spectrum
3. Civic Center Management

Get the feeling something is going on here? Am I getting another notion that needs to be "quashed?"

So Dean Dennis asks the BIG question, and what is his answer? LISTEN HERE.

For those of you that couldn't download the file, he was answered with exactly fourteen seconds of dead silence, broken only by the voice of Asst. Director of Public Works, Mike Buchert, asking "Does anyone else have any questions or comments?"

Note to Mr. Buchert: What Mr. Dennis was looking for was neither a question, nor a comment. What Mr. Dennis, who flew to Tulsa at his company's expense was looking for was an answer, even if it proved a point that would be mightily embarrassing to the committee and the administration.

Mr. Dennis deserved an answer. He had left his wife (who is, by the way, the Secretary of State for the State of Colorado) and family to get an answer. Global Spectrum deserved an answer. The people of Tulsa deserved an answer. So where was the answer?

I'm guessing you don't have an answer. But don't think it's the last time you're going to be asked.

"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.

Lassek Claims of Quashing Are Questionable

P. J. Lassek and her headline editors are at it again. As always, they're hoping that more people read their accounts of Council meetings and do not watch TGOV than do watch TGOV.

In another Sunday story designed to discredit moi, Ms. Lassek structures the first several words to make it sound like more happened conclusively at Tuesday's Public Works meeting than actually happened. Let's examine her artistry.

The primary headline says that "officials" dispute my "claims." Officials makes it sound like it was individuals without a political stake in the game. Not so. Even John Scott, who recently got the news that half of his job is going away in 18 months has a vested interest in keeping the current administration happy.

There's nothing wrong with saying they're disputing my claims, since disputes are issues that are still...well...disputed. As for my "claims," I was primarily asking questions in the meeting to get to the bottom of other people's claims...most notably, P.J. Lassek's. After all, it was the discrepencies in the arena and convention center numbers that she reported in two different stories (without a story in between listing when and why a change occurred) that I was asking about.

Then there's the sub-head, where my "claims" have been rephrased more accurately as questions. Or are they saying I have questionable claims? Or maybe, I'm asking questions to infer claims? Hmmm....

Then we move to the lead paragraph. Believe me, nobody knows better than the writers, editors and publishers of a daily newspaper, the fact that the vast majority of readers won't get past the unflattering picture (I look like a congested mouth-breather) the headline, the sub-headline and maybe one or two paragraphs. So they finish the deal with the lead paragraph that said:

Officials quashed City Councilor Chris Medlock’s notion that voters were getting fewer improvements to the Maxwell Convention Center because cost estimates had changed.

How humiliated I must have felt. I mean, my notion had been quashed...and on live television no less!

Folks, if you haven't seen the meeting on TGOV, then let me make a "claim" here on my web log. My "notion" was questioned by employees of the mayor, but nothing was quashed (except for the notion that Clay Bird and the administration might ever answer a direct "question" about the arena with some notion of a direct answer).

Mr. Bird and Mr. Charles Hardt didn't deny that the amounts of money that might be spent on the arena as opposed to the convention center, have changed since the "question" was put before the voters in September, 2003. In fact, the story's second paragraph admits that the dollar figures have been fluid for the past two years. They just refused to give any details as to whether or not the quality of the end product the tax payers will see for their hard earned dollars might be declining in one, or both, of the projects.

I couldn't even get a straight answer as to what the process is for determining which, if any, of the projects will get short shrift, should the expected cost over runs materialize. After all, it is more than a personal "notion" that there has been a substantial spike in the costs of building materials over the past two years.

One thing that is more than a notion (in fact, it's unquestionable) is this; currently Bill LaFortune and his administration only have $183 million to build an iconic arena and to upgrade a convention center that is still in debt until 2013 due to its LAST upgrade in 1983.

If we're going to see cost over runs, due to higher material (and even labor) costs, and we're going to build an iconic arena as promised to the voters, then one of two things must be true. We're going to either get less convention center, or we're going to have to come back for more tax dollars.

Only time will tell who had a questionable notion and who had questionable motives for deceiving the public. The administration of course, is hoping that the true cost of the arena won't come to light until after LaFortune is re-elected (or more likely, it is someone else's burden to shoulder).

What is unquestionable is that the newspaper continues to skew reality to score political points. Heck, they even went to great pains (as opposed to Great Plains) to note that the meeting was yet again, "contentious). Trying to score political points using newsprint and ink isn't a questionable notion if it is constrained to the editorial pages. However, to do so in a news story is unquestionably unprofessional.

At least, that's a notion I'm comfortable in claiming.

Wilbert Collins: Huh?

