Also, if Hamm is so concerned about his future parking needs; why not work with the city on future leasing. Clearly Santa Fe will still be there and I doubt the city would eliminate Cox Center parking without a plan for replacement.

Why should the city be so compelled to sell the Santa Fe parking garage at a loss to Bank First in order for them to purchase and refurbish an adjacent skyscraper as their new home and likely gift the Santa Fe to Continental while the city sells/gives the Bricktown land to Karchmer who would only then build his two-year proposed garage IF the city agrees to build a connection to Santa Fe. ...

How does this not all sound strange? And furthermore, how come such a complicated - highly variable development proposal(s) such as this only allow one day for the public to find out about it and possibly have a voice?

How does this not sound like possibly corruption. .?

the city is not selling sante fe at a loss and continential isn't getting a gift ... they are buying 57% of the sante fe ... this isn't that complicated or variable it was time sensitive because of Bancfirst ...

Bank First is buying the skyscraper right? Under the condition of also buying the Santa Fe. right?

Continental wants to JOIN Bank First (it was reported that way in the Oklahoman, btw) in ownership of the Santa Fe; something the city refused to sell to them at market rate. Oh, and there's more. The city also must sell the bricktown lands to Karchmer who will build his garage for Bank First, provided the city ALSO build a connection to the Santa Fe.

Here's another thing, look how long it too all of us to unravel all of this. Much longer than the amount of time the city allowed public disclosure of the deal before they voted on it.


It wouldn't be a 'bad deal' if 1) the city was not involved or didn't have to sell and spend such dollars to make it happen or 2) if the city is involved then they should be transparent after the deal was worked out to allow the public the time to consider any objection.

Even the Federal Government has a transparency period where there's time between deals made behind closed doors and the actual vote. Why should council be any different particularly when they are much closer to the private sector.

it took no time to "unravel this" continental wanted to buy sante Fe and offered 15 mil ..... now bancfirst will join contential and they will buy the garage together 57.??% Con 42.??% BancFirst

bancfirst jointly with karchmer are also going to build a parking garage in bricktown ..

Bancfirst is getting the karchmer garage. Why is the Santa Fe being tied into it?

Further, Continental originally proposed to purchase the Santa Fe LONG BEFORE Bancfirst proposed to buy the Cotter Tower. The city turned down that offer as it was under market value.

Yet by tagging along with Bancfirst, now the sale will go through at the original proposal ($15K per spot) that was turned down. Seems like the condition for Bancfirst to buy the Cotter Tower, is for 1) the city to sell the Santa Fe to Continental, letting them tag along and 2) the city to sell the Bricktown land to Karchmer to build Bancfirst a garage, with the caviat that the city must also build a connection between the two garages.

It's point 1 that is very peculiar in all of this. Appears the city is being forced to sell to Continental on Continental's terms or Bancfirst will walk away from buying the Cotter Tower.

Bancfirst is getting the karchmer garage. Why is the Santa Fe being tied into it?

Further, Continental originally proposed to purchase the Santa Fe LONG BEFORE Bancfirst proposed to buy the Cotter Tower. The city turned down that offer as it was under market value.

Yet by tagging along with Bancfirst, now the sale will go through at the original proposal ($15K per spot) that was turned down. Seems like the condition for Bancfirst to buy the Cotter Tower, is for 1) the city to sell the Santa Fe to Continental, letting them tag along and 2) the city to sell the Bricktown land to Karchmer to build Bancfirst a garage, with the caviat that the city must also build a connection between the two garages.

It's point 1 that is very peculiar in all of this. Appears the city is being forced to sell to Continental on Continental's terms or Bancfirst will walk away from buying the Cotter Tower.

Continental and bancfirst will own the sante fe garage ...... the city is selling the land to both karchmer and bancfirst ...

the city is not being forced to do anything ..

if that's the case, then why couldn't those deals stand alone? Why the package?

If you're thought were true then it would be

1) Bancfirst buys Cotter Tower, no conditions. And renovates it.
2) Bancfirst and Continental approach the city, offer to buy the Santa Fe garage. No conditions.
3) Karchmer goes to the city, offers to buy the land to build his garage.

and 4) why the HECK would Oklahoma City build a connection between two -NOW- private garages?

This mutually exclusive approach you're suggesting above is not what's happening here.

the city has been looking at an underground connection to a possible garage development on that brick town lot for a long long time .... that is not new ..

Sounds like an open and shut case of conspiracy to cheat the citizens of the city. Cancel the sale.

Interesting discussion in this thread. I think the whole system, built to circumvent the law, is horrible.
I have a real problem in this thread when a certain poster seems to be going to great lengths to carry water for the downtown elite, while running an important business in the core that relies on the support of the city. That kind of non-disclosure, to me, takes away all credibility of this poster on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure. Just my opinion.

Many major urban cities don't have a good reputation for being open & transparent. As Blue Sky mentioned about the system built to circumvent the law, this is a practice the city should discontinue immediately; get on publication track to a more open & transparent agenda for council meetings. The sale of these garages aren't worth the damage it could destroy in public confidence.

Interesting discussion in this thread. I think the whole system, built to circumvent the law, is horrible.
I have a real problem in this thread when a certain poster seems to be going to great lengths to carry water for the downtown elite, while running an important business in the core that relies on the support of the city. That kind of non-disclosure, to me, takes away all credibility of this poster on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure. Just my opinion.
Oh, now we're doxxing? Hahahaha

I assume you are talking about me. I have never, EVER concealed my identity on this board. In fact, if I recall the first time I came here was to clarify some misinformation about the business I manage. The reason I have stayed since is largely to correct misinformation when it crops up, providing I can offer insight on the topic.

I rarely post about my job, because I am not here to promote. But I personally know dozens of people on this board - many who I consider friends - including people arguing each side of this issue. Unlike you, I don't need to try to personally discredit them to score points in my debate. Anyone else who posts here regularly probably knows who I am and what I do. That said, I am not at all shy about who I am and in fact I am happy to stand on my personal reputation as a professional and as a community volunteer.

For anyone who DOESN'T know, my name is Chad Huntington. I am General Manager of Water Taxi on the Bricktown Canal, which contracts to the City of Oklahoma City Parks Department. I have managed this company since 2002. I am not the owner; I am an employee. So basically, I am like probably tens of thousands of people in OKC who work for companies who contract to the City. Accountants, dry cleaning companies, janitorial services, construction companies, engineering firms, car dealerships, printing companies...guess what? The City of OKC contracts to LOTS of companies.

Though without question we serve the City of OKC and its taxpayers, we don't receive a dime in City funding. In fact, unlike most municipal contractors I am proud to say that we PAY RENT as a part of our agreement and actually TURN A PROFIT for the City. This is a rare thing indeed for someone contracting to a municipality. Over the past 19 years the City of OKC and its taxpayers have made a tremendous amount of money on this operation, both in contract fee and in sales tax.

