The need for the CC Hotel has never been a secret. In fact it was part of the initial study. What was swept under the rug was the fact that $50+ million in public subsidies will be needed to make the Hotel portion come to life. Missed that little tid bit of information in the pro Maps3 ads didn't they? Wonder where they'll pull that money from when the time comes.

I don't think the need for a Convention Center Hotel has ever been a secret. It was actually discussed frequently during the campaign.

O......K....... I'll take your word for it, but if it was discussed, was it also discussed that the taxpayers would ultimately be on the hook for it? If so, please cite the source. I recall nothing about this.

Personally, I was a huge MAPS supporter, and I'm not even opposed to subsidizing a major convention hotel, as long as it is an awesome and recognized major brand, like a Grand Hyatt, Leows, Four Seasons, or something on that level.

Still, this doesn't meet the smell test for transparency.

Not sure about the "frequency", but it was mentioned mainly in passing in most of the mainstream media (if I run across it I will post it). Just as the Phase 1/Phase 2 was mentioned but glossed over (that we are only getting Phase 1 w/MAPS 3). The first mention I recall about the public possibly being on the hook for $50 to $60M in subsidy for the Hotel was during the ULI presentation. Was that before or after the MAPS 3 vote? The Chamber's C.C. study mentioned it but it mentioned that there were various financing methods that could be used (don't recall a cost estimate or breakdown mentioned of subsidy with it), just number of rooms needed and the like.

Along the same lines as the Mayor says he mentioned the $30M substation costs in numerous speeches but no one else seems to remember it and so far, copies of those speeches haven't been produced/links to published sources and the like. Right now it is a "He said"/"They said" where different people are remembering the same events differently.

I hear a new agreement put forth by The Alliance will be out Tomorrow to try and get more Council Members on board. Seems like they may not have the votes just yet...

Today it was announced that JoeVan Bullard is resigning as head of OCURA and that this new non-profit will likely be taking over their operations, with Larry Nichols coming back on board as Chairman:

http://newsok.com/joevan-bullard-resigns-as-director-of-the-oklahoma-city-urban-renewal-authority/article/3560535?custom_click=headlines_widget

Then it seems it's a done deal.

Today it was announced that JoeVan Bullard is resigning as head of OCURA and that this new non-profit will likely be taking over their operations, with Larry Nichols coming back on board as Chairman:

http://newsok.com/joevan-bullard-resigns-as-director-of-the-oklahoma-city-urban-renewal-authority/article/3560535?custom_click=headlines_widget

larry nichols was appointed a few weeks to the OCURA board by the council .. he was then elected chairman ...

the ocura board voted to go into negotitions with the Alliance .. not done yet ..


they will need a new director .. the alliance proposal makes cathy occonor the new OCURA director ..

I'm frankly glad to see Joe Van go. Geez. I couldn't stand that guy. Still, I'm getting tired of Larry Nichols throwing his weight around on everything. Who appointed him king of OKC? He's a good guy but he has some really backward views as well.

I am a little confused on this, isn't OCURA a public trust (entity of the City)? Yet the Alliance is a non-profit, non-City entity, that Cathy O'Conner (current Asst City Manager) is going to head up and also be the new Director of OCURA??? Is she keeping her City job too?

Perhaps. But just look at the agreement "...The City agrees to assign certain City employees to the Alliance to carry out the scope of work. " This is a pretty sweet deal for the Alliance, terrible for most everyone else. Please everyone consider attending AND speaking at City Council on Tuesday. Got to sway the Council voters on this one. It's not impossible. Skip and David, if they care about their wards, should vote no. Pete probably will and Ed too. McAtee isn't to crazy about this thing...so, we shall see.

I'm frankly glad to see Joe Van go. Geez. I couldn't stand that guy. Still, I'm getting tired of Larry Nichols throwing his weight around on everything. Who appointed him king of OKC? He's a good guy but he has some really backward views as well.

Would you mind detailing some of Larry Niichols' backward views as I am unaware of them? Until I hear otherwise factually, I would consider him the least corruptable and the most positive force in advancing OKC.

Would you mind detailing some of Larry Niichols' backward views as I am unaware of them? Until I hear otherwise factually, I would consider him the least corruptable and the most positive force in advancing OKC.

I agree with you, Popsy...and while I understand the concerns about a lack of transparency, I can't think of anyone I would rather see as Chairman of OCURA than Larry Nichols. If he feels like the Alliance is the best way to move Urban Renewal forward and get things done in an expedited manner, I would be in favor of trusting his judgement...

As a reminder, Nichols was on the OCURA board for quite some time until recently. IIRC he resigned just as Devon entered into negotiations with the city to buy the parking garage and land for Devon Tower.

So, he's been involved with OCURA for quite some time, although his role as chairman is new. If anything, that can be a reduction in power because the chairman typically only votes (like when selecting a developer for the Mercy site) when there is a stalemate.

Major changes to the original proposed contract between the Alliance and the city and various trusts now appear at the city's website. To see the April 26 agenda documents, go here and find (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1295&doctype=AGENDA) agenda item VIII (Items Requiring Separate Vote -- last time, the item was on the Consent Docket), sub-item A. Three PDF files are located there.

The first is a cover memo from Jim Couch, City Manager, dated April 26, 2011, and significant excerpts from it read as follows:







Since the April 12, 2011 deferment, staff has met with Councilmembers Ed Shadid and Pete White and as result of the meeting, amendments were proposed. The proposed amendments were agreeable to The Alliance, who also proposed an amendment. The revisions are as follows:

The first paragraph of Section 3 has been amended at the request of The Alliance to read as follows (underlined is new language):

"On behalf of itself and on behalf of its sole beneficiary, The City of Oklahoma City (a party with beneficial interest in this Agreement), the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust engages The Alliance and The Alliance agrees to provide the professional services and resources which include, without limitation, managerial services, administrative services, professional economic development and redevelopment services, and other contract professional services and resources needed to accomplish the Scope of Work and to carry out the economic development programs undertaken or supported by the City and/or the Trust in furtherance of economic development and redevelopment within the City. It is agreed that the Board of Directors of The Alliance will not and shall not make public policy decisions regarding economic development, which decisions will remain with and shall be made by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City, the Trustees of the Trust, and other public bodies."

