Just days after the vote, some city leaders diverge over whether the oversight board should have veto power: Kirk Humphreys, Yes; Mick Cornett, Pete White, Brian Davis, No. See the article. NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-mayor-says-maps-panel-does-not-need-veto-power/article/3424672)


Humphreys said three things are needed to make such a group work.

"It needs to be knowledgeable enough to do the work,” he said. "It needs to be diverse enough to represent the community, and it needs to be empowered enough to make a difference.”

The original MAPS oversight board made recommendations to the council but had no power to make decisions.

The MAPS for Kids Trust, however, must approve all projects before any money can be spent.

"The critical difference was: They could say no,” Humphreys said. "Is it really oversight or is it just window dressing? If it’s really oversight, give them the right to say no.”

Ward 4 Councilman Pete White said council members are elected to make decisions on how taxpayer money is spent. Cornett agrees.

"You need the elected officials to be in charge of the money that goes in and out,” Cornett said.

"The board is oversight of the projects. It’s advisory to the council. The council will rely on these people to help them make those decisions.”

Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters, the only council member who opposed MAPS 3, agreed with Cornett and White that the council should have the ultimate authority on how the estimated $777 million for the program will be spent.

I'm going to watch Flashpoint right now and see what Kirk Humphreys has to say about this topic.

On edit, darn, Humphreys isn't there this morning. Might get interesting.

I can see both sides of this argument. I would think that it would almost be imperative to know who is on the panel before making that sort of decision. If the panel has a lot of expertise, then it might be good if they have veto power. On the other hand, if it's just interested citizens, then they may not be any better at making sensible decisions than the council, and it is true they have no accountability to the public.

I was there for the first oversight board, and have gotten to observe enough of the MAPS trust group to see how it operates.
The first board was frustrated by its lack of any power, and acted out accordingly to get its point across. There were times when members of the original oversight board would spend hours and hours studying an issue, only to find their voice muted by an influential person who only needed 30 minutes of time with a council member to get them to ignore the urgings of the oversight board.
With such problems commonplace during the early days of MAPS, oversight board members resorted to holding press conferences and theatrics to get their message heard.
No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power. And interestingly enough, Mayor Mick Cornett hasn't identified a single instance where the MAPS for Kids Trust model hasn't served this city well.

I can see both sides of the argument, as well. But big points lending favor to a Maps for Kids approach are what many of us have squawked about ... (1) the vague ballot, (2) lack of specifics even in the council resolution, and (3) holding council accountable for the projects identified in the original resolution. On the other hand, decision making does reside in the council and I'm not even sure that it would be legal for council to delegate power like was done in Maps for Kids ... which I assume was not legally challenged.

Steve, do you recall instances in which the oversight board wanted to go one way and council another, or something along those lines?

Interesting, it is.

With the first one that had no power? You bet. Numerous cases. And they had to throw virtual tempertantrums to get their voices heard. I also observed at least one case where a council member got dangerously close to illegal activity when it came to a property selection and purchase involving MAPS money.

I think they should have veto power, why else have the board if they have no power? Defeats the purpose.

With the first one that had no power? You bet. Numerous cases. And they had to throw virtual tempertantrums to get their voices heard. I also observed at least one case where a council member got dangerously close to illegal activity when it came to a property selection and purchase involving MAPS money.
No, I meant examples from Maps for Kids.

It was city staff that insisted all was well with the library when board members were suspicious early on that things had gone wrong with the contractor and the materials used for the exterior. Council initially sided with staff...
The oversight board also went against staff and council in regards to design issues with the state fair arena, location of the library, design of the canal and on and on...

MAPS for Kids? I'm aware of no disagreements...

One board went badly, the other has been a dream. And Mayor Mick Cornett is advocating the one that went badly. Fact, not opinion.

Amplifying what Steve has already said, above, he has posted the following (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/12/13/which-model-of-oversight-worked-best/) at OkcCentral (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/):


Which Model of Oversight Worked Best?
Posted by slackmeyer
on December 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Now that the campaign is over, let’s delve a bit into promises and what’s to follow. MAPS 3 has the power to turn downtown into something spectacular. But to quote one acquaintance, we’re at a crossroads – we can either make a good downtown great or a good downtown bigger.