I have served multiple terms on the Bricktown Association Board of Directors and also on its Planning and Operations Committee, when active. Prior to being an employee for this company, I was Executive Director of the Automobile Alley Main Street Program, and then briefly served as the first Director of Marketing for what is now the Downtown Oklahoma City Partnership. Before serving as director of Automobile Alley I volunteered on their board of directors for a number of years immediately after the bombing (Automobile Alley was the commercial district most affected by the bombing), and served as their design chair.

When I joined OKCTalk, I based my username on my social media handle, @UrbanizedOkie, which I use on Twitter and Instagram. Feel free to follow! On OKCTalk the "Okie" part seemed redundant, so I dropped it, but figured people would still be able to make the connection. You can view my LinkedIn profile here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chadhuntington/.

I office at 116 E Sheridan in Bricktown. You or anyone else on this board are welcome to call me up and meet me for a beer across the street at TapWerks or around the corner at Mickey Mantle's or at one of the dozens of other places I'm proud to patronize in this town, to discuss these very topics.

Regarding "carrying water" for ANYBODY, I kindly invite you to pound sand. I am a grown-ass man. I don't carry water for anybody. Just like most people who hide behind screen names and take pot shots at people - making ad hominem attacks instead of debating the topic - it's pretty unlikely that you would join me for the beer I previously suggested, and even unlikelier still that you would use those words to my face. For the record I have had MANY beers with Pete and some of the others posting on the other side of this, and we've vigorously debated these very issues. Sometimes the conversations were heated, but they have always been friendly. Here's a tip: if you have to turn personal in a debate, you've lost the debate.

Nearly everything I have shared on the topics we've been discussing here I have backed up by linking to state law, to independent definitions of municipal trusts and their purpose, to websites with open records, to agendas, to meetings minutes and the like. Other things I have mentioned here have been based on personal experience in a quarter century of volunteering or otherwise being involved; they certainly have nothing to do with being "elite" or owing anything whatsoever to "the elite," whoever that is.

I DO, however, take issue with people who hide behind screen names and accuse others of unethical behavior without a single shred of evidence. Over 25 years I have worked with many, many public servants, volunteers, community leaders and others, and when people who I have seen sweat and bleed for our city are the victims of blind allegations by people who apparently flunked civics and/or can't do a simple Google search then yeah, I speak up.

So there now. I've shown you mine, you show me yours. Who are you, Mr. Blue Sky, registered here in April 2018? What do you do for a living? What organizations have you volunteered with? Who pays you? Do you actually live in OKC? Do you pay taxes here? Where can I see your LinkedIn profile? Who are YOU friends with? Fair is fair...

By the way, I should probably just save a link to that post for the next time someone is losing an argument and wants to discredit me because of what I do for a living. Maybe I should start every post by saying "notice: I work for a downtown tourist attraction! Believe me at your own risk!" Or maybe I should just put my LinkedIn profile link in my signature...becoming literally the ONLY person on the board with that type of personal disclosure in every single post...

Funny, nobody cares about what I do for a living when I am posting (as I often do) things that are CRITICAL of the City, about things such as transportation, land use, urban design issues, maintenance of street lights, accessibility issues, protection of historically significant structures, and on, and on. If I were going to try to hide my identity, THOSE are the times when I would feel like it might be a good idea. :)

Sounds like an open and shut case of conspiracy to cheat the citizens of the city. Cancel the sale.

BTW...I WAS being sarcastic. After reading this thread I was afraid some on here wouldn’t get it.

I never expected that kind of reaction! I wasn't doxxing as doxxing is actually giving the information that you gladly provided. Personal? Not really. When I see your posts and I see the constant cheerleading for the power structure, I call it carrying water. You don't. That's fine. I think it's very relevant to the conversation that you are a connected member of downtown leadership. Do you not see the relevance? Really? If not, and you insist it's personal, I'm sorry. I never expected to touch a nerve quite like that, Urbanized.

Really? You alleged that I was “carrying water” (completely insulting) and practicing “non-disclosure” (clearly not the case). You’re welcome to go through my TEN YEARS OF POSTING HISTORY (completely boring) and count the many dozens of times that I have discussed what I do for a living, but I PROMISE you that I’ve never hidden it. I’m surely one of the most transparent posters on the forum, other than a few people who post under their given name, though I don’t necessarily know what all of them do for a living.

Does that suddenly restore my credibility in your eyes? Yeah, probably not, I suppose.

You suggest that the fact that I am connected to the downtown business community “takes away all credibility... ...on this issue, and many others that have to do with the downtown power structure.” So...I lose all credibility because I have some experience with and knowledge of the topic? Because I work downtown? That’s some outstanding logic at play. Reminds me of the current national political climate.

Personally when I know someone here has actual knowledge of or experience things being discussed - while it’s fair to consider as a factor their overall posting reputation, I for one actually see relevant knowledge as a POSITIVE..

Do any other posters here get the benefit of the doubt? Should we ask for W-2s as part of poster registration? What does everyone else in this thread do for a living? Are you doing additional online sleuthing to find this out?

You can try to walk it back all you want, but your post without question was presented as some type of “gotcha.” It was insulting, and based on the way it was written there’s no doubt in my mind that it was designed to use (false) information to discredit me. Truly amazed that you’re so surprised that I would take exception.

So again, since I’ve been transparent (for the past decade, actually) and since (according to you) a poster here can’t be credible on a topic unless we fully know what they do for a living, let’s go ahead and get it all out there! Please feel free to give us your full name, what you do for a living, your LinkedIn profile, your connection to or experience with the topic at hand, etc. then we can all judge for ourselves whether we should listen to you or whether we should “take away all credibility” based on your identity.

You don’t have to post your office address if you don’t want to. Just remember that I did.

This B.S. thing we have today on the Internet where people can anonymously shoot off at the mouth without accountability, where people automatically assume that people who they simply disagree with on principle are by extension bad, or corrupt, or evil, or whatever, it has to stop. It’s ruining our country. Truly bummed to see it happening here.

I hope my new signature helps everyone decide in the future whether or not they should believe anything I post. :D

Urbanized, I'll hand it to you, you spin well. The fact is that I don't need to know what people do for a living or anything else. I knew that you WERE close to the downtown power structure, I hadn't read that you had openly talked about this. Your cheerleading for all things downtown, including what many here believe to be fishy at best, seemed to be a good time to discuss why you might possibly support all of these things that seem indefensible to some of us. I don't have a problem with logic, I agree with you about the internet truly ruining our country with the lack of civil discourse, and I don't think anything I have written rises to that. I thought it relevant. You seem to want to portray your job as just another guy trying to make a buck (your new signature?), but you are actually a spokesman and manager for the taxi business and that includes your role in the financial arrangements involving the power structure. Again, to me, knowing what I know, that is relevant to your supporting so many things many of us simply cannot defend. I'm sorry if it sounds like an attack, I mean it only as a possible explanation for your never (rarely?) bucking the powers-that-be. In my mind, YOU are the one blowing this up. Asking for challenges, giving all the info you did, asking for mine, and really making a huge deal over an observation that many might might hold given the facts. One that you are free to rebut of course, but you have gone well beyond that. But, you already know that. You felt the need to attack an observation that any logical person could possibly arrive at. Rebut, but don't blow it up and turn this around. Making it about me only makes you look like you protest a bit too much.