Section 4(E) has been amended at the request of The City/Trust to read as follows (underlined is new language):

E. The parties agree that The Alliance is responsible to the General Manager, the Program Coordinator, and to the Trust for its day-to-day operations in providing the professional services and resources contracted for under this Agreement; for the accomplishment of the responsibilities
set forth in Section 3; for accomplishment of the Scope of Work; and for providing any required or requested professional contract services, periodic Reports and for attendance at any required periodic meetings. The periodic Reports shall include, but not be limited to, a financial report/statement itemizing the use or expenditure of all public funds received by The Alliance during the current fiscal year. The President/CEO of The Alliance shall submit any required Reports to the Program Coordinator for processing.

At the request of The City/Trust the prior Section 12 has been stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following mutual agreeable language (all new):

SECTION 12. DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS.

The parties recognize that a purpose of this Agreement is to allow Oklahoma City to participate in the most effective manner possible in the national and international competition for local economic development and job creation, with the further recognition that premature disclosure of economic development prospects may lead to the elimination of Oklahoma City from economic development competitions. It is further acknowledged that The Alliance will not make public policy decisions regarding economic development, but that the Oklahoma City Council, the trustees of the Trust and other public bodies will make such public policy decisions and that documents and records coming into the possession of these public bodies, or their employees or representatives will be subject to public inspection. It is also recognized that the citizens of Oklahoma City have a legitimate interest in having the opportunity to inspect documents associated with economic development.

In an effort to give balance to these factors, the parties agree as follows:

A. Certain professional services to be rendered by The Alliance in fulfilling the Scope of Work have previously been performed by City employees. All documents and records that come into the possession of City employees, including those assigned to assist The Alliance, shall be available for public inspection to the extent required by the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

B. All documents and records of The Alliance directly related to Scope of Work shall be available for public inspection, except as otherwise provided by this Section.

C. All final studies or reports procured by The Alliance shall be subject to public inspection regardless of the funding source. Any preliminary or interim study or report received by The Alliance or any of its employees or agents, funded directly or indirectly with public funds received from the City or any public trust or entity, shall be subject to public inspection if the study or report is abandoned or terminated for any reason.

D. The Alliance shall not be obligated to make available for public inspection the following:

(i) Business plans, feasibility studies, financing proposals, marketing plans, financial statements or trade secrets submitted by a person or entity seeking economic advice, business development or customized training from The Alliance. However, those documents may not be kept confidential when and to the extent the person or entity submitting the information consents to disclosure.

(ii) Proprietary information of the business submitted to The Alliance for the purpose of business development or customized training, and related confidentiality agreements detailing the information or records designated as confidential.

(iii) Except as provided in Subsection (C) above, preliminary and working drafts of documents and records.

(iv) Documents and records that disclose a prospective economic development prospect or location and related financial data and other information in the possession of The Alliance for the purpose of evaluating and advancing an economic development prospect. Documents and records exempt from public disclosure by this Subsection (iv) shall nonetheless be made available for public inspection one year after the work of The Alliance terminates with respect to an economic development prospect.

(v) Those materials that would not be subject the Oklahoma Open Records Act if The Alliance were a governmental entity subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

E. The receipt of any request by the City Clerk or Secretary of the Trust for public inspection of documents in the possession of The Alliance shall be promptly forwarded to The Alliance, which shall respond to such request in a timely manner.

F. Nothing herein is intended to alter or impact otherwise legally required compliance with the Oklahoma Open Records Act by any person or entity.
Couch's memo contains some further explanation but I see nothing else new in it as yet. I'll have all of the new stuff in this blog article (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/04/alliance-for-economic-development-of_23.html) shortly, as well as other relevant information about the Alliance and the complete city council discussion and action taken on April 26.

I like the changes, and the disclosures part, at least on my initial review, looks to balance the public's interest with the city's interest in keeping certain aspects of economic development confidential.

It is very encouraging to see the Council's and public's concerns being heeded.

Great job Ed Shadid and Pete White. This is a much improved agreement and one I can probably support without reservation.

The only further consideration I'd like is to allow our elected officials and members of constituent public bodies unfettered access to records within Alliance's control which are related to those public bodies' mission. E.g., Council members should have absolutely unfettered access to anything they want; OCURA board members should have access to any communications considering lands held by OCURA; etc. At this point, I'm happy with the balance struck between public and private access. I'm of course still not sold on the legality of that, but I doubt our current A.G. will weigh in. Maybe Jerry Fent will or someone like the Oklahoma Press Association.

I'd like to finish thinking this through this morning, but I'm goin' fishin' with my grandson, Mr. T. (as in Tyler Loudenback). But ... I'd also be interested in seeing if there is an Alliance board membership change in the works, suggested by some council members at the last meeting, and probably some other things I've not yet thought about. For now, heading west toward Lake Overholser ... I've got me a new fishing reel, a couple of new lures, and I'm SO SURE I'm about to catch the big one. (no exclamation)

Strategic Alliance: A proposed economic development nonprofit meets resistance from some Oklahoma City Council members, including a new councilman planning to seek an AG opinion on the nonprofit’s required level of transparency.

http://okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11444-strategic-alliance.html

Still not seeing where they can claim they won't be setting policy when the City & Trust members are serving on the Alliance and the Alliance members are heading up the Trusts etc. Just to much co-mingling.

Don't see how this relieves the "pressure" on City staff (from the old ad hoc method, being pulled in many directions) when City staff will be "assigned" to the Alliance (if I read that right). The Alliance is supposed to be serving the City, not the City serving the Alliance. Right?

If they want to reorganize the trusts and streamline organization at the City, do so. Just don't see how outsourcing this to a third-party non-profit helps that in any way.

Larry, it's all to avoid transparency. Of course, there's an AG opinion already which states that these sorts of not-for-profits are subject to open meetings/records laws, but I'm guessing Pruitt's office is willing to rethink that.

Larry, it's all to avoid transparency. Of course, there's an AG opinion already which states that these sorts of not-for-profits are subject to open meetings/records laws, but I'm guessing Pruitt's office is willing to rethink that.
Mid, can you give a link on the AG opinion you mentioned?

