Wisdom of Gingrich

One of the perks of not being a city councilor anymore, is that I'm reading nothing on sewer easements and community development block grant applications, which leaves me a lot more time to read...yes it's true...books.

I am currently reading my autographed copy of Newt Gingrich's latest book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America. It's a bit strange to be wading into national and international issues again, after three years of being mired in local issues. In fact, as someone who used to think of himself as a pretty knowledgeable guy on national and international events, I'm realizing I'm going to have at least a two year hole in my knowledge.

Anyway...I read one passage in Newt's book that I thought summed up very well a lot of why Americans don't understand the current war we find ourselves in. The fact is, words matter and the words we choose to describe things effect the way we perceive things. As we all know, perception to often is reality. Here's what Gingrich writes:

"Because post-modern analysts refuse to take religion seriously, we describe "suicide bombers" while our opponents describe martyrs. We see them as psychologically deranged, where they see themselves as dedicated to God."

The long and short of it is, as long as our media continues to filter our current military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan through a secular sieve, the public is going to be at a loss to understand the vehement hatred that is being leveled at our troops and our nation.

In other words, you can't take God out of a holy war.

Public Benjamin

In light of the recent BOK Center bids turning out to be nearly 50% higher than anticipated by the project engineers, I thought I'd check some of my notes to see what others had said publicly about the issue. My first entry on this subject comes from a letter to the editor printed in the Tulsa World on February 1 of this year.

The letter is entitled, "Quit bickering!" and is from none other than John (I'm the brains behind recall) Benjamin, of Bixby. You know John...the guy who recruited Bill Christiansen, Randy Sullivan and Bill Martinson? The John Benjamin who is promoting the Bixby Bridge that his buddy Christiansen say's he's against. The John Benjamin who served as the Republican point man for the "It's Tulsa's Time" downtown revitalization question back in 1999. The John Benjamin who worked with Jim Burdge to try to recall Jim Mautino and I.

Here's a little of what Mr. Benjamin wrote:

"Now we need to get the political pundits running for Tulsa mayor to back off
the continual negative images for the arena project. The arena is the anchor and major stimulus for the new downtown investment and reinvestment. Its design is already bringing international recognition for Tulsa."

I wonder who he meant by, "political pundits running for Tulsa Mayor?" He goes on to say,

"This facility, which is greatly needed and long overdue, would be worth the investment even if it overran its budget. So far this is not an issue and the arena is being built within budget projections. The taxpayers of Tulsa County wand and are getting cost accountability for the arena construction."

Sounds a little like Mr. Benjamin knew what was coming and was putting in to be the chief spokesperson for the new tax that might very well be necessary to pay for the overrun that DID materialize.

"Mayoral candidates need to pick a new whipping-boy issue for their campaigns. Political positioning is creating more negative images for Tulsa..."

Well, I'm not sure Johnnie B. was speaking of me when he spoke of "mayoral candidates," but when I was warning of the eventual cost overruns we've known have been coming for almost a year and a half, I wasn't "positioning." I was warning the voters about what was coming down the pike. Time has a way of revealing who was speaking responsibly and who was "positioning."

"The arena project is in the hands of capable professional managers/contractors and construction costs are being monitored by the mayor, the city's arena committee, county commissioners and the Vision 2025 overview committee."

This past Saturday, the Tulsa World wrote, "Rumors have been swirling about possible increased expenses over the past several months because of escalating material costs due to last year's Gulf Coast hurricanes and the subsequent construction boom."

Rumors? Just rumors? Who was spreading such rumors? Most likely people trying to throw cold water on the positive momentum created by the passage of Vision 2025.

People weren't told by the Tulsa World that rumors were circulating. They were told that unfounded allegations were being made. They were told of "shenanigans" and "dysfunctional councilors" berating who were asking "politically motivated questions" designed to "berate" competent "officials" who were on top of things.

My favorite quote from the Tulsa World comes from November 13, 2005 story by PJ Lassek entitled "Officials dispute Medlock claims." The final paragraph of the story reads as follows:

Councilor Bill Martinson said some councilors were getting "dangerously close to micromanaging" the work on the arena and convention center. "Repeatedly we're told we're within budget. At some point in time, we have to trust these people to do their jobs," he said.

