kevinpate,

Timing is hard to say given the MAPS 3 passage (gets closer to the tipping point where voters say, "not another tax"). But if they are going to do it they need to put it out there before the County Jail vote (which would push it even closer to that tipping point). Heck even the Mayor spoke of voter fatigue numerous times when he was considering if/when to pursue MAPS 3 (after the Ford Tax/G.O. Bond/School Bond/tinker Bond votes). The City took advantage of 2 things:

1) they couldn't let the Ford Tax lapse because adding a 1 cent tax would be an obvious tax increase and they wouldn't be able to play the semantics game and make the misleading claim that it wouldn't raise taxes.

2) The County dragging their feet on the Jail issue. They have known about the problems since the day the Jail opened 20 or so years ago. They have known for at least a year now the Feds are going to come in and take over if they don't solve the problem.

For a possible Public Saefty tax increase F&P can take advantage of:
3) The Jail vote is being pushed back even farther (think now they are talking the end of 2010).

I didn't see very many of the MAPS 3 commercials and don't specifically recall mentioning the Use Tax but like you said, more in a generic "if MAPS 3 passes, public safety will get better...if it doesn't pass, things will get worse" type of thing. if anyone has a transcription or video link, please post. The only specific pledge I saw was in the press conference with Cornett, Marrs & Prater.

Just curious but both sides seem to be able to present their "last best offer" multiple times. Seems to me one's "last best offer" should be the final one and thats it. Period. Instead it is, "this is the last best offer (until we submit another one and another and another)". When does that part end (when does it become the LAST offer)? Who determines when that part of the process is over and when it goes to arbitration? No wonder these yearly contracts take so long to get resolved (apparently long after the contract is to have taken effect). Has there ever been a case where they are over 1 year behind (already into the next years negotiating period). Insane IMO

Nm

Nm

What does Nm stand for?

Larry, there is a process. Yes it's lengthy and could be done in good faith at an appropriate time. We have not had a contract in place at the start of the fiscal year since 1995. At that time we said just roll over last years contract, nobody was interested in fighting the city. If you remember the time, everybody had a great spirit of good will.

Since then and I think since Jim Couch has been City manager we have had long drawn out negotiations and have been to arbitration many times. The city usually loses those. Now we are at the point where the city wanted to try the tactic of taking the contract to the vote of the people. The city has a union so to speak also. The Municipal league ACOG and so on. You know they meet to discuss tactics as to how to cut dept. budgets.
And to be totally honest, the fire dept is important when things have blown down, blown up or fire is blowing sideways like last April.

The city has grown and Jim Couch is trying to shrink essential services. Not good!

Back to your topic, the last best offer is what both sides turn into the arbitrator. The fire dept. turned in theirs and the city turned in one with new changed contract language that was not part of what had been discussed previously. That is where they got into trouble with the "unfair labor practice" and what they are doing is trying to make that go away.

There has only been 1 set of LBO's it is being dragged out by the city.

Mike, yes, the city has grown. But has the frequency of fires grown? Or is new housing stock less prone to fires due to modern building codes?
Yeah, another annoying question from Lackmeyer. And Larry, yes, there were commercials aired in which Cornett promised the MAPS 3 tax would place more police and firefighters out on the streets. (and now I've annoyed City Hall!)

Larry, there is a process. Yes it's lengthy and could be done in good faith at an appropriate time. We have not had a contract in place at the start of the fiscal year since 1995. At that time we said just roll over last years contract, nobody was interested in fighting the city. If you remember the time, everybody had a great spirit of good will.

Since then and I think since Jim Couch has been City manager we have had long drawn out negotiations and have been to arbitration many times. The city usually loses those. Now we are at the point where the city wanted to try the tactic of taking the contract to the vote of the people. The city has a union so to speak also. The Municipal league ACOG and so on. You know they meet to discuss tactics as to how to cut dept. budgets.
And to be totally honest, the fire dept is important when things have blown down, blown up or fire is blowing sideways like last April.

The city has grown and Jim Couch is trying to shrink essential services. Not good!
Back to your topic, the last best offer is what both sides turn into the arbitrator. The fire dept. turned in theirs and the city turned in one with new changed contract language that was not part of what had been discussed previously. That is where they got into trouble with the "unfair labor practice" and what they are doing is trying to make that go away.

There has only been 1 set of LBO's it is being dragged out by the city.