Last spring Mayor Mick Cornett promised a public discussion and forums would take place over the summer to determine what would be on the MAPS 3 ballot. That never happened. And that matter is over. During the campaign he promised an oversight board would provide a proper check over how the projects would be implemented, similar to the groups that oversaw the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids.

And now we’re reading this (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-mayor-says-maps-panel-does-not-need-veto-power/article/3424672?custom_click=headlines_widget).

I was there for the first oversight board, and have gotten to observe enough of the MAPS trust group to see how it operates.

The first board was frustrated by its lack of any power, and acted out accordingly to get its point across. There were times when members of the original oversight board would spend hours and hours studying an issue, only to find their voice muted by an influential person who only needed 30 minutes of time with a council member to get them to ignore the urgings of the oversight board.

With such problems commonplace during the early days of MAPS, oversight board members resorted to holding press conferences and theatrics to get their message heard.

No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power. And interestingly enough, Mayor Mick Cornett hasn’t identified a single instance where the MAPS for Kids Trust model hasn’t served this city well.

Will any of this matter with MAPS 3? That depends on your perspective. Does it matter where a convention center will be built? Will it matter where the streetcar routes are located? Will council members, including the mayor, recuse themselves from votes where any of their campaign contributors have a vested interest (the city’s most notable residents own land in the Core to Shore area).

The council meets at 8:30 .m. Tuesday at 201 N Walker and residents can voice their opinions at the end of the meeting.

Second Member Quits MAPS Panel In Frustration

By Steve Lackmeyer, Jack Money
Staff Writers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 23, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970523 -TEXT-


Another member of Oklahoma City's MAPS Citizens Oversight Board has quit because of frustration about the way the program is run.


Byron Gambulos, appointed by Mayor Ron Norick to the 21-member group in January 1994, said he quit because he believes the city's $300 million Metropolitan Area Projects program "isn't going anywhere."


"I still believe in MAPS. It is the best thing to help Oklahoma City redevelop its downtown," Gambulos said Thursday. "It is just our execution that has been the problem."


The citizens oversight board was promoted as a safeguard against problems that arose during construction of the Oklahoma County Jail.


Several board members have complained, however, since City Manager Don Bown released a report critical of the group because he believes it has not provided helpful advice to the Oklahoma City Council.


The city manager also blamed the group for the public's negative perception of MAPS.


Gambulos said a lack of effective city leadership caused much of the program's problems.


He also said that Bown's recommendation to hire a construction manager now is not a good idea.


"Right now, we have six tiers of review, and we are getting ready to add a seventh," he said. "Does this make good sense?"


Gambulos' resignation marks the second departure in the past week. The board's vice chairman, Bert Cooper, stepped down Friday after saying he was offended by Bown's criticism.


At Thursday's Citizens Oversight Board meeting, group Chairman J. Edward Barth defended the group.


"The independence of this board has perhaps caused some people to conclude that our members have been critical, but I believe ... this shows the system is working," Barth said.


He credited the board with several improvements in MAPS policies and for a council decision to include air conditioning in the renovation of the Jim Norick Arena at the fairgrounds.


Barth praised board members for donating their time to attend monthly board and committee meetings, where MAPS matters were reviewed in greater detail.


As for Gambulos, he said he wants MAPS to succeed so badly, "it hurts."


"I think it (MAPS) needs leadership - people working together. I would rather all of us swim rather than sink."

Transcripts Reveal MAPS Conflicts, Worries

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 3, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970303 -TEXT-


On almost any Monday morning, a meeting transpires among the people who oversee the direction of Oklahoma City's Metropolitan Area Projects plan.


The recently released transcripts for those meetings reveal worries in November 1994 that all nine of the MAPS projects were running behind schedule. That was less than a year after the $300 million improvements plan was approved by voters.