I'm not sure which of two head scratchers from today's story on the growing opposition to Tulsa County's Four-To-Fix sales tax initiative was the itchiest.

I'm still amazed at the fact that the Tulsa World refuses to state, in any of the stories they've written, that my opposition to F-2-F is due to my idea of using the available tax (should the voters of Tulsa approve) to fund police academies and additional officers, as well as to fund other public safety proposals.

I guess the World knows that if the public gets wind of the details of my plan, that F-2-F is likely doomed.

The second head-scratcher is the response by County commissioner Wilbert Collins. Here's what Commissioner Collins said:

Medlock said police staffing was down when it should be

increased and he was worried that communities such as Broken Arrow could start recruiting Tulsa officers by offering better pay.

Medlock said the county should stick to property taxes for funding and let municipalities use the traditional method of raising money with sales taxes.

"I think the county's fixed," he said. "The county is continuing to prosper, even though the city is not."

County Commissioner Wilbert Collins stressed that "4 to Fix" is a county tax.

"(Medlock) ought to understand that. Why is it legal for us to launch the effort if it's not proper?" Collins said. "He needs to find a way to fund his projects in the city, and if it's police and fire, so be it. I agree they need some funding. That's his job, to find some funding."

Commissioner...I know 4 to Fix is a county tax. So are all those property taxes you collect. There was a day when the County collected no sales taxes and I hope that day comes again in my lifetime. I acknowledge it is a county tax, but if we vote it down, the voters of the City of Tulsa can reprioritize and vote in a CITY tax in the same amount to fund police and public safety.

As for the difference between legality and propriety, let me start with this: just because something is legal doesn't make it proper. I've never challenged either the legality of your tax or the propriety of asking for a renewal. What I've said is, that it needs to be ended because the priorities for the City of Tulsa have changed and that many like me believe its time to get the County out of the sales tax business.

Ending 4 to Fix and then offering a public safety alternative use for the same amount is legal, proper and imperative.

Norman Conquest? Did Cox Connection Influence Mayor’s Arena Choice?

Yesterday, I attended the press conference at which Bill LaFortune announced his selection for the new arena’s management contract. LaFortune's handpicked Vision 2025 Oversight Committee and the Events Center Design Committee a selected the Philadelphia based company, SMG. [Please note that one of the members of the oversight committee is local attorney Charles Norman, of the law firm Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell]

Originally formed in 1977 to manage the Louisiana Superdome, SMG (Sports Management Group) is a joint venture in general partnership form with two equal principals: The Hyatt Hotel Company and ARAMARK Corporation. The firm manages 74 arenas and 7 stadiums, which is admittedly quite impressive.

However, it has been rumored for some time that the current administration was leaning very heavily toward SMG, even as much as a year ago.

The V2025 Oversight & Design Committees conducted interviews from the three applicants on Thursday, November 3rd, from 9AM to 2 PM. One would assume the team stopped for lunch. It took LaFortune and his team less than one day to conduct interviews with SMG and the other three applicants, to talk over their thoughts, to weigh all the options, to choose SMG and then to put together and conduct a press conference in City Hall. That's pretty quick for a guy that often takes months to determine who to put onto the Sign Advisory Board.

So was the fix in? If so, why? Or did SMG have an advantage based on relationships with committee members?

Who did SMG beat out for the contract? Two others applied. They were John Scott and his staff, who currently operate the Convention Center and another international team named Global Spectrum. (I encourage you to click on the hyperlink to see Global Spectrum's site, lest you think they were some minor player compared to SMG.) Here's a bit about Global Spectrum (ironically, also Philadelphia based) from one of their news releases:

Global Spectrum, the fastest growing firm in the public assembly facility management field with more than 45 facilities throughout the United States and Canada, manages the Iowa Events Center. The Philadelphia-based company is part of one of the world’s largest sports and entertainment firm Comcast-Spectacor, which also owns the Wachovia Center and Wachovia Spectrum, the Philadelphia Flyers of the National Hockey League, the Philadelphia 76ers of the National Basketball Association, the Philadelphia Phantoms of the American Hockey League, Flyers Skate Zone, a series of community ice skating rinks, Comcast SportsNet, a regional sports programming network, Ovations Food Services, a food and beverage services provider, New Era Tickets, a full-service ticketing and marketing product for public assembly facilities, and Front Row Marketing Services, a commercial rights sales company. Comcast-Spectacor owns three minor league baseball teams - the Bowie Baysox, the Delmarva Shorebirds and the Frederick Keys - all affiliates of the Baltimore Orioles.

What is very interesting to me can be found in Global Spectrum's full name; "Global Spectrum, a subsidiary of Comcast Spectacor." Here's a link to Comcast Specator's site.