This statement is absolutely, 100% false, it's simple math, if the moneys not there, the moneys not there. You act as though Public Safety (Police and Fire) are the only departments taking a cut, when in fact ALL DEPARTMENTS, including the City Managers Office are taking said cuts. It's hard to gather much support when you keep throwing out the old Poor Us (Public Safety Department) spew.

JunkieDan, Mr. Couch has asked for a budget cut every year he has been the manager, every single year. How does that correspond to city growth? It's getting a little tiring for you to throw out your 100% false statements. Especially when you are called on your mistakes and you only ignore those who call you on them.

This statement is absolutely, 100% false, it's simple math

That is your response to the following statement- "The city has grown and Jim Couch is trying to shrink essential services."

Let's break it into its two parts, "The city has grown". Are you saying that this is a "100% false"? Surely even you know better than that. That statement is 100% true.

Second part, "Jim Couch is trying to shrink essential services". Once again, even you can't seriously dispute this with a staight face. Why are we working now with less people than we had in 1999? And they're wanting to cut more. This statement is 100% true also.

How in the world do you contend that the statement is "100% false" if it is made up of two 100% true statements? If the math is so simple why are you having so much trouble comprehending it?

I'm still waiting for you to answer any of my questions about helping the other city employees. You've got to have some suggestions since you keep throwing it out there.

What does Nm stand for?

New marker. I don't have anything to add to the conversation at this time, but I consider it important enough to want notification of new posts.

JunkieDan, Mr. Couch has asked for a budget cut every year he has been the manager, every single year. How does that correspond to city growth? It's getting a little tiring for you to throw out your 100% false statements. Especially when you are called on your mistakes and you only ignore those who call you on them.

The City has experienced growth in the past few years, however, said growth has not produced the tax base/dollars to keep up with expenditures, mainly ever increasing personnel cost. (wages, benefits, etc;).

If your tired of my post, hit delete and don't respond.

...Back to your topic, the last best offer is what both sides turn into the arbitrator. The fire dept. turned in theirs and the city turned in one ... There has only been 1 set of LBO's it is being dragged out by the city.

Hmmm, I distinctly recall articles with revised LBO's over the course of this (not just one set, which IS what the term implies).


...And Larry, yes, there were commercials aired in which Cornett promised the MAPS 3 tax would place more police and firefighters out on the streets. (and now I've annoyed City Hall!)

For some reason I managed to miss most of the TV commercials during the campaign but have since seen them in links on these various threads. You and others are correct, he did make some specific promises in those commercials. Now I am not a huge fan of Cornett by any stretch, but I don't think he was intentionally being dishonest when he made those claims and I think he is trying to keep his word on the subject. Witness the debates over the Use Tax in Council meetings after the vote.


The City has experienced growth in the past few years, however, said growth has not produced the tax base/dollars to keep up with expenditures, mainly ever increasing personnel cost. (wages, benefits, etc;). ...

I agree and that has been my conclusion as well after skimming thru some of the budget reports on the City's site.

That also seems to have been one of the initial reasons for the eventual opposition to MAPS 3 by F/P. They were asked to get on board (just as they had done with MAPS and MAPS for Kids). They said "wait a minute, there is nothing in MAPS 3 to address the staffing concerns we have had for years" (and the City admits). The City came back with the same "rising tide lifts all boats" that they had been using all along and not following thru with it. Support us and we will support you when the time comes. Problem being, the time never came over the course of those 16 years. Now, that comes down to a trust issue. If someone hasn't kept their word for the past 16 years, why should they believe anything they are saying now (when it is the same thing they have been saying all along)?

Now this isn't my contention, just what I have been reading in these threads and seems to be well supported by various articles and the City's own budget reports.

Hmmm, I distinctly recall articles with revised LBO's over the course of this (not just one set, which IS what the term implies).



For some reason I managed to miss most of the TV commercials during the campaign but have since seen them in links on these various threads. You and others are correct, he did make some specific promises in those commercials. Now I am not a huge fan of Cornett by any stretch, but I don't think he was intentionally being dishonest when he made those claims and I think he is trying to keep his word on the subject. Witness the debates over the Use Tax in Council meetings after the vote.



I agree and that has been my conclusion as well after skimming thru some of the budget reports on the City's site.