Discussions concerning strained budgets, turf battles between city officials and architects and handling of the MAPS projects' public image remained private until Friday. That's when city officials released about 400 pages of documents concerning the meetings.


City administrators fought requests to release the records until the Oklahoma City Council voted to open the documents to the public last week.


The Monday morning meetings usually have involved Assistant City Manager Jim Thompson, the head of the city's MAPS office, and representatives of Frankfurt-Short-Bruza - the architects and engineers overseeing the plan.


The documents show others attending the meetings have included city attorneys, the city's spokeswoman Karen Farney and public works director Paul Brum.


The documents show often heated discussions between city officials and Frankfurt-Short-Bruza . The firm's principals and city officials debated several times about the company's responsibilities overseeing the project.


At an Aug. 7, 1995, meeting, a city staff member accused the architectural and engineering firm of having "a god complex."


Frankfurt-Short-Bruza on several occasions criticized the city for delaying payments for services.


Public perception, apparently, also has been a constant worry for the projects' directors.


At a Feb. 14, 1995, meeting, Frankfurt-Short-Bruza was asked to conduct a "dog and pony show" before the Oklahoma City Council describing progress on the projects.


At a Feb. 12, 1996, meeting, following budget-busting bids to build the Bricktown ballpark, city officials discussed claims by Boldt Construction Co. that an extra $2 million was added to contractors' bids because they would have to work "in a fishbowl."


Memos also show continuing concerns and indecision over the past two years about whether to retain heating and cooling services from Trigen Energy or whether to build a central plant for the Myriad Convention Center.


Funding problems and alternative budgeting ideas were discussed numerous times.


Friction with the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board also is described in the notes.


On April 3, 1995, Thompson told meeting participants that land acquisition costs would no longer be discussed with board members due to leaks.


"Thompson says that the (oversight) board's role is a problem," a Sept. 26, 1995, memo said. "More and more they do not understand their role in life. The board is going around the MAPS office, asking FSB (Frankfurt-Short-Bruza) and others to do what could be substantial amounts of work.


"There is no way Thompson can stifle this, but FSB needs to understand that we do not work for the board. They are going to get us all in a lot of trouble."

A little off topic, but it is somewhat fascinating that we would have built an arena at the fairgrounds without air conditioning at one time. That indicates how desperate things were in this city at one time.

Member of MAPS Board Quits, Cites Conflict Allegations

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, May 17, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970519 -TEXT-


Citing conflict of interest accusations, local steel executive Bert Cooper quit his job Friday as the vice chairman of the watchdog group that oversees Oklahoma City's Metropolitan Area Projects.


The outspoken and sometimes controversial member of the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board promised, however, that he will continue to make his voice heard by the city's leaders.


"I believe there are serious problems facing Oklahoma City as it relates to MAPS and I can no longer in good conscience serve on the board," Cooper announced during a news conference at his home.


Cooper was appointed to the 21-member board as an "at large" member in January 1994 - one month after voters approved the $300 million package. The watchdog group was promoted as a way to guard against problems that arose during construction of the Oklahoma County Jail in 1991.


Cooper is president of W&W Steel Co. of Oklahoma City, which is providing materials for construction of the $26.6 million MAPS-funded Bricktown ballpark. Cooper said Friday his firm also is set to work on renovations of the Myriad Convention Center, another MAPS job.


"I have been accused by city staff on more than one occasion of a conflict of interest, and I am here today to remove any perceived conflict," Cooper said.


"My firm and its 400 employees around the country are too important for me to allow misguided city staff to take potshots at them - or me."


Cooper provided reporters with copies of a March 24, 1994, memo from city attorneys Diane Lewis and Marsha Harrod that addressed whether he could serve on the MAPS citizens board.


The city attorneys suggested Cooper abstain from making any recommendations as a board member where an appearance of a conflict of interest existed.


Cooper would not name which city staffers had questioned his role as a board member, but he called the conflict of interest accusations "patently offensive."


Cooper said his resignation is immediate. He tried to resign in December, but Cooper said, Mayor Ron Norick persuaded him to stay on the board.


Norick was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.