I remember this moment quite clearly, as Mr. Martinsen was chastising the Gang of Four councilors for continuing to ask about the arena's costs. He apparently thought this going beyond our realm of responsibility, even though the council is responsible within the city charter for the budget. Something for the voters in District 5 to consider next time they go to the polls to vote on Martinsen.

I know far fewer people will read this blog post than read John Benjamin's letter to the editor. Benjamin ended his letter by saying, "The Tulsa mayoral race will be over soon and we can get on with building a positive future for Tulsa County."

Yes...John Benjamin...the mayoral race is over. We do have an opportunity to build a positive future for Tulsa County. It just looks like the price of positive futures just got a little higher.

There's one bright spot for our future though. Fewer people are going to put much stock in what John Benjamin has to say about things, that's for sure.

BOK Center Overdrawn

I've just returned from City Hall, where I watched the unsealing of the construction bids for Tulsa's BOK Center/Arena.

The mood was more than somber, as each of the bids came in. It's going to take some time to fully crunch the numbers, and some of the bids are a bit complex, but it is safe to say this:

This phase of the arena's bids came in roughly 50% over what was anticipated.

My first pass on running the numbers reveals that the combined engineering estimates for the arena were $67,652,380. These numbers include such items as structural steel, cast-in-place concrete, exterior composite metal wall, electrical and wiring, the Icon Wall glass, and drywall. Each of these individual bids came in at $101,033,466.

Once again, I need to review my audio recordings to confirm the dollar amounts, but the actuals will vary little. If these numbers hold, the actual bids came in 49.3% above the engineers' estimates.

If memory serves me right, Tulsa Vision Builders has publicly stated that they have spent approximately $40 million on the project during the first two phases of construction. Adding today's numbers means that the first three phases of the $140 million arena project will cost $141 million. The final phases were assumed to have cost something in the range of $30 million when the arena was first conceived. No wait, the original estimate for the arena was $121 million. At least, that's what the voters were told in September, 2003.

Anyway, if we estimate that the final phases will run a mere 33% over budget, rather than today's 49%, the minimum assumed cost of the BOK Center should be somewhere in the vicinity of $181 million. That leaves little or nothing left to renovate the Convention Center to create the new ballroom space. If the current 6,000 seat arena in the Convention Center isn't converted, then won't it compete with the BOK Center in attracting the Talons and Oilers games?

If they can't build it, they can't come.

More details after I've had a chance to review my notes.

Don't Touch That Dial

Last week, our neighbors who populate the political forum over at http://www.tulsanow.org/ were speculating on the demise of local conservative talk radio. The quantitative basis for their arguments was an online report generated by the web site http://www.radioandrecords.com/.

The posting entitled “KFAQ Ratings Keep Dropping,” was first put up by the frequent forum poster Ron Warnick (aka “rwarn17588”) who as fate would have it, is in real life an employee of the Tulsa World. Mr. Warnick writes:

The latest ratings report is out. KFAQ remained in 14th place in the Tulsa market, but its ratings dropped again, from 3.6 to 3.4.

KRMG saw a drop, too, from 7.5 to 6.4. It makes me wonder whether listeners nationwide are getting tired of right-wing radio, and the dropping ratings to Tulsa's two talk stations are reflecting that.

Thoughtful analysis and some facts beyond a single web site’s extremely general assessment of Tulsa’s radio scene belie Mr. Warnick’s hopeful analysis.

While it is true that the report shows that KRMG dropped from a 7.7 in the Winter of 2005 to a 6.4 in the Winter of 2006, and KFAQ dropped from a 4.3 in Wi05 to a 3.4 in Wi06, it is a giant leap to declare this a clear sign of the repudiation of "right-wing radio" in Tulsa.

If we were to analyze the entire market based on this single report, maintaining Mr. Warnick’s logic would lead us to the conclusion that Tulsans are also growing tired of Country Music and Classic Rock and Roll.

After all, KWEN dropped from a 6.8 to 6.7, KVOO from a 7.1 to a 6.3, and KXBL from a 5.6 to a 4.8. That’s a cumulative drop in listenership for the three top country stations of 1.7 per cent of the total market. Perhaps Tulsans are growing weary of the degeneration of country music from its historical roots grounded in slide guitar and twanging voices, to its current trend toward artists with crossover appeal, such as Shania Twain and Gary Allan.

