Well, I did say Dowell "LIKES to pay cash" so I have some wiggle room in that statement. :)

Well, I did say Dowell "LIKES to pay cash" so I have some wiggle room in that statement. :)

Don't we all???? ;)

Haha come on Pete...you of all know that the BEST developers always prefer to use OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY! :D

City poised to sell parking garage and facilitate the construction of another (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=519-City-poised-to-sell-parking-garage-and-facilitate-the-construction-of-another)

City poised to sell parking garage and facilitate the construction of another (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=519-City-poised-to-sell-parking-garage-and-facilitate-the-construction-of-another)

Pete - have you brought up all the shenanigans with small-meetings-so-as-to-not-meet-quorum, closed-door meetings, no open records compliance, etc. with the Mayor Holt? Wondering if he might care enough to do something about it (might not have the power, though)? Couch needs to go, he might be good, but his tenure has lasted too long and there's way too much of this good-ol-boy sh!t that's been going on way too long...

Pete - have you brought up all the shenanigans with small-meetings-so-as-to-not-meet-quorum, closed-door meetings, no open records compliance, etc. with the Mayor Holt? Wondering if he might care enough to do something about it (might not have the power, though)? Couch needs to go, he might be good, but his tenure has lasted too long and there's way too much of this good-ol-boy sh!t that's been going on way too long...

Holt or any OKC mayor has no more power than a member of city council.

However, Couch as the City Manager does serve at the discretion of council. Interestingly, he's coming up on his 18-year anniversary in that job (plus 13.5 years as a city employee prior) where previously no OKC City Manager has served more than 7 years and most far less.

Holt or any OKC mayor has no more power than a member of city council.

....

Right, I know that, but he's the public face of OKC, and as such, most likely has enough power to start asking around, digging around, and just to start and initiate things by asking staff/council members, etc. to do things. However, that may amount to absolutely nothing since the status quo is apparently just fine and dandy with Couch (obviously) and the council. Public pressure can sometimes work to uncover or at least start uncovering things.

Tweets directed at Holt saying "Hey, what about <this shady thing>, can you explain this?" over and over from multiple sources/people might be interesting to see, and if any response is made...

Right, I know that, but he's the public face of OKC, and as such, most likely has enough power to start asking around, digging around, and just to start and initiate things by asking staff/council members, etc. to do things. However, that may amount to absolutely nothing since the status quo is apparently just fine and dandy with Couch (obviously) and the council. Public pressure can sometimes work to uncover or at least start uncovering things.

This is what Mayor Holt posted on Twitter when someone tagged him my my article post, asking why the city was selling:

"Well, first of all, “the city” doesn’t “want” to do anything yet. This story is just reporting preliminary conversations. All of this would have its day in front of the Council should it advance. "

That is simply not true.

There is a negotiated Memorandum of Understanding for the Santa Fe Garage that the coucil will be voting on next Tuesday. These are absolutely not "preliminary conversations" and Holt knows that because he has been briefed as well.

Does not give me hope that he is going to lead any change or even challenge the practice of closed-door meetings.

Remember, if not for my reporting no one would even be aware of this and I doubt anyone would have picked up on the item from the agenda which doesn't get posted until Friday.

Now that this has come out, I'm hoping to have the MOU sometime tomorrow.

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:


§ 303. Times and places — Advance notice. — All meetings of public bodies, as defined hereinafter, shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public and shall be open to the public, except as hereinafter specifically provided. All meetings of such public bodies, except for executive sessions of the State Banking Board and Oklahoma Savings and Loan Board, shall be preceded by advance public notice specifying the time and place of each such meeting to be convened as well as the subject matter or matters to be considered at such meeting, as hereinafter provided.