Cooper also blamed his resignation on a report released by City Manager Don Bown. The city manager said the board was not providing recommendations that could help the city council and was largely responsible for negative opinions about MAPS.


"The MAPS board has spent thousands of hours studying and reviewing these projects and have spent countless hours warning that MAPS was in trouble," Cooper said. "All to no avail."


Cooper said he does not plan to give up his fight to persuade the city council to reconsider its decision to build a new central cooling and heating plant for the Myriad Convention Center.


Cooper said Friday he is willing to pay "whatever it takes" to pay for an independent study of the issue. "The numbers and studies put together by Oklahoma City have been unfair, inaccurate and in a word, cooked," Cooper said.


Cooper warned that the relationship is breaking down between the citizens board and the council it was created to advise.


Several city council members have privately said the MAPS board is too large and is no longer serving its original purpose.


Ed Barth, chairman of the board, said he regretted Cooper's resignation and expects the board will address the current problems Monday.


"He was a valuable member of the board, and we will miss him very much," Barth said.


"I want everyone to understand I believe in MAPS and am still a supporter of the projects," Cooper said.

As my grandmother use to say, "Ain't nothing jumping but the peas in the pot and they wouldn't be jumping if the water wasn't hot!"

Let not make an issue of this oversight board.

There haven't been any problems with the oversight board lets not create any.

Surely they will look at the fact that we need to build the projects that are going to be more revenue and job producing for the City.

I know the Park & Convention Center will probably be built first since this will help the construction of a few more downtown hotels that will be needed to attact tier two type conventions.

One board went badly, the other has been a dream. And Mayor Mick Cornett is advocating the one that went badly. Fact, not opinion.

The OKC mayor touted in the YES'ers commericials for MAPs3:
Same type ballot as MAPs4Kids
Same opportunity to work with an oversight board
Looking forward to doing that again in MAPs3.

Sheeesh, go with what ya know works. This really ought to be a no brainer, but of course, politics gets injected so it likely won't be that simple.

Am I wrong to be both suspicious and concern?!!

am i wrong to be both suspicious and concern?!!

yes

I can see both sides of this argument. I would think that it would almost be imperative to know who is on the panel before making that sort of decision. If the panel has a lot of expertise, then it might be good if they have veto power. On the other hand, if it's just interested citizens, then they may not be any better at making sensible decisions than the council, and it is true they have no accountability to the public.

They should have accountability to the council, though. If they're given veto power then there should be an easy way they can be removed from the committee if they are out of line.

I thought the Citizens Board would have the MAPS for kids formulation.
I thought the word of our city Council is to be trusted.
Where's the oversight promised, the accountability?

I thought the Citizens Board would have the MAPS for kids formulation.
I thought the word of our city Council is to be trusted.
Where's the oversight promised, the accountability?

Where's the oversight? Well we know we can count on you to speak in buzz words and slogans. There's a start.

Spartan::
Which Model of Oversight Worked Best?
Posted by slackmeyer
on December 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Now that the campaign is over, let’s delve a bit into promises and what’s to follow. MAPS 3 has the power to turn downtown into something spectacular. But to quote one acquaintance, we’re at a crossroads – we can either make a good downtown great or a good downtown bigger.

Last spring Mayor Mick Cornett promised a public discussion and forums would take place over the summer to determine what would be on the MAPS 3 ballot. That never happened. And that matter is over. During the campaign he promised an oversight board would provide a proper check over how the projects would be implemented, similar to the groups that oversaw the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids.

And now we’re reading this.

I was there for the first oversight board, and have gotten to observe enough of the MAPS trust group to see how it operates.

The first board was frustrated by its lack of any power, and acted out accordingly to get its point across. There were times when members of the original oversight board would spend hours and hours studying an issue, only to find their voice muted by an influential person who only needed 30 minutes of time with a council member to get them to ignore the urgings of the oversight board.

With such problems commonplace during the early days of MAPS, oversight board members resorted to holding press conferences and theatrics to get their message heard.

No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power. And interestingly enough, Mayor Mick Cornett hasn’t identified a single instance where the MAPS for Kids Trust model hasn’t served this city well.