Rock and Roll fairs no better. KMOD dropped from 5.9 to 5.6. Are Tulsan’s finally growing tired of “Free Bird” and “Stairway to Heaven?” Is the Breakfast Club Zoo seeing backlash for their refusal to erect a statue to a Hindu god in their studio?

Classic rock station KJSR saw a decline from 5.0 to 4.2, oldies station KQLL dropped from 4.0 to 3.6, and urban station KJMM fell from 3.5 to 2.8.

So who went up?

Pop station KHTT jumped .6 percent, going from 4.6 to 5.2. Alternative rock station KMYZ leaped from 2.6 to 5.0, nearly doubling its listenership. Spanish Oldies station KIZS moved up from 2.3 to 3.8 and regional Mexican station KXTD went from 0.0 to 0.8 in the ratings.

What can we glean from all of this?

A logical assessment would look at what is happening nationally as well as locally, with regard to technology and the shift in local demographics.

Satellite radio services such as Sirius and XM had extremely good sales during the last Christmas shopping season. Obviously, many of the local stations are going to feel the impact of such services, including talk radio. Given that many of the more popular national shows are “time shifted” to fit local schedules, the satellite services offer true fans the opportunity to hear their favorite shows live.

When one looks at who is buying such satellite systems, obviously the preponderance of the purchases will be made by early adopters with more disposable income; in other words, older listeners who trend to classic rock, country and talk. The numbers seem to bear this out, more than an overall growing dislike of conservative talk.

If you’re pulling out some of the older demographic, then you’re also going to make the younger demographic’s members count more. Perhaps this is why alternative jumped so high?

But the most interesting assumption one could come to analyzing these numbers comes from the demographic trend that occupies much of the talk on talk radio. That is, the influx of Spanish speaking residents, (both legal and illegal) into the Tulsa market. The numbers seem to show the shift just as much as the signage above businesses at 21st and Garnett.

The most disappointing facts that burst Mr. Warnick’s assumptive balloon, though, have to do with the virtual worthlessness of the report he cites. Radio stations pay a small fortune for ratings information that breaks the market down into time segments and demographic/psychographic groups. Let’s face it folks, if the information contained on http://www.radioandrecords.com/ had any real value, you wouldn’t be able to access it for free.

The truth is, recent ratings reports show that KFAQ’s Michael Delgiorno show is more popular than ever. I’ll post on this later.

In the mean time, perhaps Mr. Warnick can explain why his employer, the Tulsa World, no longer participates in the readership survey conducted by the Audit Bureau of Ciculation, the newspaper industry’s equivalent to radio’s Arbitron ratings? Could it be that they don't let the Lortons count free and almost-free newspapers as paid subscriptions?

It's not talk radio that's dying, it's newspapers. Even the venerable Washington Post has a story on the declining readership for the nation’s newspapers.

Or this one from CNNMoney.

Or this one from Reuters.

Or this one from Associated Press.

No…Mr. Warnick. What people are growing tired of is local “Hate Newspaper.” The continued liberal bias of the nation’s newspapers are pushing readers to alternative news sources, such as talk radio, blogs and even forums like TulsaNow.org.

The times, they are a changin', but one thing stays constant...our nation is slowing moving to the right politically.

"We're the Right...we have might...get used to it."

Hold the Door Please!

Last Monday, April 10th, was my last day as a city councilor. As a departing city employee, I was required to turn in the keys to my office, my city hall name badge, my fax machine and my underground parking tag.

I decided to make the trip to turn everything in before my Downtown Kiwanis meeting at 11:30. After making one last check around the office to make sure I hadn’t left anything in a drawer or under the desk, I dropped off all of my smaller items on the desk of Council Administrator Don Cannon, as he wasn’t in to take them personally. I then headed for the kitchen to get a diet cola before leaving the building to run another errand at the County Courthouse.

Upon leaving the kitchen, I headed for the elevator landing, as I had done hundreds of times before. I heard familiar voices as I approached the landing, but when I rounded the corner, I was a bit taken aback by whom I found waiting on the elevators.