They're kind of like a more powerful Sam Adams Alliance - American's for Prosperity - Heritage Foundation (who tried to bring TABOR 6 yrs ago to Oklahoma and my friends and I destroyed them). They don't set policy, but they strongly influence. I've recently uncovered some stuff showing that a group out of DC, run by that liar/fraud Brigette Gabriel was very influential in bringing the Sharia Law bill to Oklahoma, and getting it passed. If these guys want to pretend they are any different than any of these hoodlums, then they are wrong. I'm still going over the changes, and I've found disturbing things. If you are suspicious of this, please consider showing up Tuesday and speaking.

D. The Alliance shall not be obligated to make available for public inspection the following:
(i) Business plans, feasibility studies, financing proposals, marketing plans,

So we will be paying for the right to be told what to like, and have to figure out all the details of why we shouldn't like what they are telling us to like. I say we just say no to everything they propose since this will be the case!

Mid, can you give a link on the AG opinion you mentioned?

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=413183

Thanks, Mid.

As stated at Proposed Contract With Alliance, Part 2, Analysis (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/04/alliance-for-economic-development-of_23.html#analysis), I've reached my preliminary opinion, for whatever it is worth. The matter will be further discussed and voted on at tomorrow's council meeting. My opinions are restated here:






ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CONTRACT, AS REVISED. MikeN (comments, below) reminds me that the first part of this post (i.e., before tomorrow's council meeting) is unfinished. OK, I'll give it my best stab, but subject to this qualification:



I'm not saying that what I'm about to say will be my opinions after the presentations at tomorrow's council meeting — in other words, I'm still open to persuasion — but, IF I had a vote and IF I would have to cast that vote this very minute, my vote would be either against the contract or to table it for a few months. Here's why:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Skip Kelly made a good point two weeks ago, essentially saying that if something isn't broken, don't fix it. No one, neither Cathy O'Connor nor anyone else, has said that the city has failed to secure a new development because of the absence of an organization like the Alliance. So, it seems that, with existing resources everything that has needed to be done has been done, e.g., Skirvin, Dell, Bass Pro. What this point boils down to is this: A case has not been made for the need for the city to contract with the Alliance. If a "case for need" has not been made, why do it?

2. A Case For Cost Reduction Has Not Yet Been Made. Larry McAtee asked for specifics about this point at the last meeting, so perhaps those cost-reduction specifics will be given tomorrow. So, far, that has not occurred — certainly it was not presented in Ms. O'Connor's presentation two weeks ago.

3. I'm Concerned About An Erosion of Power From Council (And the Trusts) to the Alliance. Pete White made this point strongly two weeks ago. Rather than repeat what he said, go to my last post (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/04/alliance-for-economic-development-of.html#responses1) and either listen to his remarks or read the partial transcript there. Although Ms. O'Connor insists that the Alliance will not have a policy making function, I think that she protests too much.

The membership of Alliance's Board of Directors screams policy makers: Larry Nichols, executive chairman of Devon Energy, Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber; businessman Clayton I. Bennett; former Mayor Ron Norick; city council members Pat Ryan and Meg Salyer; City Manager Jim Couch; and representatives from the various city and/or county trusts. Only one board member, Catherine O'Connor, sounds like "staff," which she claims is the sole function of the organization.

4. No Description of the Board Member Function(s) Has Been Given. Clearly, the board members are not "staff." If it is true, as O'Connor says, that the Alliance will make no policy, then what IS the function of Alliance's board of directors, if not policy? I want to hear an explanation about the board's function which makes sense. It has not been given. Actually, NO explanation of the board's function has been presented, sensible or not.

5. Ethnic & Geographic Diversity. Pete White and Skip Kelly pointed out very strongly two weeks ago that the Alliance has no diversity at all, at least not of these types. So far, nothing has been presented to change that. My opinion is that the same must be done, and probably at the expense of eliminating some of the heavy hitters from Alliance's board of directors. One or two such heavy hitters, say Larry Nichols and former mayor Ron Norick, is/are quite enough, should any be needed at all.

6. How Does the Committee For Oklahoma City Momentum Figure Into the Decision About Contracting With the Alliance? Like Ed Shadid said two weeks ago, if this proposal were being presented six months ago, or perhaps six months from now, maybe I'd feel differently than I do right now. Right now, I share the views expressed by Pete White two weeks ago. He said, "And I have seen, and we have all witnessed, an atrocity with regard to the failure to have records open in these last political campaigns. That's a blot on the history of this city in my opinion that we will have difficulty ever erasing. And to start a new entity which is not subject to open records, to me, is very very problematic."

As it stands, since the city council elections, no public official or corporate power has taken a public stand against what was experienced vis a vis Momentum during that election. Not the Chamber, not Larry Nichols, not Roy Williams, not Clay Bennett, not the Oklahoman nor its owners and managers, no one. Right now, I'm not in the mood to think fondly of or to trust yet another not-for-profit organization — particularly when it comes down to open records stuff — that has just been sprung on us. The proposed amendments do go a long way in that regard as far as city council stuff is concerned, but I'm not satisfied that open records considerations are developed sufficiently with the Alliance, itself.

7. What's the Rush? Since no "need for speed" has been demonstrated (see point #1, above), why not slow down and maybe even give the public an opportunity to give more input than it has been given. Heck, this thing was sprung on us all only 3 or 4 days after the Ward 2 runoff election occurred. I'd favor putting it on the back burner, i.e., table it for a few months, let the above and/or other considerations be explored and digested with an opportunity for public input, and then see where we are.
It ought to be quite a lively discussion tomorrow morning. If you cannot attend, you can watch it on Cox Channel 20, beginning shortly after 8:30 a.m.

Just got this email. Could be some interesting stuff. If so, I will address at the meeting, or have someone that is taken more seriously do so.

Alliance Open Records Request


Inbox
X

Reply
|
frances.kersey@okc.gov
to me

show details 5:40 PM (1 hour ago)

Steve,

I have some of the documents available for you to examine. If you want copies, please mark them. The Clerk’s Office opens at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. The other documents will be available for you later in the morning. Thanks.