Back to open meeting violations? And entities formed to get around problematic discussion - in private? Me too.

the council is not voting on these deals uninformed

Oh right. They're given a day to get informed. I can't think of too many legislative bodies which put votes like this on a consent calendar. They can't even put these things on new business and wait til the next meeting to vote? These may all be perfectly legitimate deals, but this city has a long history of corrupt spending of taxpayer dollars. We have open records/meetings laws for that very reason. If today, there is nothing shady going on whatsoever, I guarantee you it won't always be that way when you have a system to allow for the spending of public money for private ventures with very little if any oversight.

Please. Mr. Blue Sky, you come in and attack a person’s character as a means of arguing your point and then throw up your hands and act innocent, shocked - SHOCKED I SAY - that they might wish to defend themselves against your smear. This is EXACTLY what is wrong with Internet discourse.

If you had posted here for more than three months maybe you’d understand that over the past ten years I have made MANY posts critical of how we do things in this city. I call things the way that I see them, but this includes an acknowledgement that experience is usually an asset, and an overall belief that MOST of Oklahoma City’s public servants and leadership are highly-qualified and working for the benefit of our city, even if at times I disagree with an approach someone might take.

It must be a sad and frightening world to live in indeed where there are vast conspiracies and corruption lurking around every corner.

I think you have established at this point that you have zero intention of letting us know who you are or what connection (if any) that you might have here; all while speaking out of the other side of your mouth and suggesting we somehow have a right to know what posters here do for a living and especially that someone has zero credibility if they have any connection to downtown’s leadership, no matter how remote. Got it.

But for the record, to your original post which centered around an alleged lack of disclosure, I am 100% transparent. While you remain 100% opaque. Readers are invited to judge for themselves.

...this city has a long history of corrupt spending of taxpayer dollars...

Please cite specific examples of this.

I never expected that kind of reaction! I wasn't doxxing as doxxing is actually giving the information that you gladly provided. Personal? Not really. When I see your posts and I see the constant cheerleading for the power structure, I call it carrying water. You don't. That's fine. I think it's very relevant to the conversation that you are a connected member of downtown leadership. Do you not see the relevance? Really? If not, and you insist it's personal, I'm sorry. I never expected to touch a nerve quite like that, Urbanized.
When you attack his credibility it sure is personal. He has done nothing on here but try to actually explain with facts and Information vs. suspicions and innuendo. I think Urbanized has earned his stellar reputation here for credibility, intelligence, and fair mindedness.

So, now that Urbanized explained his identity and points of reference and why he has credibility, why don’t you do the same. Or whose pail of water are you carrying? Other than having an “opinion”’, what gives you insight to challenge his credibility?

...I call things the way that I see them, but this includes an acknowledgement that experience is usually an asset, and an overall belief that MOST of Oklahoma City’s leadership is highly-qualified and working for the benefit of our city, even if at times I disagree with an approach someone might take...

By the way, this includes Ed Shadid - the individual at the center of this thread topic - about whom I’m pretty certain I’ve never posted a critical word. I believe that he believes he is working for the benefit of the community, even if I at times disagree with his assessments and/or methods.

I DO take issue with the statements his attorney made in the KFOR report which mentioned “(lining) someone’s pockets,” which I think is reckless and harmful rhetoric without a shred of evidence to this effect. I believe and hope that if Ed himself had been available for interview that he would not have said such a thing, as his statement made no such allegations.

Urbanized, I'll hand it to you, you spin well. The fact is that I don't need to know what people do for a living or anything else. I knew that you WERE close to the downtown power structure, I hadn't read that you had openly talked about this. Your cheerleading for all things downtown, including what many here believe to be fishy at best, seemed to be a good time to discuss why you might possibly support all of these things that seem indefensible to some of us. I don't have a problem with logic, I agree with you about the internet truly ruining our country with the lack of civil discourse, and I don't think anything I have written rises to that. I thought it relevant. You seem to want to portray your job as just another guy trying to make a buck (your new signature?), but you are actually a spokesman and manager for the taxi business and that includes your role in the financial arrangements involving the power structure. Again, to me, knowing what I know, that is relevant to your supporting so many things many of us simply cannot defend. I'm sorry if it sounds like an attack, I mean it only as a possible explanation for your never (rarely?) bucking the powers-that-be. In my mind, YOU are the one blowing this up. Asking for challenges, giving all the info you did, asking for mine, and really making a huge deal over an observation that many might might hold given the facts. One that you are free to rebut of course, but you have gone well beyond that. But, you already know that. You felt the need to attack an observation that any logical person could possibly arrive at. Rebut, but don't blow it up and turn this around. Making it about me only makes you look like you protest a bit too much.

Back to open meeting violations? And entities formed to get around problematic discussion - in private? Me too.

I think you're way out of line here. Agree or disagree with the potential lawsuit, Urbanized is a well respected member of this community and has a track record of being very transparent. He shouldn't have to change his online signature to please you.

Thanks Catch.

I really only changed my signature to be funny and obnoxious though. ;)

Please cite specific examples of this.

What's crazy is you and I have had lunch. You met my father who is a former assistant attorney general who prosecuted this stuff back in the day. Here's a case.

https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1981/4995-1.html

That same group built Presbyterian Tower with taxpayer funds and sold it to that same group for something like $5,000 or so. Did you think we were kidding? OKC has a history of corruption. This is well known. It serves no one to deny it and it only makes you look like you don't know our recent history when you demand proof.

When I said please cite examples I had no doubt that you could pull up ancient examples of corruption in government. Most specifically there was a terrible scandal at the county level in Oklahoma in the seventies. There is a long history in state government, and I am never surprised when new scandals crop up on the state level. The Oklahoma County Jail project was a major scandal in the late eighties.

By the way thanks to the jail - and the public’s inability to discern between county and municipal government - it was very difficult to pass the first MAPS. While it’s healthy for the public to care about government and be involved, blanket distrust based on a misunderstanding of civics and misattribution of bad behavior can be paralyzing and unhealthy.

But there has been little if any evidence of corruption in OKC’s government at the very least since I moved here in 1986. Certainly no significant “corrupt spending of taxpayer dollars.” This is hyperbole. The case you cite is from 1980. Most of the actors are dead. And as far as I can tell (I’m not a lawyer and only skimmed) that particular case was related to record keeping and keeping proper office hours..? I mean, im sure there was more to it, but where are the criminal prosecutions?