There before me stood outgoing (in more ways than one) mayor, Bill LaFortune, and Mayor-Elect Kathy Taylor (just a few hours before she was to be sworn in).

I announced my presence by saying something like, “Now there’s a dangerous duo.”

Both seemed surprised to see me, even though they were hobnobbing in my “stomping grounds.” We exchanged very brief pleasantries and it was all I could do to keep from pointing first at Taylor, then at LaFortune and then at myself and counting one…two…three.

Instead, I just quipped, “So…when in Randi Miller arriving?”

At that time, the chimes of two elevators, arriving at the same time alerted us that the conversation was coming to an end. One elevator’s light indicated that it was heading up…the other indicating it was heading down to street level and ultimately the basement.

We parted, Kathy Taylor taking the elevator that was going up…Bill LaFortune and I sharing the elevator heading down.

Sometimes, in the simplest of moments, three years of one’s life can be summed up in an instance.

Tip Toe Through the Mine Field

By winning the election on April 4th and being sworn in as Tulsa’s 38th mayor on Monday, Kathy Taylor has won the right to wander into a political minefield, not as of yet, of her making.

Some of the mines are clearly marked and should be easy to negotiate around, even for a City Hall neophyte; these include the Third Penny vote and the FY 2007 budget. However, there are some smaller, not so clearly marked mines, lying just inside the perimeter that, if she does not tread carefully, might blast off a large part of the goodwill she is going to need during the early months of her administration.

One such landmine, deals with the Tulsa Airport Improvements Trust (TAIT) board, and what to do with current board member Ron Turner. Gen. Turner’s term of office is up at the end of April, and he desperately wants to be reappointed. Among his biggest supporters for reappointment are current TAIT board member Meredith Siegfried (Turner is a family friend and a former NORDAM board member), current city councilor Bill Christiansen (who recommended Turner to Bill LaFortune) and much of the professional staff at the airport.

However, Turner is very unpopular in many circles. The residents of the neighborhoods near the airport see Turner as dismissive of their concerns regarding the federal noise abatement program that is overseen by TAIT. The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (a.k.a. “the Bridge People”) are wary of Turner, given his unabashed support Cinnabar, who was the chief contractor for the noise abatement program until they were run off by the two reform minded board members (Carl Clay and Charles Sublett) that Mayor LaFortune appointed. Why would Cinnabar concern the STCC? Because the ownership of Cinnabar and Infrastructure Ventures Inc, which is trying to build the Bixby toll bridge, are virtually identical.

Turner is also unpopular with most of the non-commercial tenants on the east-side of Jones Riverside Airport. This rather influential group, which by definition consists mainly of private individuals who can afford to own and hanger a private aircraft, were the chief force behind Cliff Magee’s closer than expected challenge to Bill Christiansen.

Mayor Taylor is likely to be heavily lobbied to return Gen. Turner to the TAIT board. If she wants to prolong her “honeymoon,” she’ll ignore the lamentations of Turner’s fans, and announce a new member.

Turner’s reappointment is guaranteed to receive Council opposition. It is a guarantee that Jack Henderson and Roscoe Turner (no relation) will vote against a renomination of Gen.. Turner, should Taylor reappoint him. It is likely, but not a guarantee, that Bill Christiansen would recuse himself on such a vote, leaving only eight councilors to decide. A six-to-two renomination wouldn’t be too embarrassing for the new mayor.

However, what if two of the new breed of reformist councilors also sign on? It is quite likely that Maria Barnes, Rick Westcott and John Eagleton could vote “no.” That would be a disaster for Taylor, who ran on a pledge to unite the Council.

Taylor’s alternative would be to lobby the swing councilors to support a reappointment of Gen. Turner. It is widely expected that Taylor will be more like fellow Democrat and Henry cabinet member, Susan Savage, when it comes to cracking the whip with rogue councilors. But the question she and her new staff is going to have to address is a simple one. Is a renomination of a very controversial and arguably ineffective Airport Board member worth the loss of political capital, this early in the game?

This one should be an interesting appointment to watch. Or rather listen to…for the sound of that first political landmine exploding.