Frances Kersey
City Clerk

...
5. Ethnic & Geographic Diversity. Pete White and Skip Kelly pointed out very strongly two weeks ago that the Alliance has no diversity at all, at least not of these types. So far, nothing has been presented to change that. My opinion is that the same must be done, and probably at the expense of eliminating some of the heavy hitters from Alliance's board of directors. One or two such heavy hitters, say Larry Nichols and former mayor Ron Norick, is/are quite enough, should any be needed at all.

6. How Does the Committee For Oklahoma City Momentum Figure Into the Decision About Contracting With the Alliance? Like Ed Shadid said two weeks ago, if this proposal were being presented six months ago, or perhaps six months from now, maybe I'd feel differently than I do right now. Right now, I share the views expressed by Pete White two weeks ago. He said, "And I have seen, and we have all witnessed, an atrocity with regard to the failure to have records open in these last political campaigns. That's a blot on the history of this city in my opinion that we will have difficulty ever erasing. And to start a new entity which is not subject to open records, to me, is very very problematic."

As it stands, since the city council elections, no public official or corporate power has taken a public stand against what was experienced vis a vis Momentum during that election. Not the Chamber, not Larry Nichols, not Roy Williams, not Clay Bennett, not the Oklahoman nor its owners and managers, no one. Right now, I'm not in the mood to think fondly of or to trust yet another not-for-profit organization — particularly when it comes down to open records stuff — that has just been sprung on us. The proposed amendments do go a long way in that regard as far as city council stuff is concerned, but I'm not satisfied that open records considerations are developed sufficiently with the Alliance, itself.

...

Excellent points Doug. Found it interesting that as a "solution" to #5, it was suggested at the Council meeting that Mr. Greenwell be added to the Alliance (#6).

Excellent points Doug. Found it interesting that as a "solution" to #5, it was suggested at the Council meeting that Mr. Greenwell be added to the Alliance (#6).

You're kidding, right? Isn't he one of the Momentum cronies? WHERE IS STEVE LACKMEYER? Can someone do some reporting on this group (and I realize the Gazette has tried).

note that solution inside of a quote unquote

You're kidding, right? Isn't he one of the Momentum cronies? ...
Yep. Just imagine who the 4th Council Member would have been if their other candidate had won. Think Shadid and others on the Council that are questioning this should be on it. Any Council member that is a part of the Alliance (Ryan, Salyer and presumably Greenwell) should recuse themselves from voting on its funding.


note that solution inside of a quote unquote
???

Did I screw something up?

For what it's worth, I have received an email from someone saying that White will vote for the Alliance proposal tomorrow. True or not, I don't know. Just passing along.

Updated story by Steve: http://newsok.com/amended-alliance-contract-awaits-oklahoma-city-council-approval/article/3562016

Among other things, it mentions Salyer is stepping down from the Alliance to make room for others (to solve the "Diversity" issue).

doug i think you make some very good points but i would like to point out a few things

A the boards job is to oversea that Alliance period ..

second the board is/was made up of the Orgs the Alliance is/was/will represent. The Alliance is going to be staff for the council/OCURA/whomever than those ORG should be represented on the board.

If some on the council don't like the diversity on the Alliance (a non city board) they only need to look at the boards that they control .. because they board the Alliance picked is from the various city trusts that the Alliance will work for.

as for if this is needed i will say i don't know however proccess can always be improved ...... and as for the possible savings i will be very interested to see what they are if any.


one last thing on the issue of policy .... as has been said the Alliance is serving a "staff" function and as so doesn't have policy making decisions ... now will they influence policy .... of course but i would say not any more than the city staff/manager/heavy hitters do today.

Thanks, BoulderSooner.

City Council just passed the Alliance proposed contract as amended 7-1 (Shadid being the 1); Skip Kelly moved to defer the matter for a few weeks, but it failed (not sure but I think the vote was 4-3 not to defer). I'll have videos of the presentations up either later today or tomorrow.

Please post Marrs' embarrassing comments about how there are "...so many bodies that get more money and have less transparency than the Alliance will." What a joke The Alliance is about consolidation of power, and by comparison the transparency it will have and other's have, well, you don't grade them equally based on the power the Alliance is going to have. The talk about the Skirvin angered me. They need to understand the time when the Skirvin was built, and how it compares to the paper mache garbage these elitists are throwing up all around the place - my point is that we are not entering into a sustainable economic management mode here, we're not building things are generating ideas that will be around a long time, therefore one day when said things need to be repaired, they wont be able to be fixed up like the great Skirvin was. David Harvey was right when he said neoliberal capitalism never solves it's problems, it just moves them around geographically. Radically unsustainable economic ideas and groups have been created in OKC for this reason...we're becoming the epicenter of this "privatize all important decision making for the good of the few" in this Country, and I think that is evident by the reality that the good press we get is primarily from the WSJ, Forbes, Barons, and others with very close ties to Wall Street, rather than your basic reporting entities.

Today was a bad day. But cheer up, it's going to get a lot worse.

Anyway, to celebrate the loss I just cashed in some WTI calls that carried a 1500% return after 4 days. And the Council/Chamber/Oklahoman think I don't understand economics. Har har har. I'm going to celebrate at Ludivine. Yum yum.

Please post Marrs' embarrassing comments about how there are "...so many bodies that get more money and have less transparency than the Alliance will." What a joke The Alliance is about consolidation of power, and by comparison the transparency it will have and other's have, well, you don't grade them equally based on the power the Alliance is going to have. The talk about the Skirvin angered me. They need to understand the time when the Skirvin was built, and how it compares to the paper mache garbage these elitists are throwing up all around the place - my point is that we are not entering into a sustainable economic management mode here, we're not building things are generating ideas that will be around a long time, therefore one day when said things need to be repaired, they wont be able to be fixed up like the great Skirvin was. David Harvey was right when he said neoliberal capitalism never solves it's problems, it just moves them around geographically. Radically unsustainable economic ideas and groups have been created in OKC for this reason...we're becoming the epicenter of this "privatize all important decision making for the good of the few" in this Country, and I think that is evident by the reality that the good press we get is primarily from the WSJ, Forbes, Barons, and others with very close ties to Wall Street, rather than your basic reporting entities.

Today was a bad day. But cheer up, it's going to get a lot worse.
Steve, you and I don't agree about very much, beginning with the Ford Center tax vote. But, in my reporting of stuff, I report on whatever I find, and ALL discussion before city council today, including your comments and all others', will be included. However, I personally reject your last 2 sentences. Today wasn't the best day for the city, but a good deal of good did result over the past two weeks which might well not have occurred but for the just passed city council elections, and I think that things are going to get better, not worse. My opinion.