You’ve got me at a disadvantage regarding lunch. I’m sure it happened but I’m trying like heck to remember it. What can I say, I’m 50. :) How long ago was this and what was the context?

The point I was making is that there hasn’t been so much as a hint of “lining pockets” or any of the other words being tossed around on this board in at least a generation. That means something. Or at least it should. But again, by all means, make the issue about trying to discredit me, the guy who simply links to state laws and CPA websites explaining the purpose of public trusts.

Seriously, I hope the issue is contested and decided one way or the other so that I can go back to simply being hated here for explaining how more loading docks will help secure more convention bookings (and why we as taxpayers benefit from convention bookings).

Perhaps I should have been more specific: can you cite specific examples of “this city[s]... ...long history of corrupt spending of taxpayer dollars” which have occurred within the past 30 years or so (heck, even 35), and/or which have occurred under the watch of the past FOUR mayors, FOUR city managers, or any current city council members? Not even saying they don’t exist, but I sure can’t think of any. Like I said, that should count for something, but apparently it doesn’t on the Internet.

Good grief that opinion is some excutiatingly dry reading. I would have made a terrible attorney. :D

I may have you confused with someone else I've met from this board.

At any rate, yes, back in the early 1980s and late 1970s, the case I cited was just part of the prosecution of the Oklahoma Industry Authority, a creature of statute, which was created for the same purpose as Alliance--as an entity to incentivize the expansion of industry within the State of Oklahoma. The Authority was comprised of the state/city fathers at the time, the Gaylords, the Kerrs and McGees--the ruling class at the time. The case I cited was basically the tip of the iceberg. To cover up their activities, this group kept records in different locations all over the place. None of those places kept regular hours. This was done for the express purpose of making it damn near impossible for anyone to find out what was going on. Alliance is much more effective in this regard.

The Oklahoma Industry Authority was responsible for the construction and subsequent sale of the Deaconess tower for pennies on the dollar to members of the Authority. They maintained a flurry of public trusts designed to keep the public in the dark. When the Underground was built downtown, coincidentally, all of the buildings owned by members of the Authority got connections to the underground, etc. The only thing they did which I can recall which actually expanded industry in Oklahoma was incentivizing the GM plant in MWC with the promise of the land being tax exempt.

The Attorney General at the time, Jan Eric Cartwright, knew the scheme was illegal and his first term was spent unwinding many of the Authority's deals. Yes, the County Commissioner scandal was going on at the same time, but that was an entirely different ballgame. Cartwright's second term was going to be spent criminally prosecuting all of these city fathers. Needless to say, the editorial board of the Oklahoman wasn't about to stand for E.K. Gaylord going to the pokey, so they ran about the most extreme campaign against Cartwright and in favor of Mike Turpen, with nearly daily front page editorials until the anti-business Cartwright was defeated in the primary. Not surprisingly, all of the business surrounding the OIA just went away.

I didn't have a ton of time to muck around in the Oklahoman archives this morning, and I'm sure you can appreciate the historical record of this is a bit colored since the AG was going after the owner of the paper of record, but here's a story re Cartwright's ill-fated 1982 campaign:


NORMAN — Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright, in an _infrequent political speech Wednesday night, attacked Edward _L_. Gaylord, editor and publisher of The _Oklahoman and Times, during a rally of 150 _supporters.
_Cartwrrght talked less than _two-minutes during the _watermelon and soft drink _fund-raiser_, but spent that time comparing _himself and Gaylord.
One thing about _Eddie Gaylord and I—he and I are a lot alike," _Cartwright said.
"I'm an elected official who works for the people, and he is a trust official who works for himself."
Cartwright added that while _he, as a state _official, follows Oklahoma's Constitution, Gaylord "writes his own constitution and keeps it a secret."
With that, Cartwright ended his speech saying, "Thank you very much."
_.The _fund-raiser at Norman's Andrews Park was staged by a group of Norman supporters that charged $1 for a slice of watermelon and 50 cents for soft drinks to raise money for the Cartwright campaign. - _. Gene _Tyner_, a representative of the Sierra Club who was master of ceremonies, said he could not say how much money was raised for the candidate, but in assessing _. _Cartwright_'_s chances in Cleveland County said, "I think _^_he will do well. It's a pretty well-informed electorate."
After the speech, Cartwright was asked why he did not talk more about his campaign for _re-election and his battle with Mike _Turpen of _Muskogee for the Democratic nomination.
He responded, "I learn more by visiting with the people and hearing of- their concerns over taxes and concerns for equal treatment by the government."
Cartwright, who mounts a very modest campaign each election, said he feels good about his contest _. with _Jurpen_, but that. "I always keep looking_, over _;my shoulder."
_Mike Williams, _.who _.is handling _Cartwrights_? campaign advertising, said a $28,000 _television series of ads began running Wednesday, and Cartwright is now trying to raise money for newspaper and radio appeals.

My whole point here is that there is a reason we study history--it has a tendency to repeat itself. In Oklahoma, we set up procedural safeguards to protect us from repeating our mistakes. Now this crop of city fathers might be noble and have motives as pure as can be, but a student of history would at least be skeptical of that.

Good grief that opinion is some excutiatingly dry reading. I would have made a terrible attorney. :D

Yeah, not everything can be a Scalia dissent, but this case is important because it is why Alliance is a private corporation rather than a Public Trust. This is a very intentional effort to avoid open records laws and we have to be on guard for that sort of thing. Even if those in charge are using this mechanism for perfectly permissible purposes, that doesn't mean that tomorrow's leaders will use it to advance their own ends. It's dangerous and if it was misused, it could unravel the public's confidence in our public institutions, which sounds silly to those outside of OKC, but within OKC, we have a high degree of confidence in these administrations which has allowed this community to make the huge advances it has made over the last 20 years.

^^^^^^^^^
I don’t really disagree with what you are saying for the most part (people seem to be misinterpreting my posts as blanket endorsement of keeping the public in the dark and/or non-transparent government). Government MUST be accountable to the people.