§ 304. Definitions. —
As used in the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act:

1. “Public body” means the governing bodies of all municipalities located within the State of Oklahoma, boards of county commissioners of the counties in the State of Oklahoma, boards of public and higher education in the State of Oklahoma and all boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies, trusteeships, authorities, councils, committees, public trusts, task forces or study groups in the State of Oklahoma supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property, and shall include all committees or subcommittees of any public body. It shall not mean the state judiciary, the Council on Judicial Complaints when conducting, discussing, or deliberating any matter relating to a complaint received or filed with the Council, or the State Legislature or administrative staffs of public bodies, including, but not limited to, faculty meetings and athletic staff meetings of institutions of higher education, when said staffs are not meeting with the public body, or entry-year assistance committees, as defined in Section 6-152 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Furthermore, it shall not mean the multidisciplinary team provided for in subsection B of Section 1-502.2 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes or any school board meeting for the sole purpose of considering recommendations of said multidisciplinary team and deciding the placement of any child who is the subject of such recommendations. Furthermore, it shall not mean meetings conducted by stewards designated by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission pursuant to Section 203.4 of Title 3A of the Oklahoma Statutes when the stewards are officiating at races or otherwise enforcing rules of the Commission;

2. “Meeting” means the conduct of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or, as authorized by Section 307.1 of this title, together pursuant to a teleconference;

3. “Regularly scheduled meeting” means a meeting at which the regular business of the public body is conducted;

4. “Special meeting” means any meeting of a public body other than a regularly scheduled meeting or emergency meeting;
...

Another pertinent passage:


§ 306. Circumvention of act — Teleconferences excepted. — No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications, except teleconferences as authorized by Section 3 of this act, among a majority of the
members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter.

Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language.

As with any statute there is a lot of room for interpretation and there is also a great deal of case law in addition to just the statute itself.

I'm not going to get into this on-line, I will merely say I have spent a ton of time on this, talked to the people at FOI Oklahoma extensively as well as other local experts.

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:



Another pertinent passage:



Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.
Well said.

I want the new garage to be built, as it is a much better use for that land AND is very much needed.

However, I do NOT like this shady 'deal' to sell Bank First AND Continental the city owned Santa Fe garage. Why are these not mutually exclusive (from council prospective)? Why does Bank First (meaning Continental) get to own Santa Fe garage with the carrot that if so, Karchmer will build the much needed Bricktown garage FOR BANK FIRST and connect the two underground (meaning TIF request). ...

I don't get it, and I don't like any of these Couch and Oconner lead shady deals. I honestly do think they mean well for OKC, but this is too much. We shouldn't have to go under the rug for a local developer to build a much needed garage in Bricktown that's basically already approved and waiting on his final designs and financing. OKC shouldn't be forced to sell the highest earning garage to make this happen either.

Why is Continental afraid of a long term lease at Santa Fe? Ditto that qu for Bank First?

I am all for Bank First purchasing Chase Tower and being a major tenant requiring parking lease, but I don't agree they should buy the parking and certainly not for Continental which whom the city seems to be not in favor of doing anyway (since it hasn't yet been done). This screams of corruption and it has Couch's handiwork all over it, particularly the closed door, backroom nature but then last minute disclosure that's basically a rubber stamp. ..

I think Bank First can buy Chase tower and long term leases at Santa Fe garage from OKC. Continental can also get long term leases from Santa Fe garage. Karchmer can build his garage and get long term leases from one or both of the two companies (and more?). OKC should not sell Santa Fe garage, in fact, the garage goes with the Santa Fe train station across the street/diagonal (which is city owned) - please don't mess this up and potentially tie up future development with these 'ownership' issues. ...

I think it's important to note that Cathy O'Connor, who leads the Alliance for Economic Development, used to be the Assistant City Manager under - you guessed it - Jim Couch, up until 2011 according to this article on NewsOK (https://newsok.com/article/3556579/new-nonprofit-is-established-to-spearhead-economic-development-in-okc). Couch also serves on the board of the Alliance. I don't understand why this organization does not fall under the Open Records Act when it's essentially a public trust in all but name. What they are doing isn't strictly illegal by the letter of the law, but it's most certainly unethical.

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:



Another pertinent passage:



Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.
Is it fair to say you are in favor of the status quo? What is your position on the apparent lie that Pete reported on coming from Holt's twitter?

I'm not going to debate the statute and case law here, for a variety of reasons.

I will merely say the statue is a general guideline and written with the express intent of making government as open as possible and there has been much Oklahoma case law about these very issues, so if you're interested I'd recommend doing some research.

I've been wary of the OKC Alliance from the get-go. It seems to be an adjustment from the Oklahoma Industry Authority, which back in the 80s, did essentially similar things, i.e., promising GM that they wouldn't have to pay ad valorem taxes, giving away the Presbyterian Office Tower to the members of said Authority. They kept their records all over town at various offices which didn't keep office hours in order to dodge information requests.