That also seems to have been one of the initial reasons for the eventual opposition to MAPS 3 by F/P. They were asked to get on board (just as they had done with MAPS and MAPS for Kids). They said "wait a minute, there is nothing in MAPS 3 to address the staffing concerns we have had for years" (and the City admits). The City came back with the same "rising tide lifts all boats" that they had been using all along and not following thru with it. Support us and we will support you when the time comes. Problem being, the time never came over the course of those 16 years. Now, that comes down to a trust issue. If someone hasn't kept their word for the past 16 years, why should they believe anything they are saying now (when it is the same thing they have been saying all along)?

Now this isn't my contention, just what I have been reading in these threads and seems to be well supported by various articles and the City's own budget reports.

I disagree with this statement and I'm sure Mikemarsh and/or Andy will admonish me for doing so, but the City has increased the General Fund for Public Safety significantly over the past 16 years. There have been major increases for personnel related expenses, especially benefits (primarily health insurance), the City pays app. $12,000 per year, per employee just for health insurance, and when they have app. 4,300 employees, any increase is a major hit to the General Fund. It's a fact that 80% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety. In addition to present employees, they provide insurance to retired employees (like me, retired in 06), however, the portion we pay has increased significantly, I presently pay $485 per month.

I disagree with this statement and I'm sure Mikemarsh and/or Andy will admonish me for doing so, but the City has increased the General Fund for Public Safety significantly over the past 16 years. There have been major increases for personnel related expenses, especially benefits (primarily health insurance), the City pays app. $12,000 per year, per employee just for health insurance, and when they have app. 4,300 employees, any increase is a major hit to the General Fund. It's a fact that 80% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety. In addition to present employees, they provide insurance to retired employees (like me, retired in 06), however, the portion we pay has increased significantly, I presently pay $485 per month.junkie, what makes you say that? Why would I admonish you because we may disagree on an issue? That's a bad assumption on your part, and I'll tell you why. In this case your wrong

To begin with, for you to claim that the City has significantly increased the General Fund for Public Safety over the past 16 years is absolutly a correct statement, and I could not agree more. Will you agree the same holds true for all departments as well? I would hope you would. If not then we disagree.

Now, when you consider the fact whereas Public Safety has an additional dedicated revenue source that other departments do not have it is my contention that the increases to the General fund for Public Safety would have been even greater. Would you disagree?

I hope you don't feel as though you are being admonished, but I do need to point out to you for about the hundreth time, the issue here is not about money and benefits. The issue is about staffing levels and safe equipment, that functions, which in turn allows them the opportunity to perform the job for which they are paid well to perform. Which I might add was the intent for the additional funding. Committments not kept, not to the Firefighters, but to the Taxpayers.

Lastly, I dont know if the City pays $12,000. per employee for health insurance or not, but if that is true then here is something that should make you happy, last year they paid the Firefighters $9,500. Based on the number of Firefighters that alone saved the City over $2,370,000.

Two more thing before I forget. First, 80% of the G.F? That sounds a bit high don't you think? Secondly, as a Fire retiree, like you, my insurance went up as well, just as I expected it would.

I disagree with this statement and I'm sure Mikemarsh and/or Andy will admonish me for doing so, but the City has increased the General Fund for Public Safety significantly over the past 16 years. There have been major increases for personnel related expenses, especially benefits (primarily health insurance), the City pays app. $12,000 per year, per employee just for health insurance, and when they have app. 4,300 employees, any increase is a major hit to the General Fund. It's a fact that 80% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety. In addition to present employees, they provide insurance to retired employees (like me, retired in 06), however, the portion we pay has increased significantly, I presently pay $485 per month.

I was speaking more in terms of the personnel shortage that the City admits are/have been short 200+ Public Safety. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Think it was that serious of articles last year that talked about all of the overtime (people even getting paid overtime when they are on vacation) and it said that as expensive as the overtime is, that it is actually cheaper for the City to be paying that rather than hiring the additional personnel and all of the associated costs that go along with it. I know companies I have worked for used the same rationale.

I agreed with you that rising related personnel costs have gobbled up any revenue increases.

Don't disagree with the rest of your post except for the "It's a fact that 80% of the General Fund goes to Public Safety." Where are you getting that?

From the most recent City budget report, pg 11 (19 of the 663 pdf file available for download at okc.gov)


General Fund Expenditures by Function

65% Public Safety
17% Public Services
9% Culture & Recreation
9% General Government

On the same page it does state:


About 80 percent of the General Fund Budget goes for employee related costs: salaries, taxes, retirement benefits and insurance.