Will any of this matter with MAPS 3? That depends on your perspective. Does it matter where a convention center will be built? Will it matter where the streetcar routes are located? Will council members, including the mayor, recuse themselves from votes where any of their campaign contributors have a vested interest (the city’s most notable residents own land in the Core to Shore area).
Mayor Micky provided the Buzz words and Slogans...

You're still only speaking in buzz words and slogans when you're coloring and bolding large chunks of your post and referring to him as Mayor Micky.

I agree with you that oversight is important for MAPS 3 to be successful, but I would encourage you to come up with complete thoughts and tactfully present them. When people speak in buzz words and slogans it tells me that they're not capable of an original thought and they are just rehashing whatever they hear from other people.

Talk radio listeners are the worst at that, which always makes me wonder if there is actually some brainwashing going on..

Mayor Micky is what he is.
He desperately needs and wants a legacy.
The buzz words and slogans, I wanted to make it easy on you to follow since most the time the lack of common sense seems to escape those who blindly follow who ever is jingling the shiney things.
There is not a large "chucks" color and bolding, count how many is so, compare to the whole of what is cited.
I know I am asking honest questions about what is promised and not delivered thus far.

So explain to me why I shouldnt ask questions of elected local officials.

A little off topic, but it is somewhat fascinating that we would have built an arena at the fairgrounds without air conditioning at one time. That indicates how desperate things were in this city at one time.

i agree ...

How does this statement:

"No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."

...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto. Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?

Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here. It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all. Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council. This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.

At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.

--

Note: I originally posted most of this comment at OKCCentral.com, so it may not flow perfectly with this dialogue.

I say Yes to veto power for the oversight board, on the principle that more transparency and accountability is better than less.

How does this statement:

"No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."

...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto. Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?

Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here. It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all. Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council. This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.

At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.

--

Note: I originally posted most of this comment at OKCCentral.com, so it may not flow perfectly with this dialogue.
Blair, in an earlier post in this thread, I said,


I can see both sides of the argument, as well. But big points lending favor to a Maps for Kids approach are what many of us have squawked about ... (1) the vague ballot, (2) lack of specifics even in the council resolution, and (3) holding council accountable for the projects identified in the original resolution. On the other hand, decision making does reside in the council and I'm not even sure that it would be legal for council to delegate power like was done in Maps for Kids ... which I assume was not legally challenged.
I'm not saying that the delegation of power would be unlawful, just that the question is raised and that I doubt that it was legally challenged by anyone in Maps for Kids.

The historical vignettes which Steve has mentioned here are pretty persuasive that such a system (board with power) has been workable and even comparatively desirable.

I'm not saying that the delegation of power would be unlawful, just that the question is raised and that I doubt that it was legally challenged by anyone in Maps for Kids.

Delegata potestas non potest delegari.

-- and when there's a latin maxim in support of the proposition, you can believe there's case law.

How does this statement:

"No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."

...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto. Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?

Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here. It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all. Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council. This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.

At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.

--

Note: I originally posted most of this comment at OKCCentral.com, so it may not flow perfectly with this dialogue.

Thank you!!!

Just days after the vote, some city leaders diverge over whether the oversight board should have veto power: Kirk Humphreys, Yes; Mick Cornett, Pete White, Brian Davis, No. See the article. NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-mayor-says-maps-panel-does-not-need-veto-power/article/3424672)



I'm going to watch Flashpoint right now and see what Kirk Humphreys has to say about this topic.

On edit, darn, Humphreys isn't there this morning. Might get interesting.

Oversight board should have veto power. As weak as it is, it is the only mechanism of "enforcement" (and I use the term lightly) that can remotely hoped to be used as a means to get even some of these projects accomplished.

AMEN!!!

checks and balances help..

So who do I lobby then? The advisory members or my councilman?


Hope they don't mind getting my calls and letters.

screw them if they do

So who do I lobby then? The advisory members or my councilman?


Hope they don't mind getting my calls and letters.

Isn't it a little too late, by like 7 days?