They were spanked by the Attorney General and dismantled. The only reason the powers that be avoided criminal prosecution was because one of them was named E.K. Gaylord and he ran daily front-page editorials against the 'anti-business' Attorney General who was eventually defeated in the primary by Mike Turpen who promptly called off the dogs.

I have some thoughts about OKC Alliance in that it seems to be an ostensibly private organization made to cover up the negotiations and discussions surrounding doling out public dollars to private entities. Has there ever been an occasion where the City did not wholly adopt a request or recommendation of the OKC Alliance?

If any other rabble rousing legal types are interested in delving into this issue, I'm game. I'm not interested in going it alone though.

There is nothing shady/unethical and certianly not illegal about the alliance in general or this action in particular

And of course most of what the alliance proposes is as adopted. The reason is people are informed as the process goes along

Meeting between the city manager and his staff and members of the council of course take place and they take place often. As the council stays informed of what the city is doing on any number of projects. From. A individual street in their ward. To a massive economic development issue

That is how government works. From a HOA. All the way to the largest body’s.

^

An HOA is not a public body, i.e. an arm of the government.

Government and all its processes -- except those strictly outlined as qualifying for private executive sessions, and even those have to be listed on public agendas with a general description -- are meant to be open to the public and all interested parties. Period. And that includes information sessions and deliberation and weighing of alternatives.

The public is entitled to know exactly what public bodies know, when they know it. That's the whole basis for open meetings and open records laws.


The Alliance is a bit different because it was formed to not be a public body, but there is much case law that says when an organization receives all or even most of its funding from tax dollars (as the Alliance does) they should indeed be subject to open meetings and records laws. The same would apply to the Boathouse Foundation, State Fairgrounds, etc.


And besides all the statutes and law, this is all just plain common sense. It seems things have been done is a certain way for so long in OKC that everyone assumes it is the right way to do things.

BTW, I now understand the council will be asked to approve an agreement to sell to Karchmer all the city's approximately 12 acres that is currently used as surface parking along the northern edge of Bricktown.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sfgarage6a.jpg

BTW, I now understand the council will be asked to approve an agreement to sell to Karchmer all the city's approximately 12 acres that is currently used as surface parking along the northern edge of Bricktown.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sfgarage6a.jpg
With the way he's handled his other lots, I sure as hell don't want to see him wind up with that much land.

9+ acres smack in the middle of downtown... That's gotta be worth so much money right?

9+ acres smack in the middle of downtown... That's gotta be worth so much money right?

My understanding is the most recent appraisal was $1.5MM but a new one will be done.

Also, I understand the city plans to credit Karchmer back for the Underground connection, which would be approximately $1.5MM.

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, I failed econ, but seems to me we could really use a land value tax round these parts!

well... i'm going to have to find a new place to park for when I go to anything downtown....

It's unlikely he'll change this from being parking anytime soon. He'll assume the existing contracts for parking here. I doubt his current garage efforts fill the entire bit of land.

I want the new garage to be built, as it is a much better use for that land AND is very much needed.

However, I do NOT like this shady 'deal' to sell Bank First AND Continental the city owned Santa Fe garage. Why are these not mutually exclusive (from council prospective)? Why does Bank First (meaning Continental) get to own Santa Fe garage with the carrot that if so, Karchmer will build the much needed Bricktown garage FOR BANK FIRST and connect the two underground (meaning TIF request). ...

I don't get it, and I don't like any of these Couch and Oconner lead shady deals. I honestly do think they mean well for OKC, but this is too much. We shouldn't have to go under the rug for a local developer to build a much needed garage in Bricktown that's basically already approved and waiting on his final designs and financing. OKC shouldn't be forced to sell the highest earning garage to make this happen either.

Why is Continental afraid of a long term lease at Santa Fe? Ditto that qu for Bank First?

I am all for Bank First purchasing Chase Tower and being a major tenant requiring parking lease, but I don't agree they should buy the parking and certainly not for Continental which whom the city seems to be not in favor of doing anyway (since it hasn't yet been done). This screams of corruption and it has Couch's handiwork all over it, particularly the closed door, backroom nature but then last minute disclosure that's basically a rubber stamp. ..