What I AM saying is this :


There are very defensible reasons why public trusts exist, and time and again their existence has been upheld by courts and the IRS, among other entities
Public trusts have different requirements and different missions than do elected bodies
There are defensible reasons for economic incentives to exist, not the least of which they have been approved by votes of the people or by petitions and agreements between affected agencies
There are legitimate (and legally-upheld) reasons for instruments such as executive session and confidential discussions related to personnel issues, real estate appraisals, financial negotiations and the like
There are legitimate reasons for some negotiations to be done in confidence, including PROTECTION of the public's interests and also competitive advantage (which again is in the public interest)
Confidential negotiations occur in all departments of City government, and on a daily basis. Most obviously require review of some body (usually City Council) before being formalized
Current City practices comply with the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act according to any sources I can find online and according to any law or ruling which has been linked by others in this forum
This compliance has been confirmed on multiple occasions by the (very conservative) Municipal Counselor and in independent opinions given to third parties who have previously objected
There are more restrictive open meetings laws in a few other states and if someone really wanted to make a difference here they should try to change things at the state level
Having been a part of getting multiple items on agendas of bodies such as City Council plus various design and planning boards I can assure you that last-minute publication is nearly always caused by a mad scramble to get items in before the deadline rather than attempts to deceive or obfuscate
The idea that City Council members should not be briefed by staff regarding items to appear on their agendas - especially big-ticket or possibly controversial items - but instead should learn everything and debate every nuance around the horshoe is pure insanity, completely impractical, dangerous in and of itself, and would require Council meet daily just to get the City's business done
You can just as easily characterize "small meetings" - those in which there is not a quorum reached - as an effort to COMPLY with open meetings requirements as opposed to skirting them
There has not been (to my knowledge) a significant case or even allegation of impropriety or illegal behavior in the handling of public monies under the current council and mayor, the past five or more mayors, the past four or more City Managers, and for something approaching 40 years (at least)
The City has a bunch of incredibly competent and passionate people who are dedicated to making OKC a better, more competitive place, and i know this because I’ve worked alongside many of them and know MANY others like me - who have done so far more than I have - who feel the same way
Most of the people I’ve worked with could probably make significantly more money in the private sector OR (in the case of trustees, board members and volunteers) are DONATING their valuable time to serve our city and I think this deserves a certain measure of respect, period
Jumping straight from "I don't like a loophole in state meetings laws and feel like it is being exploited" to "these people are crooks" - despite zero evidence or legitimate allegation - is disingenous, paranoid, and slanderous.

Jumping straight from "I don't like a loophole in state meetings laws and feel like it is being exploited" to "these people are crooks" - despite zero evidence or legitimate allegation - is disingenous, paranoid, and slanderous.

THIS so much. There's gonna be a day where some people are going to be surprised when their chickens come home to roost for their comments on boards and social media. Having a hidden screen name doesn't make you immune from consequences, and it may not be immediate, but as James Gunn learned this weekend, there are consequences for you online behavior.

I never made that jump. I'm just stating that there's tremendous historical precedent to suggest that left to their own devices, people can be crooks and I'd rather not leave them to their own devices. The current leadership may be perfectly trustworthy. That doesn't mean the leadership will always be trustworthy. We need checks and balances to protect the public from bad leadership. It's hard to see a need for that when you are experiencing good leadership.

This attack on Urbanized is almost comical. He isn't part of some sort a cabal simply because he has a positive spirit about what is happening downtown. His is hard earned. He has been part of this city's transformation now for several decades. If you want a glimpse of what people vital to our city's downtown operation are like, look to Urbanized.

Sometimes the boosterism makes me want to gag, but ten years on the streetcar project has made me a bit cynical. The critique regarding the culture of how things are often done with city management decisions is accurate. I'm glad that his experiences haven't given way to cynicism. It brings balance and perspective to the forum. Thanks for being here. Just because someone is positive doesn't mean their part of some hidden conspiracy even if their world-view doesn't match yours.

I never made that jump. I'm just stating that there's tremendous historical precedent to suggest that left to their own devices, people can be crooks and I'd rather not leave them to their own devices. The current leadership may be perfectly trustworthy. That doesn't mean the leadership will always be trustworthy. We need checks and balances to protect the public from bad leadership. It's hard to see a need for that when you are experiencing good leadership.

Also, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying here; especially the last three sentences. Nor did I say that you personally had made the jump. But obviously a number of people here HAVE done this; those responses are potentially damaging to our community, and I don't believe they should remain unchallenged and left to fester. It's also telling that in some instances the method of defending such positions is not by citing sources but instead via ad hominem "kill the messenger" type attacks, which are the calling card of a losing argument.


This attack on Urbanized is almost comical. He isn't part of some sort a cabal simply because he has a positive spirit about what is happening downtown. His is hard earned. He has been part of this city's transformation now for several decades. If you want a glimpse of what people vital to our city's downtown operation are like, look to Urbanized.

Sometimes the boosterism makes me want to gag, but ten years on the streetcar project has made me a bit cynical. The critique regarding the culture of how things are often done with city management decisions is accurate. I'm glad that his experiences haven't given way to cynicism. It brings balance and perspective to the forum. Thanks for being here. Just because someone is positive doesn't mean their part of some hidden conspiracy even if their world-view doesn't match yours.

Thanks for the kind words, Jeff. I know you have yourself put in tremendous effort for our city and also have had to hack your way through a fair share of bureaucracy, red tape, turf battles, silo effects and other frustrations that occur when dealing with government. I myself have been a part of many instances which have frustrated me, left a bad taste in my mouth, made me question priorities and the like. I laugh and roll my eyes when people believe I'm some sort of blind booster; just as I know some people in leadership probably roll THEIR eyes when they see me walk into a meeting or get an e-mail from me. Governing is not easy; it's a messy business. By design, in fact.

I just know that in years of fighting these various battles I personally have rarely been exposed to individuals who I believed were working for their own interests (other than their own political interests/ambitions) or against something they believed in their heart - no matter how misguided - to be the best interests of the City. I am far more concerned with individuals in government who might be apathetic, just going through the motions, or who stubbornly rely on old mindsets and practices when making decisions.

I think you're way out of line here. Agree or disagree with the potential lawsuit, Urbanized is a well respected member of this community and has a track record of being very transparent. He shouldn't have to change his online signature to please you.

I second this, especially after talking to him in person a few times. He’s easily one of the most respected posters here.

https://freepressokc.com/council-member-shadid-prepares-open-meeting-act-lawsuit-against-okla-city/

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/senat072618a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/senat072618b.jpg

Oh look it's Ed Shadid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxRZXd6r9E

I'll be interested in seeing how this goes. I was on the board for a non-profit, where a group of people that called themselves the 4 horsemen would regularly meet in private. They didn't represent a quorum, but they would plan how they'd push or vote on issues, and it wasn't hard in the open meetings for them to get an additional vote or 3 and get a majority. Technically, this was still within the rules though. They were just "socializing" or "having dinner". This seems to mirror what Shadid is accusing of happening here. I'm not a big fan of his, and I'm not sure of how this will go, but it will be interesting to watch.

I think you're way out of line here. Agree or disagree with the potential lawsuit, Urbanized is a well respected member of this community and has a track record of being very transparent. He shouldn't have to change his online signature to please you.

This +1!! While I don't always agree with Urbanized, he always presents a well-measured/thought through position.