You're probably right... lets keep keepin' an eye on things. And thanks for your good Doug, it is much appreciated.

Here are the videos, the approximately 73 minute discussion being divided into roughly equal segments:

Part 1 -- 00:00 - Mick Cornett; 00:47 - Wiley Williams, asst. muni. counselor; 07:14 - Citizen David Glover; 10:50 - Citizen Steve Hunt; 15:57 - Ed Shadid; 26:26 - Citizen Ginny (sp?) White; 29:22 - Pete White

v/wx98JCk4sUs?version=3

Part 2 -- 00:00 - Skip Kelly; 09:25 - Larry McAtee; 13:40 - David Greenwell; 19:50 - Larry McAtee; 21:02 - Gary Marrs; 25:18 - Meg Salyer; 26:29 - Jim Couch; 30:22 - Ed Shadid; 32:44 - Kenneth Jordan, muni. counselor; 33:04 - Skip Kelly; 35:02 - Votes Taken

v/7Pqk2T5QUYw?version=3

As I said in my blog post (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/04/alliance-for-economic-development-of_23.html#councilmeeting),





Except for one council member, all others were collegial and conciliatory, even with the shades of differences in their various perspectives. The same was true of the three citizens who spoke and the city manager when he did. Council member Skip Kelly was perhaps the best peacemaker of the lot, he asking for additional time, until May 17, for the concerns expressed by citizens and council member Shadid to have further time for vetting and healing. Kelly's deferral motion failed (3-5, the 3 being Kelly, White, and Shadid). The main motion then carried 7-1, Ed Shadid being the sole member who opposed the motion.

I said, "Except for one council member, all others were collegial and conciliatory..." The one who was not was Gary Marrs. Instead, in a haughty and indignant tone, he came across as something akin to a horse's ass. He even attempted to prevent Kelly's motion to defer to be voted upon, although the city clerk informed him that a motion to defer took precedence. Doubtless Gary Marrs has had better days, but this was certainly not his finest hour, and, hopefully, he will have better days yet to come.

All things considered, a heck of a lot was gained after and by virtue of Shadid's motion to defer this item to yesterday. Much better contract text was added and additional Alliance board members were added, per Steve Lackmeyer's 4/26 article (http://newsok.com/amended-alliance-contract-awaits-oklahoma-city-council-approval/article/3562016): Debra Hampton, president of the United Way of Central Oklahoma; Tony Tyler, owner of Tyler Media and former chairman of the South Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce; Christopher Turner, president of First State Bank and a lifetime member of Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City; Michael Brooks-Jimenez, who owns a bilingual law firm in south Oklahoma City and is past president of the Latino Community Development Agency; and Jim Tolbert, longtime civic leader and owner of Full Circle Bookstore.

Hopefully, now, this item will be put to bed and it will perform well in its tasks.

Did Ryan recuse himself? Noticed he wasn't there for the final vote and he isn't mentioned in the clips above.

It is exasperating that Council members that spoke out against this (even right up until they took the vote) would end up voting for it!

Was once again very impressed with Shadid, my Councilman. Extremely disappointed with many of he Council on this but especially White & Kelly.

Ryan was not present during much of the discussion nor the votes -- he had something else to attend to. So, no, he did not recuse himself.

I think that Pete White fully expressed reasons why he would vote for the measure, as amended, so I don't fault him in his vote. I thought that McAtee played a coy little word game with manager Couch -- but the numbers that he asked for 2 weeks ago were never presented. So, perhaps, he was a lackey. Greenwall was milky-toast, this meeting and the last. Skip Kelly essentially got what he wanted but nonetheless tried to gain more time before the matter was presented for a vote, and I thought that it was good of him to do that.

doug i think you make some very good points but i would like to point out a few things

A the boards job is to oversea that Alliance period ..

Read more: http://newsok.com/new-nonprofit-is-established-to-spearhead-economic-development-in-okc/article/3556579#ixzz1KiE3Tvjc

With creation of The Alliance, O'Connor would step down as assistant city manager. She said Thursday the operation would consist of herself and maybe an assistant or secretary.
So, according to Ms. O'Conner, the "staff" of the Alliance will consist of herself, an assistant and a secretary. That's a lot of heavy hitter people involved if their only function is to oversee 3 people. Also, doesn't this seem to be a lot of money for a 3 person operation?



....... and as for the possible savings i will be very interested to see what they are if any.
Agree, it will be interesting to see since I don't recall any answers on that point at Council. When Ms. O'Connor leaves her post as Asst. City Manager, are they going to leave that post vacant or are they going to hire a replacement?




one last thing on the issue of policy .... as has been said the Alliance is serving a "staff" function and as so doesn't have policy making decisions ... now will they influence policy .... of course but i would say not any more than the city staff/manager/heavy hitters do today.
This was alluded to in Council that because a couple of the trusts are losing people, those people are going to be replaced and according to the newspapers, the Alliance is going to be the replacement. Have to remember that Ms. O'Connor will be the Director of at least one of the Trusts that they are "serving". As the head of the Alliance and the trust, she/it WILL be determining policy.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-members-raise-questions-about-city-funding-for-nonprofit/article/3557987#ixzz1KiDP2q9E

O’Connor, who indicated in an interview last week that there would be no change in leadership or staffing at the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, also told the council Tuesday that the proposal calls for her to take over as the agency’s director.


and

Current Assistant City Manager Cathy O'Connor has been named to lead a new nonprofit, The Alliance for Economic Development, that is hoping to oversee the implementation of economic developments deals involving public funding.
The group proposes O'Connor taking over Urban Renewal as part of the restructuring -- a contract that the agency's board on Wednesday agreed to consider.

Ryan was not present during much of the discussion nor the votes -- he had something else to attend to. So, no, he did not recuse himself.

I think that Pete White fully expressed reasons why he would vote for the measure, as amended, so I don't fault him in his vote. I thought that McAtee played a coy little word game with manager Couch -- but the numbers that he asked for 2 weeks ago were never presented. So, perhaps, he was a lackey. Greenwall was milky-toast, this meeting and the last. Skip Kelly essentially got what he wanted but nonetheless tried to gain more time before the matter was presented for a vote, and I thought that it was good of him to do that.