Our system of government has its' weaknesses, but I submit there are reasons we don't create bodies of people more powerful than our elected officials.

don't we, as a whole, consist of a body of people more powerful than our elected officials?

I guess I'm trying to make a point as well. All of this was brought up before and dismissed as a non-issue. Which, suddenly, seems to be an issue, albeit a not so important one, for now..

screw them if they do

For once I agree with an out-of-the-box idea you have. :)

Perhaps if the oversight commitee were given 2 votes on the city council, they would hold some power, but not veto power. It would take a supermajority to over rule them.
This may be a good alternative politicaly.

I'm torn. I would prefer the accountability of veto power for the Advisory Board, but who watches the Watchmen?

I'm torn. I would prefer the accountability of veto power for the Advisory Board, but who watches the Watchmen?

My thoughts exactly. Who knows why kind of insight, taste, knowledge the people on the advisory committee might have? Actually, it frightens me to give this kind of decision making power to just about anyone. I was horrified when I read on Steve's blog that the City and Assistant Manager were ruling out streetlights for Project 180. What makes a City Manager an arbiter of taste? I've seen enough houses done badly by people with money to know that money doesn't necessarily guarantee taste either. What does a citizens advisory board know about siting the convention center or a potential route for a streetcar? Or, for that matter, do I want my city council people making those kinds of decision instead? Do I seriously think they've got the ability to make such huge decisions?

Then I thought, how about hiring a Jeff Speck type of person to tell us where things need to go. But, do we really even know if people like him know what they're talking about? A long-time walker, I wasn't so sure about some of his suggestions for Broadway. I ended up being paralyzed by indecision. I trust myself to make those decisions, but I'm not sure about the rest of you. :wink:

I want information, then I decide and it stands.
I hate indecisiveness, or flip flopping.
Dont be confused that with a lack of adaptability.
It comes down what questions you asked and the grade of information you're given.
The integrity of the people giving you the information and the questions being answered.

My thoughts exactly. Who knows why kind of insight, taste, knowledge the people on the advisory committee might have? Actually, it frightens me to give this kind of decision making power to just about anyone.

I think this is why I lean towards advising only. I would hope that it would be a good mix of people who know what they are talking about and some intelligent laymen citizens. But the actual decisions I think should come down to people that have the accountability of being elected by the people.

But I think a good compromise could be that the Board could veto the council's decisions with a supermajority--perhaps 7+ votes. This would keep them from pulling any major stunts like nixing an entire MAPS 3 project.

while I agree that the Citizens Oversight Board should have veto power, I do not think they should have ABSOLUTE veto power.

the COB could veto certain things, such as design or timing or aesthetics or the like, but they should NOT have the power to veto projects or who builds them (that should be the city leaders).

Also, I think the city should develop a formula to override the COB's veto. Because ultimately, the city leaders are accountable and responsible to the city (through voting) and we might just end up with COB people who are not for the best interest of OKC.

how could the taxpayers of this city hold COB members accountable? ??? This is why I don't think they should have absolute veto power (but instead limited and specifically defined veto authority with majority vote).

Random thoughts...

Supposedly the COB is going to be appointed by the Council (1 person from each ward and 1 "at large"), similar to the Ford setup. Not sure what the make-up of the MAPS for Kids COB was/is. Know that the original MAPS COB was rather large (one article said they had a hard time minding meeting space large enough).

The COB essentially serves at the will of the Council, if someone raise too much stink, whomever appointed them can probably dismiss them and replace them with someone more to their liking.

The COB should have veto (as it does for MAPS 4 Kids) but should be subject to the Council's over ride. Since each council member makes an appointment, SHOULD be a fair mix BUT with so few people on the board, think it needs to be 3 or 4 each. Also presents a dilemma for 2 of the Council people as their wards voted against MAPS 3, yet they were for it...which type person do they appoint? One that supports their views or their constituents?

Also, a recent Oklahoman article mentioned a MAPS 3 TRUST(?) don't know if this was a misprint, but in one of these threads, someone suggested a trust be set up (as an answer to the vague ballot/ordinance language), the answer he got back from the City Manager was that a trust would be illegal (does that mean the MAPS 4 Kids trust is illegal too?)