Having one time been employed in the cable industry, I'm very familiar with the name Comcast.
For those of you that aren't familiar with Comcast, here are some details from the company's web site:

Comcast is the nation's leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services, serving more than 21.5 million cable subscribers and more than 7.7 million high-speed Internet customers. Comcast serves 1.2 million cable telephone subscribers. Comcast is principally involved in the development, management and operation of broadband cable networks and the creation and delivery of programming content. Comcast provides basic cable, digital cable, high-speed Internet and digital phone services The Company's content networks and investments include E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, The Golf Channel, Outdoor Life Network, G4, AZN Television, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One and four Comcast SportsNets.

The Company also has a majority ownership in Comcast-Spectacor, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in Philadelphia ,Comcast also is a partner in joint ventures focused on digital cable technology developments including GuideWorks, TVWorks, Combined Conditional Access Development (CCAD), Conditional Access Licensing (CAL) and OCAP Development.

Compare this now, to Tulsa's local cable company, Cox Communications:

Cox Communications is a multi-service broadband communications company with approximately 6.6 million total customers, including 6.3 million basic cable subscribers. The nation’s third-largest cable television provider, Cox offers both analog cable television under the Cox Cable brand as well as advanced digital video service under the Cox Digital Cable brand.

Cox provides an array of other communications and entertainment services, including local and long distance telephone under the Cox Digital Telephone brand; high-speed Internet access under the Cox High Speed Internet brand; and commercial voice and data services via Cox Business Services. Local cable advertising, promotional opportunities and production services are sold under the Cox Media brand. Cox is an investor in programming networks including Discovery Channel.

What is the significance of this? Well, if you're Cox Communications and you have the cable franchises for the two largest cable markets in the state of Oklahoma, how excited are you going to be to have a subsidiary of the nation's largest cable company suddenly getting a toehold in your market? Not very, I can assure you.

Don't forget to throw into the calculation, this little factoid. We've just announced that BOK is going to be given the naming rights for Tulsa's arena and most of us know that Oklahoma City awarded their naming rights to the area Ford dealerships.

What is probably of less common knowledge for Tulsans is that OKC's convention center, was renamed, too. Formerly the Myriad Center, OKC's city government also secured naming rights for the convention center. And who was awarded those rights?

Click here to see for yourself.

Note the logos in the lower right-hand corner.

Not interesting enough for you, yet? Okay...remember when I asked you to note the fact that local big-wig attorney Charles Norman was a member of the Vision 2025 Oversight Committee that was selected by Mayor Bill LaFortune? Would it surprise you to know (if you didn't already) that before he was our mayor and after he was our District Attorney, Bill LaFortune was an attorney for the law firm of Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell?

Wait...it get's better. Would it surprise you to know that one of NWC&D's biggest clients is none other than Cox Communications?

Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell

Location: 2900 Mid Continent Tower
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103

Representative Clients:
Bethlehem Steel Corp.; BSW International; Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.; Crum & Forster; Mid-Continent Concrete Co.; Mid-Continent Energy, Inc.; Raytheon Co.; Sooner Pipe, Inc. and affiliates; Sovereign Insurance Life Insurance Company of California; St. John Medical Center; Cox Communications; Tulsa City-County Library System; Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance; Duke Energy Field Services, Inc.; Hillcrest Health System; Warren Foundation.

So what if the firm represents Cox...that doesn't mean they are a client of Norman's? How about this from the Tulsa City Council's online meeting minutes from February 22, 2005:

Public Works Committee

Agenda Item Number 8

Franchise agreement with Cox Communications to allow television cable access and equipment within the City of Tulsa’s right of way. 05-119

Discussion At Meeting:

A representative from Cox, Mr. Mullin, came to discuss a permanent
non-exclusive franchise with the City of Tulsa. Charles Norman is also here as Cox’s representative to negotiate with the City of Tulsa. Councilor Sullivan says that this item allows others to move into this contract through a bidding process and that Cox is a friendly community partner. Charles Norman, the legal representative from Cox, talked about how the Charter expresses that this contract would be at will from the side of the City for cause. He also gave an extensive history of cable franchises to the Council. He says that he feels that a vote of the people is not needed to establish a franchise. Councilor Sullivan added more support for this arrangement.

Further throw into the mix the fact that Mr. Norman serves on the Board of Trustees of the University of Tulsa with such luminaries as Steve Turnbo [Great Plains Airlines], Bob & Roxanna Lorton [Great Plains Airlines], Buddy LaFortune [Mayor's father], Sharon Bell [BOK Board], Paula Marshall [BOK Board] and Kathryn Taylor [BOK Board].

Think any influence is getting applied to Hizzoner the Mayor? Maybe. Maybe not.