Out of Cite

They just couldn't help themselves. Those crusty, dusty, musty minds on the Tulsa World opinion pages had to take a parting shot.

This time, the invective comes from David Averill, the vice-chief of the "Five Uncivilized Diatribes," which is my pet-name the Lorton blather squad of Neal, Averill, Adwan, Pearson and Delcour. In Sunday's paper, Averill added an exclamation point to the World's revisionist take on the reality of City Hall over the past two years. Averill writes of his great hope that the new administration and council will show civility to one another.

Averll writes:

It seems pretty clear that voters are tired of -- even embarrassed by -- the discord and dysfunction at City Hall. Hopefully all of the winners in Tuesday's election got that message.

How can I say this without sounding...well...uncivil? Oh well. If you're going to get blasted for it, you might as well embrace it.

Having actually lived through the last two years at City Hall, I can only say, "David Averill is either ignorant, or a liar."

Sorry, there are no other explanations. To support his contention that the likes of Jim Mautino and I were run off by the voters who thought us terribly uncivil, he postulates a series of offenses, intimating that we were guilty of all of them. Let's examine some.

"...civility is not trashing the reputations of honorable residents who serve without pay on city boards and authorities, especially when there is no basis in fact to do so."

I couldn't agree more, Mr. Averill. One problem. I never did this.

First let me say, I've never seen David Averill at a single meeting of the Council. If one assumes that he is speaking from first hand experience, he must have seen it on TGOV. This is a fair assumption, because almost everything a councilor does officially, they do on TGOV. As such, show me the tape of my doing this dispicable deed.

If you're referencing the Cameron and Reynolds affair, is quietly voting "no" on a mayoral appointment "trashing" their reputations? As for a basis for my vote, I thought...and still think...their philosophy regarding Tulsa's water policy is disastrous.

"It is not trying to renege on a long-standing promise to extend a water line to a neighboring community."

One, who made the "promise?" The mayor denied that he did. Charles Hardt didn't have the authority to promise. If he, or any civil service employee made a promise to Owasso, then they should be fired for doing so.

Two, how was it "long standing?" The money for the waterline was passed by the voters as part of the Vision 2025 initiatives. Tulsa offered to build the line using TMUA funds a few months after the Vision vote. The first it appeared on the Council's agenda was the very first committee meeting the day after the new council was sworn in. Imagine the brand new council showing up tomorrow morning, and having this snuck in as the third agenda item.

A few months does not "long standing' make.

It's not trying to boost Tulsa by blocking progress in the suburbs.

For the umpteenth time, regionalism is a two-way bargain. If a project requires Tulsa's resources to be used to the benefit of any suburb, and to the detriment of Tulsa, then it is foolish for any elected official of Tulsa to pursue that project.

That isn't trying to "boost Tulsa by blocking," David. It's called being a responsible steward of the citizen's interests.

Civility is not mistreating guests at council meetings.

If you're going to accuse, at least have the decency to cite the instance in which this occurred. I remember Councilor Baker chastising Deanna Oakley. I remember Councilor Martinson referring to North Tulsa citizens who were critical of his posisions as "the Peanut Gallery." I'm not sure when we were supposed to have mistreated guests.

If you're still talking about the waterline issue, I will say that I was pretty reserved with Rodney Ray, the City Manager of Owasso, who basically came to the Tulsa City Council to threaten us. I also remember saying that if a non-elected official of Tulsa went to Owasso's council to make threats, I would have screamed for their dismissal.

It is not trying to shout down fellow councilors who hold differing opinions.

Never did it. Henderson maybe?

It's not dressing down city employees, who aren't in much of a position to respond, just because you don't like the message they bring.

Never did it. Show me the tape. Cite an instance. You can't, David, because if you did, we could make the tape available and the truth wouldn't match your paper's spin.

It's not five members meeting exclusive of the other four to pre-arrange strategy for the official council meeting.

I'll will swear on a bible...my mother's grave (although she's still alive)...or take a polygraph on this one. Five of us NEVER met to do what David Averill suggests. In fact, on this one he moves very close to the edge of slander, given he is accusing us of a crime.

Gee...how uncivil of you David.