So some problematic Attorney General opinions exist for the city here. Many are distinguishable, but they don't tend to favor some of the practices of the city.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=184724&hits=4211+4210+4201+4200+4167+4166+3283+3282+3105+ 3104+1691+1690+1681+1680+1647+1646+852+851+686+685 +


Therefore, it is the official opinion of the Attorney General that the Open Meeting Act applies to meetings of the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation, where such corporation has contracted with a city and a public trust for the operation, maintenance and improvement of public property, and where the city makes annual appropriations to the public trust to pay to the corporation as an operating fee, where such meetings are held for the purpose of discussing business concerning such matters.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=413183&hits=4210+4209+3593+3592+3411+3410+1173+1172+719+7 18+559+558+


¶20 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Absent a contractual provision to the contrary, private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) which contract to provide goods or services to the public on behalf of a governmental agency and receive payment from public funds merely as reimbursement for goods provided or services rendered, are not "supported" by public funds and therefore are not subject to the requirements of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314.
2. Private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) are subject to the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314, if:
A. they do not submit itemized invoices or claims for goods provided or services rendered to receive public funds, but instead receive a direct allocation of public funds from tax or other revenues; and
B. there is no quid pro quo or direct relationship to the amount of goods provided or services performed by the private organizations and the funds they are allocated; i.e., the organizations receive funds regardless of whether they provide goods or perform services. Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208, 210 n.2, 213-14 (Ind. 1991).
3. Whether any particular private organization is "supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property," (25 O.S. 2001, § 304(1)), making it a public body under the Act, is a question of fact which cannot be answered in an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S. 2001, § 18b(A)(5).
4. Attorney General Opinion 80-215 is hereby modified to the extent it applied the "decision-making authority" test to private organizations which were not "subordinate entities" as defined in Sanders v. Benton, 579 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1978).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=49171&hits=1826+1825+1453+1452+1412+1411+374+373+60+59+2 0+19+

¶11 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:

1. The Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 (1977) et seq., applies to meetings of the officers of a nonprofit corporation operating public property under contract with a municipality, where matters to be discussed or taken up concern the administration of the contract or the operation, improvement or maintenance of such public property;
2. A municipality may not lawfully delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to make improvements to or contract for improvements to public property, unless a charter provision expressly permits such delegation;
3. In the event a municipal charter provision permits a municipality to delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to contract for improvements to public property, the provisions of the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 O.S. 101 (1974) et seq., must be followed by the nonprofit corporation in contracting for such improvements, provided the municipality has no charter provisions dealing with the advertisement, bidding and awarding of contracts for public improvements. If such charter provisions exist and conflict in any way with requirements of state competitive bidding laws, the applicability of the state laws will depend upon a determination of whether the conflicting charter provisions concern purely municipal affairs or affect a wider state interest. Such an inquiry presents a question of fact.
4. Where a municipality has contracted with a nonprofit corporation to operate public property, records pertaining to the operation, maintenance or improvement of such property or the administration or performance of the contract are public records open for public inspection, even though such records may be kept and maintained in the custody of the nonprofit corporation. Title 51 O.S. 24 (1971).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=49110&hits=2756+2755+2457+2456+750+749+485+484+


¶15 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Public trusts organized under 60 O.S. 176 et seq. (1980) are "public bodies" within the meaning of the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 et seq. (1977).
2. Such public trusts must comply with and are subject to the Open Meeting Act.
3. Cameras and tape recorders may not be barred from the meetings of trustees of such public trusts.
4. The above findings apply equally to any and all public bodies subject to the Open Meeting Act.

And I swear I have seen the AG opinion on this subject, but here's a similar law and a result I'd expect which happened in Mississippi:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/mississippi/articles/2017-09-07/court-governments-cant-evade-open-meetings-in-small-groups

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a ruling that a government can't set up meetings of less than a majority of public officials to evade the state's Open Meetings Act.
The court ruled 9-0 that the city of Columbus was wrong to set up pairs of meetings with the mayor and three city council members apiece in 2014, avoiding the city council's quorum of four members. Those meetings were to discuss an agreement between the city and an economic development agency and maintenance of public buildings.


I think this lawsuit might surprise some folks.

At any rate, the municipal counselors who think that the Council can have small meetings to get around the Open Meetings law are very likely just wrong. Municipal attorneys don't have special expertise in this area and rarely handle open meetings questions (obviously). You'll find them to be experts in code enforcement, municipal ordinances, condemnation and.. y'know.. things municipal counselors actually do.

As I've said, there's nothing new under the sun. I'm sure the folks who founded Alliance looked at these AG opinions and structured it so that it wasn't exactly the same as some of these other entities which were opened up to open meetings/open records by AG opinions and lawsuits. I also don't think at the end of the day, they're going to be different enough to remain private. I don't think restructuring how the not-for-profit is funded is going to really matter if the purpose of that not-for-profit is negotiating how public money is going to be spent. Perhaps Mayor Holt is in a unique position with his contacts in the legislature to look into changing the laws to make some of this permissible, expand the permissible use of executive session to discuss economic development, for example, but I suspect something like that might draw a referendum petition.

And just to be clear, until the courts say otherwise, those Supreme Court opinions are law. These issues have been back to the Attorney General numerous times and they just about always side with the right of the people to know what their government is doing. Now I am not making the jump to say there's necessarily any malicious intent here, but the only way for the people to know whether there is malicious intent or not with regarding to spending their money is to have open government.

Midtowner, people may be surprised to know that I don’t disagree with much of what you posted. That is, that there most definitely are more restrictive laws elsewhere - though I would point out that there are also known unintended and negative consequences to those laws - and also that there are plenty of knowledgeable people with good intentions who would deem the City’s activities improper. Witness media (who are specifically motivated and who as a group possess an innate righteousness about their mission), and also past AGs, other politicians, etc. The opinions of those people are just that, however, OPINIONS. Not law.

As I think you confirm with your posts, the activities of the City and its agencies do not clearly violate the letter of the law or even necessarily the spirit of the Oklahoma law, as written. I say “do not clearly” as opposed to “clearly do not,” because that would be untrue. The fact of the matter is that until a COURT rules on this in Oklahoma, they appear to be operating legally. Not an AG issuing an opinion in the distant past, but a court.

If a court DID rule against the City, they would merely be instructed not to do it that way anymore, by the way.

And of course I will stick by my belief that these activities have been thoroughly vetted by the City to make sure they comply with the law as currently interpreted by the courts, and (again my opinion) that the City’s motivations are not about keeping things from the public but instead about operating as quickly, efficiently and in as united a manner as possible. Viewed from this standpoint the procedures are understandable and even laudable. They without question are an example of government trying to act more like a quick and nimble business, which has much to do with the progress we have seen in OKC over the past quarter decade.

All of that said, I don’t disagree that a court challenge COULD change the ballgame regarding the meetings with Council members if it interprets and clarifies existing law in such a way that they are deemed improper. Which of course would only mean that staff would have to begin briefing Council members individually - which they would clearly do - and which would have some unintended consequences, create some inefficiencies, etc.. Of course there is JUST as good of a chance that the courts would rule the meetings to be in compliance with the existing law, which I obviously believe they are intended to be.