I think Bank First can buy Chase tower and long term leases at Santa Fe garage from OKC. Continental can also get long term leases from Santa Fe garage. Karchmer can build his garage and get long term leases from one or both of the two companies (and more?). OKC should not sell Santa Fe garage, in fact, the garage goes with the Santa Fe train station across the street/diagonal (which is city owned) - please don't mess this up and potentially tie up future development with these 'ownership' issues. ...

This post from the Santa Fe Garage thread addresses your questions: http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29622&page=10&p=1039633#post1039633

Correction: Karchmer plans to buy only the land from the tracks to the Walnut Bridge, an area of about 6 acres.

And the purchase price is set at $1.4MM pending a new appraisal.

^

An HOA is not a public body, i.e. an arm of the government.

Government and all its processes -- except those strictly outlined as qualifying for private executive sessions, and even those have to be listed on public agendas with a general description -- are meant to be open to the public and all interested parties. Period. And that includes information sessions and deliberation and weighing of alternatives.

The public is entitled to know exactly what public bodies know, when they know it. That's the whole basis for open meetings and open records laws.


The Alliance is a bit different because it was formed to not be a public body, but there is much case law that says when an organization receives all or even most of its funding from tax dollars (as the Alliance does) they should indeed be subject to open meetings and records laws. The same would apply to the Boathouse Foundation, State Fairgrounds, etc.


And besides all the statutes and law, this is all just plain common sense. It seems things have been done is a certain way for so long in OKC that everyone assumes it is the right way to do things.

A single mayor or council person. Is not a public body. And has never been intended as such.

Is your contention is that every conversation between the city manager and his staff and a member of the council should be public record?

well... i'm going to have to find a new place to park for when I go to anything downtown....

Crap, me too. :(

A single mayor or council person. Is not a public body. And has never been intended as such.

Is your contention is that every conversation between the city manager and his staff and a member of the council should be public record?

No, that is not my contention. At least in that constituting an open meeting. However, any conversation or documents shared between public bodies are in fact subject to open records laws.

I'm referring to the common practice of 'small group meetings' arranged by Jim Couch or Cathy O'Connor for the specific purpose of avoiding open meeting requirements. Always held in groups of 4 or less, because 5 members of council constitutes a quorum.

And the practice is not limited to just city council. The same thing has happened with other city public groups, such as the MAPS 3 Board.

At these meeting detailed specifics are shared. That was exactly the case more than once on these garages, and I've confirmed that with mutliple parties that were involved.

I'm not going to debate the statute and case law here, for a variety of reasons.

I will merely say the statue is a general guideline and written with the express intent of making government as open as possible and there has been much Oklahoma case law about these very issues, so if you're interested I'd recommend doing some research.
Pete with all do respect I think it is unfair and even potentially damaging to our community to disparage public officials and allege wrongdoing without providing ANY backup in the form of statute or case law. I’ve done exactly as you suggest - research - and I’ve provided multiple links within this forum to state law on the matters discussed.

However, I’m not an attorney. I’m not saying with certainty that you are wrong, despite the way it may seem. You and I have had many discussions offline, and I recognize and respect your passion to serve the community in your own way, which I know is intended to keep government as honest and as transparent as possible. I believe you have noble motives.

However, I think this particular issue is incredibly important, as do you, obviously. Where we differ is that I would prefer to deal specifically in facts rather than opinion. You claim to have facts on your side, which you say bolsters your stated opinion, but refuse to reveal them. I have a problem with just taking it on faith with zero backup, despite the fact that I know you are generally a very trustworthy source. I think however that these particular allegations are very, VERY different than taking it on faith that a business plans to locate here or a building will be built. These allegations go the very core of how our City is run, and would have an indelible and massive impact on our community if the wrongdoing you allege is actually taking place.

I would urge you to carefully consider the power of this platform to shape public opinion. If anyone here has an opinion about the way our city’s business is being conducted but has no empirical facts to support their opinion, it should be very clearly identified as just that; opinion and supposition. If, on the other hand, someone has clear evidence of wrongdoing on the part of public officials they should come forward with it IMMEDIATELY and seek through the existing system (elected, legal, otherwise) to fix the problem and protect the community. It is our civic responsibility to do such a thing, and failure to do so makes a person complicit in the behavior.

But simply labeling public servants as “shady,” “corrupt,” etc with no specifics, no identifiable laws being broken and a refusal to cite such laws is a slippery slope and potentially damaging to our community.