The 80% figure appears to apply to ALL City employees (not just the public safety portion). So yes, any increase to the employee related costs, multiplied by the 4,300 +/- is going to have a definite impact on the budget. Absolutely.

So this week they are talking layoffs again! Last week the Mayor is on channel 5 saying that there was no way we would be seeing public safety layoffs, in fact we will be hiring more.

Man, I am going to need therapy to get through this.

So this week they are talking layoffs again! Last week the Mayor is on channel 5 saying that there was no way we would be seeing public safety layoffs, in fact we will be hiring more.

Man, I am going to need therapy to get through this.

I can't offer therapy (legally), but I can off to buy you a cold one. LOL

As all here go thru the usual banter of what they hold to be near and dear, has anyone wondered why they proposed two options to the budget?

Option 1- by the cities own admission cannot be approved without the approval of the 3 labor unions agreement. The city has no intentions of settling contract negotiations without going to arbitration. You'll have to wait a couple of months to believe me on this but with the concession they proposed to all three groups, it's a tough road to reach a compromise.

Option 2- Is the only option council can legally approve prior to a new budget year. Why would they propose option 1 then? Media posturing! They are trying to set themselves up to appear "not at fault". F&P tried to tell you, but as was previously noted in an earlier post; 16 years of being lied to breeds must distrust and the city had the money to do their media blitz.

How many times was Mayor Mick on TV stating MAPS 3 will hire more police and fire? Under both of the proposed options presented today; no matter how the CM and Mayor try to spin it, NO additional fire or police will be hired. Hell, we've just wanted to try and hold what we've been losing for the past 10 years. And now they actually proposed using MAPS 3 use tax monies to sustain police and fire positions.

The council meeting today was a brilliant show of smoke and mirrors along with a side show shell game. And no one on the shoe even asked if negotiations were close with any of the 3 labor organizations.

Rcjunkie.....we support all city departments and don't want to see any of them cut. We love our city, but see what is happening at city hall and know it's not right. You sir spread more erroneous information and half truths than I've ever seen from anyone on this sight and won't admit when you are blatantly WRONG. Shameful actions from a former municipal employee that should know better. But that's just my opinion.

As all here go thru the usual banter of what they hold to be near and dear, has anyone wondered why they proposed two options to the budget?

Option 1- by the cities own admission cannot be approved without the approval of the 3 labor unions agreement. The city has no intentions of settling contract negotiations without going to arbitration. You'll have to wait a couple of months to believe me on this but with the concession they proposed to all three groups, it's a tough road to reach a compromise.

Option 2- Is the only option council can legally approve prior to a new budget year. Why would they propose option 1 then? Media posturing! They are trying to set themselves up to appear "not at fault". F&P tried to tell you, but as was previously noted in an earlier post; 16 years of being lied to breeds must distrust and the city had the money to do their media blitz.

How many times was Mayor Mick on TV stating MAPS 3 will hire more police and fire? Under both of the proposed options presented today; no matter how the CM and Mayor try to spin it, NO additional fire or police will be hired. Hell, we've just wanted to try and hold what we've been losing for the past 10 years. And now they actually proposed using MAPS 3 use tax monies to sustain police and fire positions.

The council meeting today was a brilliant show of smoke and mirrors along with a side show shell game. And no one on the shoe even asked if negotiations were close with any of the 3 labor organizations.

Rcjunkie.....we support all city departments and don't want to see any of them cut. We love our city, but see what is happening at city hall and know it's not right. You sir spread more erroneous information and half truths than I've ever seen from anyone on this sight and won't admit when you are blatantly WRONG. Shameful actions from a former municipal employee that should know better. But that's just my opinion.

And we all know what they say about opinions.

With my years of service, positions held for almost 27 years, and close friends and family that still work at the City (mostly in City Hall), I'd bet my next years retirement salary that my information is much close to being correct then yours. "But that's just my opinion"

rc,

You couldn't even get the percentage right of how much of the budget is dedicated to PS. You must have been at the lake today and missed the city council meeting. Your 27 years of service is appreciated but you are "so out of touch with reality" it's almost laughable. Keep the posts coming though, it keeps others digging into your mis-information which just spreads the truth. But that's just my opinion.