Regarding the structure of public trusts or the existence and practices of The Alliance, I do believe those hoping for change would be disappointed. These things have been challenged and clearly upheld in courts nationwide, and by agencies such as the IRS.

Also, the public is never, EVER going to change the fact that many agendas are published right at the publication deadline. Such is the nature of agenda deadlines, and this one is VERY clearly outlined in the law. If someone wants them to be published earlier, they should advocate for a change in the deadline as indicated in the law. Again, having been a part of the placement of many agenda items for public meetings, I can attest that last-minute publication is almost always due to a mad scramble to get items - including items unrelated to the ones you might be working on - finalized and in agendas so as to not miss a meeting entirely. The job of City Clerk is not a job I envy in the least.

Attorney General opinions are not just opinions. They are the law of the state until overturned by the courts or the legislature. They are a statement of how the State and all organs of government are to interpret the law. My prediction is that the city will lose this lawsuit. David Prater May have to step in and prosecute some officials. All of the records of Alliance not protected by some sort of privilege will very likely be opened to FOIA requests. I can predict all of this because sans the criminal prosecution which was only halted because powerful men can get away with shady things, has already happened under the same statutes.

It would be wise for the city to re-evaluate how it conducts business before this likely outcome occurs.

^^^^^^^
I think we will all be interested in the outcome, which would certainly clarify and put an end to this discussion, which I honestly detest. I respect that you are in the legal field and have some understanding that I don’t claim at all to possess. I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

BUT what I can attest to is that the people we are talking about - at least the ones I know and have worked with - are in my own experience honorable, well-intentioned, innovative, and passionate about making Oklahoma City a vibrant, thriving, successful city. So far they have done an excellent job of this overall. I think many people forget where this city was only a couple of decades ago, or weren’t here, or weren’t paying attention. I hope that no matter what happens this progress continues without abatement.

I want the same thing you do. I have no agenda other than to tell you what my opinion is here. Folks can decide what that opinion is worth.

^^^^^^^
I think we will all be interested in the outcome, which would certainly clarify and put an end to this discussion, which I honestly detest. I respect that you are in the legal field and have some understanding that I don’t claim at all to possess. I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

BUT what I can attest to is that the people we are talking about - at least the ones I know and have worked with - are in my own experience honorable, well-intentioned, innovative, and passionate about making Oklahoma City a vibrant, thriving, successful city. So far they have done an excellent job of this overall. I think many people forget where this city was only a couple of decades ago, or weren’t here, or weren’t paying attention. I hope that no matter what happens this progress continues without abatement.

and i think few on here would disagree with your assessment that most are honorable, and well-intentioned... But that isn't the point... while i have joked about this a few times. i have never said that anything criminal or shady is going on... but the fact is that they are setting a precedent that could lead to very shady dealings if the right people were to eventually get involved. And i for one would like to fix a potential problem before it causes serious harm to the City, rather than after

And that’s important. If funny business does go on, the city’s image could be wrecked. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill here with the electorate. I hope the city’s reaction here is not to stonewall but to open up and seek immediate legislative corrective action to protect the things which really need to be privileged while truly balancing the people’s right to know. This lawsuit concerns me because I’m not convinced Shadid’s intentions extend beyond his own ego.

Having total openness does not do away with corruption. It even can obfuscate it and drive it further underground. Many smaller issues will become political talking points without honest attempts to find the best public interest.

That said, there has to be a balance. Theoretically, that is what current law defines. Some say they are filling the letter and intent of the law, while others here think the law abets criminal behavior. So, let’s get this lawsuit going and put that argument on the table.

^^^^^^^^^
I would prefer this myself, though the City would likely disagree. I know there have been a few news reports, but this discussion really doesn’t extend far beyond readers of this forum, who are a minuscule portion of the population of OKC.

My guess - and it’s only that, a guess - is that a lawsuit is NOT filed. If it is filed and if the City prevails, the entire discussion goes away pretty much forever. It becomes black and white. On the other hand THREATENING the lawsuit casts a cloud of suspicion and potentially rewards the party threatening litigation by causing procedural or behavioral change in others even without a ruling or the expense and hassle of litigation. In a nutshell, losing would destroy the narrative.

I soppose we will see.

Apropos of nothing, I wish I could describe my job as making boats go in a circle. Sounds so much better than process quality auditor. And more fun.

And I swear I have seen the AG opinion on this subject, but here's a similar law and a result I'd expect which happened in Mississippi:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/mississippi/articles/2017-09-07/court-governments-cant-evade-open-meetings-in-small-groups


Is this the one you're thinking about (beginning at paragraph 16)? http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=53345

Bingo.


¶20 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. The city council of a charter city is subject to the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 et seq. (1977).
2. Matters pertaining to the proposed termination of a city manager fall within the meaning of "business of a public body," as that term is used in 25 O.S. 304(3) (1977) and in the remainder of the Open Meeting Act.
3. The city council of a charter city may not dismiss or demand the resignation of the city manager by a vote taken outside a public meeting or within an executive session and without notice to the public.
4. A single member of the city council of a charter city may not lawfully meet privately with each of the other council members separately to obtain signatures of a majority of the council upon a document and use that document to take an action otherwise required to be considered and voted upon at an open meeting.
5. A provision in a city charter providing that the city council may appoint, suspend or remove the city manager "at any time" does not permit the city council to so act in conflict with the Open Meeting Act.

Interestingly, I was just going through the list of interim studies in the Oklahoma House of Reps. There is an interim study requested by Rep. McCall (Speaker of the House) for "Modernization of the Open Meetings Act." This could go one of two ways--they're either going to gut it, which I expect, or they're going to open things up even more. I think the above AG opinion shows pretty conclusively that what the city is doing is not legal.

I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

Love this! You've been hitting them out of the park lately, Urbanized.

Appreciate the kind words, turnpup. Also in this thread recently from PhiAlpha and foodiefan, and others previously acknowledged. I'm only trying to explain what I believe is the City's position, how it is - or at least could be - defensible under current interpretation of state law. Also of course saying that - while it may or may not stand up under review - I believe that the City's motives are not nefarious in any way and definitely don't believe some of the theories which have been ascribed by others.

I also appreciate Midtowner's take; as someone who practices in the legal field it is without question worth noting.

I will point out that the opinion quoted above quite clearly has to do with collection of signatures outside of a public meeting and also with deciding courses of action for the public body. I don't think either of these things are being alleged, even by Ed. My understanding of what is happening is that they are just being briefed. I do, however believe that city staff conducts these meetings not only to make Council members aware of upcoming, critical issues they will be deciding but to explain the staff rationale. In many ways this is no different than staff circulating a memo (though it will of course be pointed out that memos are subject to the open records act).

I also expect that staff wants to hear questions or concerns in advance so that they can address them - rather than continuing meetings until future dates to obtain answers and return with them - or even to make changes to a plan to allay the Council members' concerns. I see this as good management/governance and making the best use of everyone's time.