I hate hate HATE getting involved in these discussions, but I feel I have to speak up on this topic. I really do wish you the best in your quest to seek out more transparency in government.

^

In the article I posted I mentioned David Prater's opinion and there are many others in the same vein from Jan-Eric Cartwright and Scott Pruitt from the time they served as state DA.

I'm not disparging anyone and never used the words 'shady' or 'corrupt'. If others regard the information presented that way, they are entitled to their opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

And I would strongly argue that getting these issues out into the public where they belong is the exact opposite of "potentially damaging to our community".

I'm referring to the common practice of 'small group meetings' arranged by Jim Couch or Cathy O'Connor for the specific purpose of avoiding open meeting requirements. Always held in groups of 4 or less, because 5 members of council constitutes a quorum.

And the practice is not limited to just city council. The same thing has happened with other city public groups, such as the MAPS 3 Board.

At these meeting detailed specifics are shared. That was exactly the case more than once on these garages, and I've confirmed that with mutliple parties that were involved.
This practice is 100% legal. You see it as an attempt to circumvent open meetings laws when instead the intent is to inform (and sometimes informally poll) voting members without placing them in a situation where action could be taken. The point of open meetings law is that public bodies may not TAKE ACTION without public notice and an open meeting. It is NOT so that ALL discussions are public. There is always a place for private negotiation, informative meetings, information gathering, consensus building and other offline discussion.

If there is no chance the body can take action then t is entirely legal and appropriate for them to be informed of details. In fact it is their job to be, and the job is staff to inform them.

If a council member takes issue with an aspect of a deal then the City staff has a chance to address their concerns, renegotiate key items, etc.. if staff determines they will have significant opposition they can completely re-work or even abandon a deal rather than see it defeated.

There are states in which any meeting which includes two or more public officials triggers open meetings requirements. Oklahoma is not one of these states. If someone wishes to advocate this element be added to state law, it is their right to do so. But clearly what happens in those states (as would happen here) is that staff would just meet with members of the voting body one at a time, individually. There would still be private meetings, and these meetings would be legal and appropriate, as are private meetings of four or fewer council members in OKC, currently.

^

Ample case law says otherwise, as I've said multiple times.

I stand by all my previous points.


Reminder that just because something is happening does not make it legal or in compliance.

What case law?

^

Ample case law says otherwise, as I've said multiple times.

I stand by all my previous points.


Reminder that just because something is happening does not make it legal or in compliance.
Do you have any links to the case law that you can share?

^

Ample case law says otherwise, as I've said multiple times.

I stand by all my previous points.


Reminder that just because something is happening does not make it legal or in compliance.


I’ve found no online references to such case law, despite considerable individual research. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps I don’t know where to look. But I would encourage you to post a link to at least SOMETHING which clearly and inarguably corroborates this, in which case I will no longer defend the tactic here.

As for me, I have now in this forum repeatedly linked to the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, which is guiding my own perspective on this issue. I will link it again, and urge readers here to read it and judge for themselves: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

If anyone here finds anything in that law which contradicts my position or can cite case law which does, I’m open minded and interested in seeing it.

This is from a court case; Cartwright is Jan-Eric Cartwright the former state District Attorney:


Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the “discussion stage” to be covered by the Open Meeting Act. “[I]t is clear that, when members of a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body, regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act,” he concluded.

This means public bodies may not meet secretly with experts in an attempt to gain more knowledge about a subject, Cartwright said. Such a meeting “must be open to the public and satisfy other requirements of the Open Meeting Act.” He explained:

An open deliberative process reveals rejected alternatives about which the public might not know if access to study sessions and deliberative meetings were denied. The public’s right to know would be defeated if a public body could hold a nonpublic “investigatory meeting” to gain insight into a matter and then reform into a public meeting for the actual vote.

Cartwright said previous state Supreme Court decisions had made clear “that when a public body’s decision making or deliberation process is influenced by outside sources the requirements of the Open Meeting Act must be satisfied.” He concluded:

When a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, they are involved in the deliberation process. The public is interested in how and why officials decide to act or not to act. Therefore, when a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, the Open Meeting Act requirements must be satisfied.

A public body by defenition does not exist without a quarom

A public body by defenition does not exist without a quarom

False.