Imagine that..we get 2 different answers from a City Official...imagine that

Function of MAPS 3 citizen advisory board yet to be determined | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5394/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

"Nominees Announced for MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board" Press Release link - TwitDoc.com - the EASY way to share your documents on Twitter (http://twitdoc.com/c/tnr5rm)

I recognize a lot of names on there.. some I don't. A lot of older folks on the Board. That seems to be a pretty shortsighted play considering how long MAPS III is supposed to take. I knew a lot of young and excited folks who had supported the MAPS initiatives who applied and I'm sorry to see the board comprised of the same 'ol names as usual.

Bummer.

What are the general backgrounds of the members? Does anyone know? Will that info be released to the public?

I don't recognize the name of the person from my ward. Who is Wayne Williams?

Ummmmmm......
Let's see: the first board had powerful community leaders: Bert Cooper, Eric Groves, Jim Bowers Jr., Ed Barth and more... this group has Tom McDaniel and ...
The first board had members appointed by the mayor and council and the mayor could not remove at will. This board has members appointed the by the mayor, who he can remove at will.
Not doing any commentary here, just making notes....

I'm hearing contradictory claims...this board is made up of the same 'ol names as usual, but no big names like the first board?

I'm not sure we need the powerful community leaders to have even more power...as that tends to corrupt. The fact that we have not heard of most of these people could be a good thing. How arrogant of us to assume competence from only a select group of leaders. Plus, I want the oversight board to be in touch with the real people of Oklahoma City. The established leaders already serve on enough committees and boards as it is. Their influence is not going away by not being on this advisory board.

Not assuming competence at all. But competence and influence are two different things, especially on a committee where members can be removed by the mayor at will. Again, just asking questions - how will this work?

Mayor Cornett,

I think you should have the County Election Board verify that each nominee did in fact partipate in the voting process on Dec 8, 2009. If any of the nominees did not cast a vote, then they are automatically disqualified.

Mayor Cornett,

I think you should have the County Election Board verify that each nominee did in fact partipate in the voting process on Dec 8, 2009. If any of the nominees did not cast a vote, then they are automatically disqualified.

Possum, I'm not disagreeing with you, but do have any reason for suspecting that any of these people didn't vote? If not, why do you suggest that?

Possum, I'm not disagreeing with you, but do have any reason for suspecting that any of these people didn't vote? If not, why do you suggest that?

ljbab728...I do not know any of these folks, and I promise ya, my suggestions was not based on any suspicions. Personally, I just wouldn't want anyone on this committee that didn't take the time to vote on this initiative. Kinda along the same lines that I hope that the nominees actually live in the Wards they are representing.

Shoot, maybe they better check to see if the City Council members voted too? I couldn't tell ya if my councilman did (Ward 8, Pat Ryan), because he never answers an e-mail, at least none of mine.

On the positive side, at least there will be an oversight committee in place, no matter if it's truly representative of the "voting" public or not.

Tom McDaniel as chair is kind of intriguing. Former Dean of the OCU Law School, former President of the University. I'm guessing OCU Law's interests will be well looked after.

Midtowner...are you thinking the OCU Law Center's PCDC is going to benefit in some way, or that there will be some "new" construction going on in and around the Law School?

What does McDaniel do now?

Midtowner...are you thinking the OCU Law Center's PCDC is going to benefit in some way, or that there will be some "new" construction going on in and around the Law School?

What does McDaniel do now?

I think OCU Law in general is going to benefit hugely from MAPS in an indirect manner. Having McDaniel as Chair virtually assures that the school's needs will be addressed. As far as the PCDC, I think having proximity to the courthouses/jail/biglaw firms will probably be a bit of a boon. Will probably raise its profile.

Not assuming competence at all. But competence and influence are two different things, especially on a committee where members can be removed by the mayor at will. Again, just asking questions - how will this work?

Are you asking the questions to the forum or do you plan to question those that might be in the know - like the mayor, city council members or Metro?