Then there is the matter of Jim Mautino and I being reputdiated by the voters.

It is interesting to note that two of the councilors most often at the center of incidents of discord, Chris Medlock and Jim Mautino, will no longer be on the council. Recall votes in their respective districts last year, called after a citizen group circulated recall petitions, were overwhelmingly defeated. It appears that those votes were more against the recall effort than they were endorsements of Medlock and Mautino; the next time they faced voters they lost, Medlock in the Republican mayoral primary and Mautino to challenger Dennis K. Troyer in the District 6 election Tuesday.

As for me, I ran against an incumbent from my own party, who came from on of Tulsa's "brand name" families and outspent me 10 to 1. I had no run-off election to fend off the effect of a third candidate entering the race to split the "anyone but LaFortune" vote. Even so, I got nearly 12,000 votes which is basically 12,000 more votes than any of the Tulsa World's opinionistas have ever gotten.

Also, let's not forget that the Tulsa World's "scientific" poll said that I was going to get half the votes I did get. Could this mean that there is a growing number of people that would like to see a little more disruption at City Hall if it sheds light on what's really been going on down there?

As for Jim Mautino, let's say this. Jim ran three campaigns in two years for the same seat, because of the likes of David Averill and Bob Lorton (who gave $2500 to the Recall effort). He is a 73 year old retiree with a passion for his city and his neighborhood. He was outspent in the primary and won. When they didn't get him in the primary, many of the same financial interests ponied up to the Troyer campaign to get him in the general. It is amazing he came so close.

Jim Mautino had his reputation smeared almost daily in the pages of the rag Mr. Averill works for, much of it at the hands of Mr. Averill himself. Much of this "trashing" was done with "no basis in fact to do so."

Come to think of it, who has been the most uncivil? The members of the 2004 Tulsa City Council, or the members of the antiquated Tulsa World editorial board?

At least we councilors have the facts on our side.

Mary Hill and the TMAPC

Sally Perez, writing under the handle "SPEREX" posted her very first forum entry over at www.tulsanow.org. Titling her topic, "City Job Giveaways," Ms. Perez apparently is hoping to whip up a high enough degree of indignation to shame Mayor LaFortune into reconsidering his withdrawal of TMAPC member Mary Hill's reappointment to the planning commission.

While I admire Mr. Perez' spirit, it is unfortunate that very little of what she writes is true. This is an unfortunate side effect we find in many citizens who rely on the Tulsa World for their facts. The average citizen isn't as aware as those who have been around awhile that there are "real facts" and "Tulsa World facts."

Here's what Mr. Perez wrote:

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when appointed, dedicated servants to this administration are set aside, in an effort to garner votes from a "fragment" of the unique culture in Tulsa. Mary Hill has generously and unselfishly served under two mayors on TMAPC for 10 years. Although challenged at times by her local vocal in council district 6, she stayed with the letter of the law, considering all of the facts and voted her conscience with integrity and honesty while upholding her commitment to serve all citizens well in this city. While at times under attack for not bending to the agenda driven desires of her constituent councilor, Mrs. Hill earned respect throughout this city for her candor, demeanor and ability to be fair in zoning issues.

Mayor LaFortune reappointed Mrs. Hill to the planning commission many weeks ago and she has appeared at two grueling city council committee meetings to answer questions by the Medlock and Mautino to justify her reappointment. Objections were heard from James Mautino, stating that he had to investigate conflict of interest and on a side bar, informed Mrs. Hill that she did not support two items during his tenure. She did not vote the way that he wanted her to. He had a "compadre" in District 5 that he wanted in her place.

Ms. Hill was to go before a committee meeting again this upcoming Tuesday, with the full support of the mayor for her reappointment and for the approval by the council, and was told to attend an affirmation by the council vote this Thursday.

On Saturday morning, like the rest of the "Tulsa World", she got notification, through the newspaper, that her appointment was sold for votes for Medlock and a TMAPC position for Bates.....the mayor had pulled his reappointment for Hill.

No phone call, no heads up...... not even an impersonal e-mail telling her that he had "re-considered"......after 10 years of service...that is despicable!

