Nick, debate?

Give me your honest opinion here: Do you think the "debate" we've all heard from OCURA was really debate? Or is it just the minority expressing their issues with what has already been decided in private conversations?

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

It won't be called Momentum in 2013. It'll be "Forward OKC" or some such.

Really? Jim Couch does whatever he pleases. Most of the council isn't intelligent enough to ask the questions that need to be asked.

Can you present some examples of that? Personally, I don't think it's true.

Nick, debate?

Give me your honest opinion here: Do you think the "debate" we've all heard from OCURA was really debate? Or is it just the minority expressing their issues with what has already been decided in private conversations?

Golly Beav, thats what I was thinking about the last Council meeting. Members arguing against the Alliance and then turning around seconds/minutes later and then voting for it.

Consider the following delightfully and ridiculously impossible scenario...

First, I would remind you that any discussions are subject to Oklahoma law. Those laws exist for a reason and will be observed. If there is any aspect of your business that you don't want to be made public knowledge, you don't put it out there. Any more than you would post that information for the world to see on your Facebook page or Twitter account.

If you are seeking any sort of public funding for your endeavor, fully expect the public to have full access to the information. If you want it to remain private, get your funding from a private investor. Have the option of going to a bank, but they have regulations they have to abide by as well. But then again, you are going to have $5 billion at your disposal soon and you won't need the public funding at all.

If that means delaying your project until you can reveal that information, then so be it. Once you have the $5 billion secured and are willing to go public, then we can talk. If it means that the deal won't happen, then again, so be it. You shouldn't be willing to circumvent the law just because it is more convenient to do so.

I would say one of the purposes behind the open records law isn't just so we can find out about stuff after the fact...when the decisions have been made and the contracts signed (after it is too late to do anything about it). Just as with the Alliance, this apparently has been in the works for months (in concept) to the various sitting members of the Council. It wasn't until the it was put to a vote of the Council (on 2 new members 1st Council meeting). It was only through the 2 week deferral that we/they learned what we did and got the changes that we got. Imagine how much better it could have been if it was deferred again or dropped completely at this point and brought back at a later date, "new & improved". Obviously, there wasn't a pressing need for this Alliance to exist IMMEDIATELY (if there was, we weren't presented with any evidence). If there are any cost savings as claimed, again, we weren't presented with any evidence of that. In the end, it appears that this is nothing but a deliberate move to circumvent the law and to consolidate some of the policy making functions of government entities into non-government hands. Benevolent or not.

What, that's all you got? Don't I even get any style points? Bummer.

What, that's all you got? Don't I even get any style points? Bummer.

Oooooops, my bad, forgot to mention the 2.875 trillion style points! I have always enjoyed your writing style... steal from it whenever I can. My sincerest apologies my friend. We are going to have to meet in person someday.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see this as mostly a Momentum-driven (how's that for irony? LOL) argument? The one thing that I feel about Momentum is that we defeated them, and they lost, and every time Ed Shadid opens his mouth up on the horseshoe or delays these processes, Momentum loses even more (albeit, probably not the real "momentum"). So I'm not worried about that secret PAC anymore.

I am confused by what you mean by this one line, though: "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." What I think you mean, is the sort of overarching argument that it's all bull**** at the end of the day. Well, hard to disagree with that.. but what can you do?


Nick, debate?

Give me your honest opinion here: Do you think the "debate" we've all heard from OCURA was really debate? Or is it just the minority expressing their issues with what has already been decided in private conversations?

I'm not sure what you mean by debate, because I went through my post again, and I don't think I alluded to any kind of debate. I hope I didn't give you the mis-impression that I actually think there was any kind of debate about this. And from that standpoint, I completely understand the negativity toward this.

Look, I don't fully support this thing. My post is just meant to be, "why I'm not taking up arms against this new thing." Because it's impossible to take up arms against everything, especially during the months that one is away, etc etc. Actually, I'm really proud of all of the citizens (except for the embarrassing one) who went forth and pestered the council about this issue. I think it's important to show that we are watching, listening, and we're not totally complacent--even though I know it doesn't matter because what's going to happen is going to happen and it's all just going to be shoved through the same pipeline that everything else is shoved through at every council meeting.

So, I'm not defending this thing at all. Just offering reasons why it might not be the devil, and why one such progressive as myself might be able to tolerate this. The fact that there was NO debate about this and no public due process regarding this is absolutely indefensible, and unbelievable. But don't show that you're surprised by this for longer than a few minutes, because something else could always pop up.

I prefer to dwell in the present, the point is that this thing was passed, and there was no public debate, so what are the implications moving on? The urban renewal functions are the aspect that really worries me the most, whereas in other aspects, I guess I'm okay with this at the end of the day.

Can you present some examples of that? Personally, I don't think it's true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVC53VPKfc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVC53VPKfc

get a clue the CVB gets money from the city not the chamber

I feel dumber for having watched that video.