Doug, thanks again for your thoughts. The reason I asked about Ryan is as a member of the Alliance board, while he can certainly be part of the Council discussion, when it comes time for it to come to a vote for the funding of it, it looks like a direct conflict of interest and as such he should have recused himself. Same with Salyer before she removed herself from the Alliance. Even though the City's legal council stated in an earlier article there was no conflict, both became moot points (by Ryan's absence and Salyer's self-removal).

I agree completely with your other observations about McAtee & Greenwell. But not about White, he was against much more than what was addressed with the amendments. Other than the diversity issue, I don't see that Kelly's concerns were addressed either.

Also was put off by the City Manager's little rant about how inconvenient open records laws. As others have pointed out much better than I, this non-City entity is just a way to circumnavigate the intent and purpose of those laws. The retail "slippage" that has happened to Edmond and Moore was brought up more than once. Yet I didn't hear any mention of Edmond or Moore going out of their way to create one of these entities. Seems they are able to provide incentives and lure the businesses without something like this. How will the Alliance help solve any of that?

Read more: http://newsok.com/new-nonprofit-is-established-to-spearhead-economic-development-in-okc/article/3556579#ixzz1KiE3Tvjc

So, according to Ms. O'Conner, the "staff" of the Alliance will consist of herself, an assistant and a secretary. That's a lot of heavy hitter people involved if their only function is to oversee 3 people. Also, doesn't this seem to be a lot of money for a 3 person operation?



Agree, it will be interesting to see since I don't recall any answers on that point at Council. When Ms. O'Connor leaves her post as Asst. City Manager, are they going to leave that post vacant or are they going to hire a replacement?




This was alluded to in Council that because a couple of the trusts are losing people, those people are going to be replaced and according to the newspapers, the Alliance is going to be the replacement. Have to remember that Ms. O'Connor will be the Director of at least one of the Trusts that they are "serving". As the head of the Alliance and the trust, she/it WILL be determining policy.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-members-raise-questions-about-city-funding-for-nonprofit/article/3557987#ixzz1KiDP2q9E


and

a couple of things .. the Alliance will be able to use city staff when they "ramp up" their efforts.


Cathy O'connor will take over as director of OCURA and whatever else ... remember the director of a trust doesn't set or make policy the trust board does

just like jim couch doesn't set policy he enacts the policys of the city council

We'll just have to see how it works out. While in reality, yes, those Boards will have to vote in order to enact policy, it remains to be seen whether these Boards will offer meaningful input in the process, or simply be rubber-stamp committees.

*** Also was put off by the City Manager's little rant about how inconvenient open records laws. As others have pointed out much better than I, this non-City entity is just a way to circumnavigate the intent and purpose of those laws. The retail "slippage" that has happened to Edmond and Moore was brought up more than once. Yet I didn't hear any mention of Edmond or Moore going out of their way to create one of these entities. Seems they are able to provide incentives and lure the businesses without something like this. How will the Alliance help solve any of that?
Actually, I thought that Couch made a pretty good case for what he was saying.

a couple of things .. the Alliance will be able to use city staff when they "ramp up" their efforts.


Cathy O'connor will take over as director of OCURA and whatever else ... remember the director of a trust doesn't set or make policy the trust board does

just like jim couch doesn't set policy he enacts the policys of the city council

Really? Jim Couch does whatever he pleases. Most of the council isnt intelligent enough to ask the questions that need to be asked. Councilman Shadid asked some questions and it was evident that he was prepared by actually reading the documents that applied to this council agenda, not just looking to Jim Couch for a brief inaccurate summary of the documents and voting on them. Most of the council are just puppets for Couch. So exactly how is it Couch is not setting policy, because the way I and many others see it, he is setting policy when many of the council look for his lead on a vote. I for one am in complete agreement with the speaker from ward 8 that got up in front of the council and got her two sense in. We are tired of the elite few running puppet strings on the Mayor and the City Manager to get whatever they want on our taxpayer dime.

Actually, I thought that Couch made a pretty good case for what he was saying.

Moore and Edmond have been busting their humps to get the abundance of retail in their cities. Moore and Edmond didnt need to go out of their way to create an Alliance, because they are doing what is needed to lure businesses to their respective cities without the Alliance. The Alliance will do no more to solve these things than the city is doing already. This Alliance is just another way that the OKC elite are going to ramrod their interest down the citizens throat in secrecy with no open records. Lets have some more conflicts of interest and backdoor dealings under the table. The Elite are banking on the citizens not knowing any better, because the taxpaying citizens arent smart enough to figure out the game, right...

Did Ryan recuse himself? Noticed he wasn't there for the final vote and he isn't mentioned in the clips above.

It is exasperating that Council members that spoke out against this (even right up until they took the vote) would end up voting for it!

Was once again very impressed with Shadid, my Councilman. Extremely disappointed with many of he Council on this but especially White & Kelly.

Councilmen Ryan had to leave to be at the ground breaking of the new Boeing building

http://newsok.com/dignitaries-cheer-boeings-new-operation-in-okc/article/3562289?custom_click=lead_story_title

Actually, I thought that Couch made a pretty good case for what he was saying.

Doug, you are confusing me...are you saying non-disclosure is a good thing? That is what Couch was advocating. Lets keep as much of this stuff hidden and not subject to open records request as possible. As Midtowner pointed out that the Alliance is set up to avoid all of those inconvenient transparency/open meeting/open record laws. I thought you were in agreement???

I believe that *most* of the folks in the Chamber and who are part of the Alliance structure will tend to be benevolent dictators. The ones I know personally really do want to do what is in the city's best interests, and they have. That Boeing relocation was a serious coup, so was Continental Resources. I expect that the Alliance, at least in the short term, will be a vehicle for positive change.

The trouble is, as we saw in the last election, there seems to be the perception (which may be reality) that control of this city's government is for sale. With 400K spent to keep Dr. Shadid off of the horseshoe, someone really, really thought that last voice and vote on the shoe was worth a lot. If the reality is that this city's government is for sale, then it can be used to purchase control of this apparatus or another one like it. And if the wrong people do that, hold on to your wallets.