By the by rcjunkie....why aren't you going by the danielf1935 in this forum like you have the others? 4 years retired and already having an identity crisis?

Moderators, do we have a personal attack going on here?

No personal attack, just a question? If you're offended then I apologize. I didn't realize rc had a body guard.

Moderators, do we have a personal attack going on here?

It's defiantly getting personal, but I guess that's how they "roll", if you continue to post replays that are in any way, shape or form critical of them, or if your views differ from what they believe, they start to attack, I guess that's their way of avoiding the truth!!

But, that's my personal opinion"

Personally, I try to keep personalities out of it (but it is sooooo tempting sometimes), and try to stick to correcting the inaccuracies that pop up from time to time.

Rc,

Nothing personal since I really don't know you. But it would appear just the opposite of what you state. Anything I (Not they) say going against your opinion is blasted as something other than the truth. I'm still waiting on answers from you on previous questions to show validity towards what you post. If I cannot show you verifiable documentation or evidence of what I state, then its just my opinion. If you get your feelings hurt because I disagree with your opinion or I can prove that a posting by you is erroneous information, perhaps you should hit your ignore button.

It's a beautiful day, hope all enjoy it......even you Rc...

Steve, it seems as though danielf1935 has been banned and reincarnated as rcjunkie. what do you think the moderators will do with that?

Steve, it seems as though danielf1935 has been banned and reincarnated as rcjunkie. what do you think the moderators will do with that?

Mikemarsh, you are incorrect, and please stop spreading lies.

Message has been sent to site administrator.

It appears as though you have a grudge against me for some reason, I guess that's how you react when your wrong or if someone disagrees with your statements or views. It's time to stop the personal attack and grow up.

Rc,

I don't believe it's a grudge on Mikemarsh51 part or mine. We don't just Troll the PS sites as you would like to assume, we truly love and believe in our city. The username danielf1935 that was posting in another thread is showing to be banned. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but he also has spent 27 years in the parks dept. in a management position and retired 4 years ago. Amazingly, my friends in the parks dept. that still work there say there is only one person that would fit that description. So the assumption was naturally that it had to be you. If it's not, my most sincere apologies and perhaps you need to let the moderator know someone was using a bio that fit your service record to a tee.

Again, if that was not you I apologize, and I hope you had a nice day at the lake.

Mikemarsh, you are incorrect, and please stop spreading lies.

Message has been sent to site administrator.

It appears as though you have a grudge against me for some reason, I guess that's how you react when your wrong or if someone disagrees with your statements or views. It's time to stop the personal attack and grow up.

Wow junkie, WOW is all I can say. Maybe, just maybe, you know dainielf1935 then since you and he are not one in the same.(wink,wink)

He retired from the parks dept. at the same time you did.

He has a son that he travels all over the country racing radio controlled vehicles with. Just like you! (Isn't that why you're RCjunkie?)

He attends the same church you do.

When he's being a real turd, he likes to sign of with "You have a wonderful day." Just like you!

That was just going into the first 3 pages of his posts.

What a bunch of unrelated coincidences.

Yeah you're right MM must be lying.:LolLolLol

Maybe you should follow barnolds advice and alert the mods to the fact that someone is trying to hijack your bio. Oh wait, he was here and got himself banned before you showed up. I'm guessing we're dealing with an uncanny and diabolical time travelling super fiend. That's gotta be the explanation.

I think you're right, it's time for someone to grow up.

As all here go thru the usual banter of what they hold to be near and dear, has anyone wondered why they proposed two options to the budget?

Option 1- by the cities own admission cannot be approved without the approval of the 3 labor unions agreement. The city has no intentions of settling contract negotiations without going to arbitration. You'll have to wait a couple of months to believe me on this but with the concession they proposed to all three groups, it's a tough road to reach a compromise.

Option 2- Is the only option council can legally approve prior to a new budget year. Why would they propose option 1 then? Media posturing! They are trying to set themselves up to appear "not at fault". F&P tried to tell you, but as was previously noted in an earlier post; 16 years of being lied to breeds must distrust and the city had the money to do their media blitz.

How many times was Mayor Mick on TV stating MAPS 3 will hire more police and fire? Under both of the proposed options presented today; no matter how the CM and Mayor try to spin it, NO additional fire or police will be hired. Hell, we've just wanted to try and hold what we've been losing for the past 10 years. And now they actually proposed using MAPS 3 use tax monies to sustain police and fire positions.