And again, I strongly believe that even if the law was interpreted or changed to eliminate meetings that include more than a single Council member, these types of meetings would (and should) continue, only as one-on-one meetings with staff and Council members. The logical extension of not doing so would be a council which is fully in the dark when they show up to consider and vote on something, which is something surely NOBODY in this discussion wants. Right..? Can we at least agree on this point?

Appreciate the kind words, turnpup. Also in this thread recently from PhiAlpha and foodiefan, and others previously acknowledged. I'm only trying to explain what I believe is the City's position, how it is - or at least could be - defensible under current interpretation of state law. Also of course saying that - while it may or may not stand up under review - I believe VERY MUCH that the City's motives are not nefarious in any way and definitely DON'T believe some of the theories which have been ascribed by others.

I also appreciate Midtowner's take; as someone who practices in the legal field it is without question worth noting.

I will point out that the opinion quoted above quite clearly has to do with collection of signatures outside of a public meeting and also with deciding courses of action for the public body. I don't think either of these things are being alleged, even by Ed. My understanding of what is happening is that they are just being briefed. I do, however believe that city staff conducts these meetings not only to make Council members aware of upcoming, critical issues they will be deciding but to explain the staff rationale. In many ways this is no different than staff circulating a memo (though it will of course be pointed out that memos are subject to the open records act).

I also expect that staff wants to hear questions or concerns in advance so that they can address them - rather than continuing meetings until future dates to obtain answers and return with them - or even to make changes to a plan to allay the Council members' concerns. I see this as good management/governance and making the best use of everyone's time.

And again, I strongly believe that even if the law was interpreted or changed to eliminate meetings that include more than a single Council member, these types of meetings would (and should) continue, but only as one-on-one meetings with staff and Council members. The logical extension of not doing so would be a council which is fully in the dark when they show up to consider and vote on something, which is something surely NOBODY in this discussion wants. Right..? Can we at least agree on this point?

In many ways this is no different than staff circulating a memo (though it will of course be pointed out that memos are subject to the open records act).

I'm glad you can see the problem here. From what I understand, if there are handouts in the meeting, they are taken up and destroyed in many cases. Seems iffy to me!



I also expect that staff wants to hear questions or concerns in advance so that they can address them - rather than continuing meetings until future dates to obtain answers and return with them - or even to make changes to a plan to allay the Council members' concerns. I see this as good management/governance and making the best use of everyone's time.

There's no reason they can't do this in an open meeting. If someone has to come back with answers, I'm sure most things can wait a week. If not, folks need to come to meetings prepared. It's a good skill to have.


And again, I strongly believe that even if the law was interpreted or changed to eliminate meetings that include more than a single Council member, these types of meetings would (and should) continue, but only as one-on-one meetings with staff and Council members. The logical extension of not doing so would be a council which is fully in the dark when they show up to consider and vote on something, which is something surely NOBODY in this discussion wants. Right..? Can we at least agree on this point?

I don't agree. I think council members can meet in the open out on the 'ol shoe in full daylight, ask questions, get information, let the reporters take their notes. They can then go back in special session to discuss private matters. Not only should those deliberations all be public, all of the deliberations of public trusts as well. Then I think there's a really good reason to believe that Alliance OKC might be subject to open meetings/records.

...There's no reason they can't do this in an open meeting. If someone has to come back with answers, I'm sure most things can wait a week. If not, folks need to come to meetings prepared. It's a good skill to have...
There are 100+ reasons. If every item on each week’s agenda got a full discussion including what recommendation was being made by staff and how they arrived at their decisions then council would have to meet seven days a week. Instead, they generally rely on staff recommendations unless an item is large/complex in nature and/or has any amount of controversy, in which case it gets detailed discussion, which in many cases can last hours.

The standard operating procedure, by the way, is that if an item impacts a specific ward then the Council member elected in that ward takes the lead, conducts meetings - ahead of the item being advanced to council - as needed with City staff (gasp!) and also with individual constituents and groups as dictated by the situation. Then when it comes to council, as a professional courtesy other Council members fall in line and vote with the Council member of the affected ward, unless they have specific insight or principles which make them vote against the others (as is of course their right and responsibility). In this way Council members divide up the massive task of gathering information dictating how they should vote, without each council member being required to spend many hours individually researching the hundred plus items which appear on the agenda each week.

“Prepared” means being fully prepared for all items in your own ward, plus being prepared to discuss and vote on larger items and expenditures which affect the entire city. How might one do this, you might ask? Well, by being BRIEFED BY THE STAFF YOU EMPLOY and empower to do day-to-day research, meetings, negotiations and recommendations to you as a governing body. This exactly how a strong city manager form of government works (as opposed to strong mayor).

I hate to get too reductive with the civics lesson, but just so everyone is clear, our local form of government by design resembles a corporation with a board of directors (city council) and a CEO (city manager). City Council has the direct ability to hire and fire three people; the city manager, the city auditor and the city attorney. By design, each of these individuals and their departments are mostly autonomous in order to protect them from political pressure from the other.

City Council can fire the city manager with five votes on any Tuesday (this has been done in the past) but as long as they have confidence in this person they give him or her near-absolute authority to run the daily affairs of the City. Their job at that point is to review the work that the city manager and his staff perform on our and their behalf. When this work involves expenditures, contracts and the like their job is to approve them - provided they have confidence in the job performed by staff - or deny, in unusual circumstances. By the way, if too many items start getting denials at Council it’s probably time for a city manager to polish up the ol’ resume.

The city manager is a professional administrator, and his staff includes professional negotiators, professional planners, public safety professionals, engineers, and other highly-trained individuals. They are hired to do this work and to be good at it. They are advised by legal professionals on the City Attorney’s staff.

City Council members are none of these things (except of course when by coincidence a professional in one of these fields has been voted into office). Nor do they need to be. We aren’t asking or requiring them to conduct negotiations, to design bridges, to hire City staff and do HR, to make policing recommendations, or to advise the City legally. The City Council members are citizens who have been elected instead to oversee the professionals hired to conduct our business, and to advocate for their respective wards.

Literally THE ONLY WAY Council can make informed decisions on complicated items is to meet with staff ahead of council meetings and to be briefed on these topics; to get background on them, to understand who the players are, and to understand how City staff reached its recommendation. At this point, it is their right and responsibility to do further research if they desire and to discuss any point they wish to discuss during the public meeting where they will then publicly cast a vote.

Again, quite similar to the board of directors of a corporation, non-profit, etc..

I'm surely not qualified to make much of a contrubution here, but doesn't *all* of this issue tend to underscore the real problem - and that's OKC's reliance on a city manager form of government with a somewhat symbolic (okay, I know it's more than that) mayor position? If the notion being alleged is that the City Manager is proxying meetings and deals with "agencies" to benefit select private companies, then it sure seems the government structure allowing the CM that much power is really at the crux of the problem.