In my estimation, the October 18, 2011, city council meeting involved 5 segments worthy of video being captured, and they are shown below:

Below, the Bricktown Study by AJ Kirkpatrick of the Okc Planning Department:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ekY6P8vcE

Below, the remarks by council member Ed Shadid querying why sexual preference was not included in the city's anti-discrimination ordinances, requesting that the municipal counselor consider the matter, and indicating that he would be presenting the matter to the city council in the near future:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiqblNnwjys

Below, the remarks of council member Ed Shadid with regard to continuing the city's contract with EMSA for emergency medical response. He stood alone in his position and you can judge for yourself whether what he said made good sense (as I did):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWsX7QXSjvA

Below, the request presented by members of the Occupy Oklahoma City (a stub of the Occupy Wall Street movement) for the daily $55 permit fees be waived or decreased for the use of Kerr Park ... the most articulate part is by Mark Faulk (http://www.facebook.com/faulkingtruth) beginning at 6:55 of the video below ... and council member Shadid's remarks, beginning around 15:30, saying that it wouldn't be right to waive or reduce the fees, but that he invited Faulk to meet with him following the council meeting to discuss and find solutions for funding the group's permit expense (near the end of the video clip) ... this is interesting due to Shadid's opposition to plutocracy and that group's apparently shared goal:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMc8drcAwqY

Last, this otherwise small item would probably not be worth reporting but for one common theme which seems to me to have been established during the short tenure of Ed Shadid ... and that is that if a matter proposed by Ward 2's Ed Shadid it will be opposed by Ward 8's Patrick Ryan ... I've been watching closely, and maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of an occasion that Shadid moved for something that it wasn't opposed by Ryan ... like I said, maybe I'm wrong and I stand to be corrected. This particular item had to do with Okc's snow plows causing $300 damage to the Edgemere Neighborhood Assn's sprinkler system during a heavy snow. The city counselor acknowledged that the city had caused the damage, but the question presented was whether the city had been negligent while causing the damage. Even council member Gary Marrs, more often than not a common ally of Ryan, disagreed with Ryan (watch Marrs' body language beginning at and following 21:39 of the video, particularly at the point [21:56] that Ryan interrupted him) and voted to approve the claim, approved by a 5-3 vote.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tLPygt-BJM

Another fun day at the races, but, I suspect with the anti-discrimination proposal which Shadid will apparently be bringing (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717605308&sk=wall&v=wall), that the most fun days lay ahead. At his Facebook page, he said,





Next Tuesday I will introduce resolution prohibiting discrimination among 4300 city employees based on sexual orientation; please attend or call your councilperson in support (city currently prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, political affiliation, national origin and religion but not sexual orientation)
I'm thinking that we've not seen the funnest days yet.

Doug, thanks very much for posting these clips. Another potentially important presentation, though not as high-profile as the issues you've highlighted, was Russell Claus' presentation on Abandoned Buildings. (Russell's presentation was immediately after A.J.'s.) Reducing the number of Abandoned Buildings -- and the ease with which many absentee property owners allow their buildings to become derelict -- could have a major impact on our city.

As for the EMSA vs Fire-based paramedic system, Shadid is absolutely spot-on. The city finds it has a role in so many things it has no business involved in - handouts for this and that. But, here is a perfect example of where the city should be involved. Shadid, in his thoughts on the video, summarizes well why that is so. Cities across the country are moving toward fire-based systems, for so many different reasons. As Shadid says, Oklahoma City, if we continue to go the for-profit/contract route, will again find itself an outlier.

Shadid's anti-discrimination based on sexual preference issue should be a non-issue, but it won't be in OKC. It is extremely important that people contact their city councilors to let them know that OKC is going to join the 21st Century.

I for one will be very disappointed -- and embarrassed -- if this does not pass.

Mayor Cornett should be ashamed of himself if he doesn't vote to support this measure.

I've just had a look at this Tuesday's council agenda. Shadid's item reads,





X. Items from Council


A. Resolution amending Sections 105 and 401 of The City of Oklahoma City Personnel Policies, as amended and adopted December 13, 2005, to include specific reference to discrimination based upon sexual orientation, and directing the City Manager to disseminate said amendments. Councilman Shadid
I was not able to locate the city's "Personnel Policies" at the city's website, but, since a mere resolution (and not a proposed ordinance) is involved here the same must be administrative in nature.

Proposed changes to the municipal code must follow a 3-meeting track and wouldn't be handled like Shadid's motion. As far as city ordinances are concerned, I did find a few ordinances which prohibit discrimination, all in Chapter 25, Human Rights (http://library.municode.com/HTML/17000/level2/OKMUCO2010_CH25HURI.html). Section 25-39 (http://library.municode.com/HTML/17000/level3/OKMUCO2010_CH25HURI_ARTIIIDI.html#OKMUCO2010_CH25H URI_ARTIIIDI_S25-39DIHO) relates to housing discrimination, Section 25-40 (http://library.municode.com/HTML/17000/level3/OKMUCO2010_CH25HURI_ARTIIIDI.html#OKMUCO2010_CH25H URI_ARTIIIDI_S25-40DIEM) relates to employment by the city, which reads,





No head of any department, official, agent, or employee of the City, or any department acting for or on behalf of the City in any manner involving employment by the City, shall discriminate against any person otherwise qualified in employment or in tenure, terms, or conditions of employment, or adopt or enforce any rule or employment policy which discriminates between employees or prospective employees or seek information relating to race, creed, color, sex, national origin or ancestry for any person or employee as a condition of employment, tenure, term or in connection with conditions of employment, promotion or increase in compensation, or discriminate in the selection of personnel training. Willful violation of this section by any person within the Division of Public Management shall constitute grounds for appropriate disciplinary action or termination by the City Manager.
Probably, the intention of such ordinances is to track state statutory requirements, e.g., 21 O.S. §1302 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?lookup=Next&listorder=12900&dbCode=STOKST25&year=) but those statutes do not specifically prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

So, if the city does adopt Shadid's resolution, the city's policies will go further than state statutes do, which would indeed be interesting.

Doug, thanks very much for posting these clips. Another potentially important presentation, though not as high-profile as the issues you've highlighted, was Russell Claus' presentation on Abandoned Buildings. (Russell's presentation was immediately after A.J.'s.) Reducing the number of Abandoned Buildings -- and the ease with which many absentee property owners allow their buildings to become derelict -- could have a major impact on our city.
Thanks, George. Yes, I should probably have clipped Claus' presentation, also.