^

In the article I posted I mentioned David Prater's opinion and there are many others in the same vein from Jan-Eric Cartwright and Scott Pruitt from the time they served as state DA.

I'm not disparging anyone and never used the words 'shady' or 'corrupt'. If others regard the information presented that way, they are entitled to their opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

And I would strongly argue that getting these issues out into the public where they belong is the exact opposite of "potentially damaging to our community".

Yes, we know Pruit holds high ethical standards to judge others by. And, let’s see... how many cases did he lose tilting windmills on the tea party’s behalf? Not sure I would use him to cite anything about openness and ethics, let alone law.

I re-posting this because it was cut-off by pagination of the thread.

**************

This is from a court case; Cartwright is Jan-Eric Cartwright the former state District Attorney:


Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the “discussion stage” to be covered by the Open Meeting Act. “[I]t is clear that, when members of a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body, regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act,” he concluded.

This means public bodies may not meet secretly with experts in an attempt to gain more knowledge about a subject, Cartwright said. Such a meeting “must be open to the public and satisfy other requirements of the Open Meeting Act.” He explained:

An open deliberative process reveals rejected alternatives about which the public might not know if access to study sessions and deliberative meetings were denied. The public’s right to know would be defeated if a public body could hold a nonpublic “investigatory meeting” to gain insight into a matter and then reform into a public meeting for the actual vote.

Cartwright said previous state Supreme Court decisions had made clear “that when a public body’s decision making or deliberation process is influenced by outside sources the requirements of the Open Meeting Act must be satisfied.” He concluded:

When a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, they are involved in the deliberation process. The public is interested in how and why officials decide to act or not to act. Therefore, when a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, the Open Meeting Act requirements must be satisfied.

Never mind, I’ll do it.
I’ve found no online references to such case law, despite considerable individual research. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps I don’t know where to look. But I would encourage you to post a link to at least SOMETHING which clearly and inarguably corroborates this, in which case I will no longer defend the tactic here.

As for me, I have now in this forum repeatedly linked to the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, which is guiding my own perspective on this issue. I will link it again, and urge readers here to read it and judge for themselves: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

If anyone here finds anything in that law which contradicts my position or can cite case law which does, I’m open minded and interested in seeing it.

False.

More properly, it is not a “meeting” under the terms of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act unless it includes a quorum. It’s right here in the definitions: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

More properly, it is not a “meeting” under the terms of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act unless it includes a quorum. It’s right here in the definitions: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Not according to state DA court rulings, one of which I posted above.

BTW, I now understand the council will be asked to approve an agreement to sell to Karchmer all the city's approximately 12 acres that is currently used as surface parking along the northern edge of Bricktown.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sfgarage6a.jpg

Will the sale agreement contain an easement for the rail corridor that was originally expected to cross this parcel? Specifically, this is for the connection directly from the platforms at Santa Fe Station, curving to the east to join the existing rail alignment through the northern edge of Bricktown, that is necessary for a passenger rail connection to Tulsa.

Read the full MOU's for both the SF Garage and the Karchmer deal here:

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=521-Read-the-full-agreements-for-the-sale-of-a-city-parking-garage

Not according to state DA court rulings, one of which I posted above.

DA’s don’t make court rulings. They argue a their side. A judge makes the ruling. What case is that from. Ie what is the context. Because what you quoted doesn’t seem to apply to this issue at all

There have been quite a few cases in Oklahoma where public bodies have held breakfast with A,B,C; then brunch with C, D, E; and then a cocktail with E, F, G; and some calls and 1:1 meetings in between. They would use this to hold secret meetings because in the letter of the law they never had a 4-person quorum. I think that they have been busted for that practice every time it’s been investigated.

DA’s don’t make court rulings. They argue a their side. A judge makes the ruling. What case is that from. Ie what is the context. Because what you quoted doesn’t seem to apply to this issue at all

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.

With the way he's handled his other lots, I sure as hell don't want to see him wind up with that much land.

After reading through the MOU that Pete posted, it looks like there's a claw-back provision... If Karchmer doesn't build the garage within 7½ years then the City can repurchase the land by force. That's quite a long timeline, but at least the option's there.

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.

You didn’t post a ruling. You posted a da’s opinion (they dont make rulings ) With no context at all.

Misspoke, should have said DA opinion, not ruling.