The council meeting today was a brilliant show of smoke and mirrors along with a side show shell game. And no one on the shoe even asked if negotiations were close with any of the 3 labor organizations.

Rcjunkie.....we support all city departments and don't want to see any of them cut. We love our city, but see what is happening at city hall and know it's not right. You sir spread more erroneous information and half truths than I've ever seen from anyone on this sight and won't admit when you are blatantly WRONG. Shameful actions from a former municipal employee that should know better. But that's just my opinion.

It is very simple math.

The city instituted a hiring freeze in March 2009. That means that we havent hired any firefighters since that time. We have had plenty retire since then and more leaving as we speak. The city has enjoyed that budget relief and salary savings for 14 months, but who is counting. The fire dept
was 51 positions down in March 2009 from March 1999. So we have been doing a hell of a lot more with a whole lot less for a long time, just as others have in this city.

The city has said it will hire 10 more firefighters from the use tax if the firefighters agree to reduced pay and to reduced benefits. If you do the math on that, the firefighters are the ones paying for these 10 firefighters out of their own pockets. They want you to believe that they are going to use the use tax to hire these 10 additional firefighters. The concessions that they are wanting from us will pay for those firefighters without the use tax coming into play. HMMM. Like BArnold said, the council meeting on May 4, was nothing more than a well versed game of smoke and mirrors and a glorified shell game. Believe it or not, we actually have some educated guys in our profession who can see right through the BS.

You know the funny thing is that the council, not one of them asked a question that tried to disect any of the budget directors info.

The way that I see it, we the fire dept are still under a hiring freeze with more retirements upcoming. Those 10 firefighters that we are going to be paying for out of our own pockets, will not even make a dent in what we are down. Another funny thing, is that we have more than 10 guys or so due to retire from now until the end of the year.

Concessions are not an option to me at all, when they throw us a bone in the media in the form of 10 firefighters supposedly paid for out of use tax.
Really???? lol, No thanks, in actuality we will be paying for them in concessions and our numbers are still going to diminish well below where they are today. No thanks. Lets have the layoffs and we will hire them back as the others retire with no concessions. Thats the simple math.

If we layoff as little as 1 firefighter or police officer I will work as hard as I can to make sure we layoff any council members that voted for it.

If we layoff as little as 1 firefighter or police officer I will work as hard as I can to make sure we layoff any council members that voted for it.

You and me both.

You and me both.


Did anyone happen to see the article in the Oklahoman about Firefighters receiving 12% in raises since 2007. What crack pipe are these reporters smokin to dream this BS up. Maybe other metro fire depts have received these kinds of raises, but damn sure not okc. The city is wanting us to take 12% in concessions for wages and benefits so we can use that money and hire more staffing out of our own pockets. Really??? We will get right on that.

But Tulsa, conceded to all of these things. Why not OKC?

Here they go again about comparing us to Tulsa, which would be nice, but OKC has a dedicated 3/4 cent Public Safety sales tax. It was brought about to hire 200 additional firefighters above and beyond the 748 we had in 1989, it also hired 200 additional police officers over and above the staffing at that time. This sales tax was supposed to be in addition to the general fund budget, not to supplement what the general fund would have been. This is monies that Tulsa does not have available to their dept. since they dont have a dedicated public safety sales tax. So comparing us to Tulsa, is like comparing apples and oranges.

What the shame is here, it took 3 good men perishing in a house fire in 1989, to wake up the city to the understaffing and worn out equipment the fire dept had in 1989. We are not there yet, but if this inattention continues, we will be back there in no time at all. Is there anyone seeing a pattern here, because we are headed down that same road again. Whats it going to take this time.

If we layoff as little as 1 firefighter or police officer I will work as hard as I can to make sure we layoff any council members that voted for it.

Certainly your right to do so. Then again, it's your right to seek to influence your local office holder elections even if there were several scheduled additions to staff and lots of equipment headed to your department.

If you happen to also live in OKC (sorry, do not recall), you can even cast a vote that matches your advocacy. If not, you still work there, so advocate your position to whatever degree your time, talent and treasure permit.

Too few folk take much interest in their local representation. Living elsewhere as I do, and working elsewhere, I'm merely a spectator when it comes to OKC politics. Sadly that still puts my interest level way ahead of many many OKC voters.

Certainly a resident and absolutely a voter!