Fellow Tulsans..........this is what your time well served is worth under this current administration. For those of you who want to even think about serving, without pay, because you "truly care" about this city.......think twice. Your commission votes are only worth what your "council and mayor can buy"!

What IS true in Ms. Perez' posting?

1. Ms. Hill has served for ten years on the TMAPC.
2. She has served two mayors, as she was originally appointed by Susan Savage.
3. Ms. Hill's name was sent back to the Council by the Mayor's Office for re-appointment a few weeks ago.
4. Ms. Hill appeared before a Council sub-committee for vetting by the council, which includes possible questioning.
5. Councilor Mautino expressed concern about Ms. Hill's reappointment to the planning commission and it was agreed to delay consideration on both her and Brandon Jackson's appointment for a couple of weeks, so that councilors could discuss their concerns with Ms. Hill away from the television cameras, where she might be unduly embarrassed.
6. Ms. Hill was again present at today's committee meeting.
7. Last Saturday morning, the Tulsa World wrote a story say that Ms. Hill would not be reappointed and that Michael Bates would be named in her place, apparently the result of some secret deal cut by Mayor LaFortune and myself.

These are the facts that I can atest to.

Unfortunately, just about everything else is speculation and inaccurate.

Where to begin? How about some other facts?

1. No deal exists to put Michael Bates on the planning commission in place of either Ms. Hill or Mr. Jackson.
2. Mr. Bates' name was mentioned in a meeting I had with the Mayor (he was teleconferencing in) as one of three possible names that I would like to see placed on the TMAPC in place of Ms. Hill.
3. Mayor LaFortune was not aware that Ms. Hill's name had been resubmitted. Her name was sent back down by mayoral aide Karen Keith, without the Mayor's knowledge.
4. On Thursday afternoon, Mayor LaFortune directed Sam Roop to withdraw Ms. Hill's re-appointment.
5. A memo was received in the Council offices, from Mr. Roop, advising the Council that Ms. Hill's re-appointment was being pulled for further consideration.
6. Mayor LaFortune chose one of the three names I suggested (not Michael Bates) and that individual was to be put through the nomination process as soon as Ms. Hill's appointment was withdrawn.
7. I never asked Ms. Hill a single question during her committee appearance. In fact, I barely spoke except on some minor points of order.
8. It is not the responsibility of the Council Secretary to inform nominees that their names have been pulled. That responsibility lies with the Mayor's office.

Let me also share that there were four solid votes against Ms Hill's re-appointment...that I know of.

Many feel that she has been on the commission to long and it's time for new blood.

Many thought it important to appoint someone that is sensitive to the issues raised by many of the recent contentious zoning issues. The thought is, that a voice or two might prevent future controversies.

Some were troubled by the fact that Ms. Hill signed the recall petition of Councilor Mautino last year. Such participation is her right within our political system, but let's face it. As a political appointee, hoping to get re-appointed the following year by a mayor who publicly opposed Councilor Mautino's recall, it wasn't the brightest of moves. Political appointees will and should be impacted by the consequences of their political actions.

There are several authorities, boards and commissions that need some changes in membership, if we are to begin the healing our city needs.

I think we should all thank Ms. Hill for her service to the city. Such efforts on the part of citizens can not be lauded enough.

However, it is time for new blood on the TMAPC.

I Told Him So

Over two years ago (on a December evening in 2004 to be exact), Tulsa mayor Bill LaFortune sat in my city council office and I offered him the follwing prediction.

"If you don't start making decisions based on Republican principles, rather than on what keeps the Tulsa World off of your back, you're going to be facing a tough Democrat opponent...probably Kathy Taylor...and the World is going to endorser her anyway."

I had almost forgotten this prognostication until I was reminded of it last Friday. Who reminded me? Why Bill LaFortune did.

Ultimately, we will not be judged by the mistakes we make, but from the lessons learned as a result of our mistakes.

Schools in session.

The Mayor of Tulsa, Florida

KOTV and KTUL are running with a story on Kathy Taylor's back tax problem in Florida. It appears she may have filed for a homestead exemption in both states.

This begs the obvious question. Which state is her "homestead" located in? If she filed it in Florida at some recent time, then obviously she wasn't calling Tulsa her home.

How long has she been a Tulsan?

Read more at BatesLine.com.