What does that video have to do with the assertion that Couch calls all the shots and the council doesn't know enough to ask the right questions?

The point is moot now, but the more I think about the Alliance, the less I like it. What bothers me the most is that it seems to be neither animal nor vegetable nor mineral. I can't figure out what it is. Is it a government agency? A government contractor? A completely independent organization?

I believe it's called a quasi-governmental organization. I don't know if that's meant to sound comforting or what, lol.

What does that video have to do with the assertion that Couch calls all the shots and the council doesn't know enough to ask the right questions?

Absolutely nothing, when your bored, you try to make an issue out of anything.

I haven't really been following this but what was the final score for Momentum, 3-1?

Some of their candidates would have won by a landslide without Momentum support. Really there is just 1 in particular who owes his seat to Momentum..

Nichols’ tower

The latest building block for Larry Nichols is chairing a new economic development nonprofit for OKC.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11610-nichols%E2%80%99-tower.html

Urban Renewal to consider $200,000 contract with the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City (http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-to-consider-200000-contract-with-the-alliance-for-economic-development-of-oklahoma-city/article/3567702#ixzz1MH8dCZfp)

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority will consider a $200,000 contract with a nonprofit that's set to be led by former Assistant City Manager Cathy O'Connor to oversee economic development.

There'll be an interesting court case some day when a private citizen sues to get copies of records in possession of this body. If I was a corporation considering a relocation, I certainly wouldn't share any confidential records thinking that the private aspect of this corporation is going to protect my records from being disclosed.

Without some sort of law protecting those records or an AG's opinion contradicting the earlier posted one (which won't really do the trick because you can still sue and get one of those overturned), someone might be headed for embarrassment.

There'll be an interesting court case some day when a private citizen sues to get copies of records in possession of this body. If I was a corporation considering a relocation, I certainly wouldn't share any confidential records thinking that the private aspect of this corporation is going to protect my records from being disclosed.

Without some sort of law protecting those records or an AG's opinion contradicting the earlier posted one (which won't really do the trick because you can still sue and get one of those overturned), someone might be headed for embarrassment.

Would "some sort of law protecting those records" really be needed. Seems to me that the corporation and the Alliance could enter into an agreement that all identifying information retained in a file would have to be redacted. All that would be required on the file would be an identifying number that was held by the president and Chairman of the Board of the Alliance. If those two were brought into court and an attempt was made to force them to disclose the information all they would need to do is use the Clinton tactic of "I have no memory of that." To my knowledge redacting is not illegal, but perhaps you could cite law where it is illegal.

Would "some sort of law protecting those records" really be needed. Seems to me that the corporation and the Alliance could enter into an agreement that all identifying information retained in a file would have to be redacted. All that would be required on the file would be an identifying number that was held by the president and Chairman of the Board of the Alliance. If those two were brought into court and an attempt was made to force them to disclose the information all they would need to do is use the Clinton tactic of "I have no memory of that." To my knowledge redacting is not illegal, but perhaps you could cite law where it is illegal.

1) Perjury (a felony) as an internal information management policy is probably not the best of ideas. Contracts which violate the law, as the sort of agreement you're suggesting would be, are unenforceable and void.

2) Any prudent individual in the private sector should pretty much count on the fact that any document they hand over to a public employee or an agent of the public (which the Alliance will be), could be subject to a FOIA request.

1) Perjury (a felony) as an internal information management policy is probably not the best of ideas. Contracts which violate the law, as the sort of agreement you're suggesting would be, are unenforceable and void.

2) Any prudent individual in the private sector should pretty much count on the fact that any document they hand over to a public employee or an agent of the public (which the Alliance will be), could be subject to a FOIA request.

Well, you picked up quickly on the part I was trying to joke about: use the tactic the Clintons used; 'I have no memory of that' and ignored my principal point of the corporation providing redacted documents. I guess the perjury part was easier to answer. By the way, how many years did the Clintons get when they committed perjury?

Well, you picked up quickly on the part I was trying to joke about: use the tactic the Clintons used; 'I have no memory of that' and ignored my principal point of the corporation providing redacted documents. I guess the perjury part was easier to answer. By the way, how many years did the Clintons get when they committed perjury?

He was disbarred and his reputation was forever tarnished. A lot of perjury never goes to a criminal prosecution. That doesn't make it right, or a sound manner to operate.

As far as redacted documents go, if redacted documents are all that can be provided, I wonder how useful they ultimately would be.

He was disbarred and his reputation was forever tarnished. A lot of perjury never goes to a criminal prosecution. That doesn't make it right, or a sound manner to operate.

As far as redacted documents go, if redacted documents are all that can be provided, I wonder how useful they ultimately would be.

Thanks.

Letter: The right to choose

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11670-the-right-to-choose.html