Doug, you are confusing me...are you saying non-disclosure is a good thing? That is what Couch was advocating. Lets keep as much of this stuff hidden and not subject to open records request as possible. As Midtowner pointed out that the Alliance is set up to avoid all of those inconvenient transparency/open meeting/open record laws. I thought you were in agreement???
Couch's point was, I think, that exploratory forays by a business which might be considering relocation (or other venture) here, and/or proprietary and/or financial detail about that business's operations or records, and negotiations to work out a possible deal for relocation or a new development from within the city, needs to be kept under wraps unless and until a deal is worked out to present to the city council for consideration, approval and/or further negotiation, since, otherwise, such forays and preliminary negotiations would be chilled with the city being the loser. If that's not he meant by his comments, that's what I mean to say.

Consider the following delightfully and ridiculously impossible scenario:





. Let's pretend that you are the CEO of the Oklahoma City Alliance and I am a potential investor who is considering some major development in downtown Oklahoma City ... lets call it the Doug Loudenback SuperMega Galleria Mall and Hotel Plaza and Office & Residential Park ... just because this is my home and I'd like to leave a legacy beneficial to the city that I love and because I have just a touch of vanity in me and I want my great great grandchildren to know who I am, or was. I mean, we're talking putting Trump Plaza and all of his ego-centered stuff to shame. Wipe off that stupid Obama-birther-embarrassed pouty smile on his face and see Doug Dawgz very big ear-to-ear mega-grin! I mean, this is so much bigger than Trump that it's impossible to describe.
. How is this possible? My financial circumstances have just changed from living off of a modest retirement income ... somehow (please take a huge, gargantuan, leap of faith here) I have, at this late time in life, just discovered the location of a Spanish treasure ship, outside any country's territorial waters, and my divers have absolutely and positively confirmed that the treasure hoard is worth $5 billion, conservatively. The treasure is not yet retrieved, though, and I've told no one about my impending good fortune, outside my immediate family. My workers are all sworn to secrecy, and I don't want anyone to know about it that I don't chose to know about it. I absolutely DO NOT WANT ANYONE knowing the precise location of my discovery which is at a very particular latitude and longitude within the Bermuda Triangle.
Gulp! I wish! Anyway, I'm titillated, eager, and anxious about getting something that I have in mind done before I croak, and I call you, Larry. The 1st part of the conversation goes like this:

I dial the phone number I got from the internet ... Loudenback calling LarryOKC ... ring ... ring ... ring ...






. Recording: Good morning, you have reached the office of LarryOKC, chief executive officer of the Oklahoma City Alliance. We are here to help. Please press a number which indicates your reason for calling. Press 1 if you want to make a huge investment in Oklahoma City and this is your first contact with the Alliance. Press 2 if you have previously initiated contact with the Alliance and wish to discuss your possible investment here. Press 3 if you are a member of the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum. Press 4 for all other calls. For your protection, this conversation may be recorded. (Unspoken insider tip: calls from #3 are not recorded.)
. I press 1. You, being the adroit Alliance CEO that you are, are on-call for anyone who calls and presses 1 (or 3). The call is routed to your super-sultry-voiced assistant who handles all priority 1 or 3 calls from heterosexual males (the phone sensing device is almost always reliable in determining a caller's gender and sexual orientation) ... (your other assistants are particularly equipped to handle divers calls from other groups of callers, very high tech and discerning) ...
. Assistant: Good morning! Oh! It's becoming such a hot day today! I see that you are calling LarryOkc. He is in and has been waiting for your call ... who may I say is calling?
. (Thinking to myself ... Huh? Hot day? Waiting for my call? Oh, well, at least the operation is efficient ...)
. Loudenback: I'd rather keep that information between me and LarryOkc, if that's OK.
. Assistant: Surely, Mr. Anon. Not a problem. Please wait while I connect you ...
. LarryOkc: Good morning, Mr.Anon. How can I help you?
. Loudenback: Hi, Larry. I've been a big fan of Oklahoma City for all my life, but I've never had money to invest in downtown before right now and I'm ready to make a huge investment, something that will knock your socks off. That's why I'm calling. But, before I go any further, I have a couple of questions.
. LarryOkc: Sure, go right ahead.
. Loudenback: First, I need to know if is this conversation being recorded. Is it?
. LarryOkc: Yes. We do that to make sure we get everything exactly right.
. Loudenback: Well, then, my second question is, is the recording of this conversation subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act?
End of first part of conversation.

Do you ever get my name (or other information)? Do I really need to continue to develop this delightful fantasy any further, depending on the outcome of your answer to the Open Records Act question, to see the divergent paths for the second part of the conversation (even though I admit that the fantasy has been kind of fun)? A "yes" answer will obviously end the conversation. A "no" answer may very well lead to the, ahem, Doug Loudenback SuperMega Galleria Mall and Hotel Plaza and Office & Residential Park, which includes, by the way, an exact (except for modernization features) replica of the Baum Building and a few other lost treasures. With $5 billion or more at my disposal (once secured), cost is not important.

Another, and more mundane and realistic even if not as on-point, analogy has to do with settlement discussions during the course of litigation. Generally (but not absolutely), evidence offers of settlement are not admissible as evidence during a trial to prove something. The reason is that the law favors settlements and, were such evidence admissible, it would have a chilling effect upon such discussions ever occurring in the first place.

So, please, Larry, when I call you in your capacity as CEO of the Alliance and I have my fantasy Spanish galleon discovery within my grasp and you answer the question about the Open Records Act, please say, "No, not unless a firm proposal is worked out to present to the city council. At that point, full disclosure would be required."

I believe that *most* of the folks in the Chamber and who are part of the Alliance structure will tend to be benevolent dictators. The ones I know personally really do want to do what is in the city's best interests, and they have. That Boeing relocation was a serious coup, so was Continental Resources. I expect that the Alliance, at least in the short term, will be a vehicle for positive change.