After reading through the MOU that Pete posted, it looks like there's a claw-back provision... If Karchmer doesn't build the garage within 7½ years then the City can repurchase the land by force. That's quite a long timeline, but at least the option's there.
That's good to know. Haven't had a chance to finish reading the documents Pete posted yet.

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.
Rulings or a DA or “experts” OPINION?

Rulings or a DA or “experts” OPINION?

All the above.

Sorry... haven’t seen the rulings you keep referring to.

Regarding DA Opinions:

I know they aren't court rulings. But isn't the whole reason we have them because agencies and/or legislators want to know what the law says and how likely legal challenges would play out, but they don't want the money/time/stress of actually forcing a court case "just" to get a ruling? So while they may be "just an opinion", agencies and our legislatures tends to treat them as case law rather than just something a random person said?

Sorry... haven’t seen the rulings you keep referring to.

And if I post them they will just be dismissed as 'not applicable', which is why I didn't want to go down this rabbit hole in the first place.

It's completely fine if people think that these small group meetings are not problematic. What I'm saying is that I've been following this matter for several years and have consulted attorneys and FOI experts who all agree that if this matter was pressed in court, at the very least the city would almost certainly be forced to stop the practice. And they base that on previous rulings and opinions.

I also have a great deal info that I am not going to post at this point.

Is it fair to say you are in favor of the status quo? What is your position on the apparent lie that Pete reported on coming from Holt's twitter?

Sorry Jersey Boss I wasn't ignoring this post; I was rushing off to get my ears lowered and didn't have time to give it a worthwhile response. :)

I think I would need to answer your first question conditionally. That is, do I think the City is perfect and does everything in a way that I agree with? If that is they question I would say absolutely not. I am very much on record and outspoken here, on social media, in meetings both public and private, via communications with City Staff, Council representatives and even the Mayor taking issue with the City's approach to issues such as our land use, automobile prioritization, accessibility issues, streetlights, and sidewalk closures, willingness to require historic preservation and adaptive reuse of certain buildings, among many other things. I think at this point plenty of people probably think I'm half a crackpot (or maybe even full-crackpot) and dread hearing from me on some of these topics.

I stay very involved with these and other issues, and I won't lie; I routinely get frustrated by inertia, silo effect, turf battles and bureaucracy. I think this probably exists to some extent in every major city's government, so I just grit my teeth and try to remain dogged. This has resulted in plenty of successes, but of course also continual frustration.

If your question is, do I think that OKC's level of transparency, openness and respect for the interests of taxpayers is a rough approximation or better than most cities of its size or larger? In this case my answer is a definite yes. I believe the way things are handled here is very typical of most cities, and this applies to respect for and overall compliance with meeting laws in both letter and spirit, the creation of and application of incentives, and a litany of other areas of governance. I've also sat through many, many meetings where City Legal was in attendance, and I believe them to be VERY conservative and quick to speak up and advise staff or elected officials if they are treading in an area that is questionable from a legal or procedural standpoint. I don't believe for a second that the people I have seen would be complicit in demonstrably corrupt behavior.

I think if there is an area where our city is perhaps unusual it is that there is generally a very close alliance in purpose between the business community and city officials, which leads to very little public squabbling and/or dissent. This can be very powerful and accomplish great things, and you only have to take in the overall successes of MAPS and many other public/private efforts over the past 25 years to see this. I think much of this is cultural and can be traced back to bootstraps-based bust recoveries and even the bombing recovery, which serve to remind us that we are only one bad turn away from disaster and at the same time that we can accomplish most anything here by pulling together. At the same time it can leave dissenters feeling steamrolled. So I do believe that we need to always pay attention to the needs and desires of the entire community and make sure every voice is being heard and considered. I also think it is valuable to have cranky contrarians sifting through our business with a watchful eye.

Finally, if you are asking if I believe that overall our public officials are acting in what they believe is the best interest of the community they serve rather than in self interest or the interest of the few, I believe wholeheartedly the answer is yes. I've sat through way too many meetings, had way too many private conversations with the people involved in the running of our community to believe anything different. I think we are pretty blessed with a lot of highly qualified people who deeply believe in OKC and its potential, and the gravity of the roles they themselves play. I think bad actors, when they occur, are very much outliers.

Regarding your question addressing Mayor Holt's tweet, I must have missed that. Where can I find it?