The trouble is, as we saw in the last election, there seems to be the perception (which may be reality) that control of this city's government is for sale. With 400K spent to keep Dr. Shadid off of the horseshoe, someone really, really thought that last voice and vote on the shoe was worth a lot. If the reality is that this city's government is for sale, then it can be used to purchase control of this apparatus or another one like it. And if the wrong people do that, hold on to your wallets.
Mid, as I understand it, $400 K+ was spent by Momentum for all 4 ward elections, not just in Ward 2 (we should have a final report on total expenditures in mid-May, I think, but they won't be broken down by wards). But, probably more than 1/4 of the $400+ K was spent in Ward 2, I would imagine.

Mid, as I understand it, $400 K + was spent by Momentum all around, not just in Ward 2 (we should have a final report mid-May, I think). Probably more than 1/4 was spent in Ward 2, I would imagine.

Fine, but does that detract from the point that at least it appears that some believe that control of our city's governmental apparatus is for sale?

Fine, but does that detract from the point that at least it appears that some believe that control of our city's governmental apparatus is for sale?
No, not if the sale is successful. I'm hoping that with Shadid's election the public and citizens like you and me will be better prepared next time that an organization like Momentum presents itself. I know that I was caught off guard until the runoff in Ward 2. I doubt that such unpreparedness will happen again. Frankly, the post-election comments about Momentum have been so harsh that I'm hopeful that we'll not see a super-pac in municipal elections again, or at least not in the near future.

Ward 2 is demographically unique. Momentum's tactics were pretty ill-considered, and the runoff probably caught them off guard. This is one example of how Okie political consultants aren't worth what you pay for 'em. They think a one-size-fits-all election strategy works in Oklahoma. They focus on federal issues (rather than local ones), run on buzzwords like "Conservative," and try to tie the opposition to those dreaded liberals.

Such strategies tend to fail in places such as Ward 2, which are by and large not very politically conservative. The convenient thing for a group like Momentum is that they are pretty apolitical. They just want their guy to win. If their folks are worth anything, next time, they'll have a winning campaign strategy set up for Ward 2, and they'll pull it out.

I think you highly overestimate how much a group like Momentum cares about the post-election comments of us plebs.

I think you highly overestimate how much a group like Momentum cares about the post-election comments of us plebs.
If by "you" you mean "me," and assuming that the Momentum folk are not idiots, yes, I think that they do or at least should care. As an unnamed entity, Momentum has now been lambasted by outgoing council member Bowman and by sitting council members White, Kelly, and Shadid. White and Kelly will face election, if they run again, 2 years from now. I seriously doubt that we'll see a super-pac in the next round of elections, simply because the big money guys are not stupid and are or should be well aware of the negative feelings that many, if not most, now have concerning the unnamed contributor approach. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but we'll know in less than 2 years about that.

You're mistaken about a one-size-fits-all Momentum approach in the last election. In Ward 5, Walters was characterized as not conservative enough. In Ward 6, Salyer was characterized as embracing conservative and liberals and being progressive as a plus; in Ward 2, Shadid was characterized as too liberal. I never saw any Ward 8 campaign mailers, so I can't speak to that.

Regardless, can you begin to imagine the outcry, from the get-go, should Momentum rear its head in 2013?

Yeah, I really don't think that Momentum or "the powers that be" care what us plebes have to say about their doings, or at least not until there is a city council that is going to hold them responsible for what they do to our city with our resources and so on. BUT I really like the amendment a lot, like Pete White said, and even if it is "the powers that be" with a bunch of random southsiders and Jim Tolbert added, but still dominated by "the powers that be," I am ok with that.

Let's face it. "The powers that be" have been good for OKC, and I'm ok with that. I'm not interested in telling Larry Nichols that he's wrong just because he's big and rich and I'm not. I'm not characterizing the anti-Alliance argument as that, but I'm just saying that I am somewhat ok with the argument of, "Well, Larry Nichols says it's ok, so it must be ok." Obviously it's important that we have access to the knowledge we need to still think for ourselves.

BUT it's absolutely clear that these men are not interested in using OKC funds to pad their personal pockets, or to benefit their company, or to expand Devon's capital, or anything like that. Yes, they might occasionally look out for another fellow oil tycoon, and yes anything that comes from Tom Ward probably needs to be opposed till the end at this point, but I am ok with putting a lot of things in these guys' hands.

I know that this might be a view that surprises a lot of people, coming from me. However, I'm always interested in economic development just as much as I am interested in progressive things, and I do personally view economic development as a progressive issue although most "true progressives" seem to oppose a lot of economic development things, so perhaps this is where my personal views range the gamut.

I do have one caveat though. It appears that this group will be taking over the functions of OCURA, which as an organization, could perhaps see the end very soon. It seems to already have taken over many of OCURA's functions, just in terms of Larry Nichols coming back to OCURA, and him and Kathy O'Connor being among the civic leaders deciding the fate of the Mercy site. Obviously in the context of that, they seem to be phasing OCURA into this Alliance, and evidently JoeVan either just saw the writing on the wall or he was asked by them to resign. So if this group is going to take over OCURA... that is where we could run into some problems.

I am concerned that we are going to long for the days of the transparency that OCURA provided us with, and I mean that in a very droll sense. Of course OCURA provided next to zero transparency. This could be a very big deal, especially if they're going to be involved in the chain of decision making about MAPS 3, Core2Shore, convention center, and other private development RFPs, and so on and so forth. These are things that have a profound impact on the inner city and should--no, MUST--be debated publicly. But again, other than that aspect, nothing else in this deal bothers me. Yet.

I don't disagree with the notion that powerful people in the city have driven its course from the get-go or that that's necessarily a bad thing, per se. Start with Henry Overholser, add Anton Classen & John Shartel. Fast forward and you get Dean McGee and others. Forward again and you get Larry Nichols, Aubrey McClendon, maybe Clay Bennett, and transversing the whole historic spectrum/span is someone who owns or manages the Oklahoman.

That part is not the most disturbing. The part that is is a committee like Momentum which is wholly secret and never reveals itself and engages in campaigns which tell voters what they are called upon to individually decide in a democracy. Even worse is that such a committee would take different postures in different wards, depending on what committee members might think would be most effective to get their candidate elected. Effectively, we then have handful of people telling the rest of us how we should vote, without ever saying who they are, and, as we have seen, without scruple.

At that point, the rub on my face is like coarse sandpaper against facial flesh. Raw. Bleeding. Painful. Rubs me the wrong way, big time. If you're good with that, Nick, we disagree.