Lexford Park (formerly First Christian Church)

[d-usa]

That’s par for the course on the council though.

[soonerguru]

I've been told that this vote has been delayed for a future council meeting.

[Jersey Boss]

Curious as to how the historic preservation designation would hold in a court challenge based on separation of church and state arguement.

[BoulderSooner]

it what way does it look like they violated the open meetings process??

and the ones that over stepped here was the historic preservation commission stepping in when the council and the property owner where is discussion to resolve this issue

[Pete]

it what way does it look like they violated the open meetings process??

and the ones that over stepped here was the historic preservation commission stepping in when the council and the property owner where is discussion to resolve this issue

No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

[BoulderSooner]

No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

not really that "clear"

[David]

Hey, maybe they just independently decided to submit the same resolution and it's all a big coincidence. That's believable, right?

[jerrywall]

No city business is to be conducted in private. 4 council members agreeing to sponsor a resolution is a clear violation of that.

Out of curiosity - does this just apply to a quorum discussing a topic, or if any two members discuss business outside of the meeting, it that automatically a violation?

[BoulderSooner]

Out of curiosity - does this just apply to a quorum discussing a topic, or if any two members discuss business outside of the meeting, it that automatically a violation?

it depends on who's opinion you go with which is why it is not "clear"

[Pete]

it depends on who's opinion you go with which is why it is not "clear"

The Attorney General makes those decisions -- and they are binding for everyone in the state -- and has already done so in this matter.

We've discussed this extensively in other threads.

[BoulderSooner]

The Attorney General makes those decisions -- and they are binding for everyone in the state -- and has already done so in this matter.

We've discussed this extensively in other threads.

and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you

[Pete]

and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you

His opinion was directly challenged and the city immediately agreed to settle and stop the practice.

I was a party to those meetings and negotiations.


Much more to this still to come.

[Of Sound Mind]

and yet the OKC city attorney doesn't agree with you

Because the city attorney is NEVER wrong...

[BoulderSooner]

Because the city attorney is NEVER wrong...

didn't say that he was correct ... but it does show that there is not a "clear" opinion ....

[Of Sound Mind]

didn't say that he was correct ... but it does show that there is not a "clear" opinion ....

Or it shows that perhaps the city attorney is not as objective/impartial as they should be and/or they are influenced by the politics/shenanigans happening behind closed doors.

[jerrywall]

I asked my question, because I'm not an expert. However, I served on a board that was subject to open meetings, and was told that it was clearly spelled out in the laws that it pertains to a quorum. So we were told we could have a one on one discussion with another member of the board outside of the meeting, without violating the open meetings act. The minimum required for a quorum was defined in our bylaws. If we had one of our scheduled meetings, and didn't have enough for a quorum, the chair announced that no official business would take place, and the meeting would be rescheduled, but people often had conversations, so not sure if those conversations were actually violating the law. Probably could have been murky ground if anyone had brought any action against the board, I guess.

[Pete]

It's important to note the Municipal Counselor and his office are there to serve the mayor and city council, not the people of OKC.

In this particular case, these dubious closed-door meetings had been happening for a while and only when they were challenged did Kenny Jordan provide an opinion that the letter of the statute was not being violated.

When I contacted their office for further background and explanation as to how they arrived at that conclusion, they didn't reply. When I called to follow up, I was treated very rudely and basically told to go fly a kite.


Subsequently, then council member Ed Shadid threatened litigation over this matter during a council meeting.

Immediately thereafter, the city called Shadid and his attorney to their office and proffered a settlement, even though nothing had been filed. No justification for the previous practices was offered.


Additionally, there is now a pending matter before the Attorney General asking for him to make a formal determination whether such closed-door meetings comply with the state's interpretation of the open meetings statute. I actually drafted several specific questions that he will answer as they were submitted through state representative Colin Walke.

An answer is expected in the next few months and will affect ALL public bodies in the state.

[BoulderSooner]

His opinion was directly challenged and the city immediately agreed to settle and stop the practice.

I was a party to those meetings and negotiations.


Much more to this still to come.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.p...85#post1048385

actually what was changed only had to do with city economic development officials meeting with 4 or less council people which is still allowed by the way .. (just they passed some new rules for the city to follow)


"Shadid’s resolution also calls for specific rules that would be incorporated in the event that a small group of city council members (between two and four) meet with economic developers in private."

The rules outlined in Jordan’s letter to council members are that the city clerk or city attorney attend each meeting unless a representative attends on their behalf and voting does not take place within meetings.

and this happend over 2 months after a threat of a lawsuit ...

nothing about council member talking about a resolution with eachother was even discussed or changed

[Pete]

^

I'm directly involved in all of this and I'm not going to argue with you any further other than to say you keep posting things that are incorrect on many points.

[BDP]

^

Yes and remember Stonecipher is a member of Crossings.

Do state recusal provisions (specifically Const. Art. 5, § 24) apply to municipalities?

[BoulderSooner]

^

I'm directly involved in all of this and I'm not going to argue with you any further other than to say you keep posting things that are incorrect on many points.

i just quoted your paper directly from the link i posted

[Mr. Blue Sky]

i just quoted your paper directly from the link i posted

Boulder, Just give it up. Pete told you he’s very much involved in this and knows of which he speaks. You too often just want to argue.

[BoulderSooner]

Boulder, Just give it up. Pete told you he’s very much involved in this and knows of which he speaks. You too often just want to argue.

I’m fine thanks

[soonerguru]

James got screwed on this deal, although Stonecipher realized he made a mistake after the fact. James will certainly remember this going forward. The "four old white guys" club has shown their hand. Moderately hopeful that my councilman, McAtee, had the good sense not to join the insurrection. Pretty crappy move that they did this behind James's back on an issue that directly impacts his ward. It doesn't pass any smell test. I hope Stonecipher learned his lesson.

[BoulderSooner]

James got screwed on this deal, although Stonecipher realized he made a mistake after the fact. James will certainly remember this going forward. The "four old white guys" club has shown their hand. Moderately hopeful that my councilman, McAtee, had the good sense not to join the insurrection. Pretty crappy move that they did this behind James's back on an issue that directly impacts his ward. It doesn't pass any smell test. I hope Stonecipher learned his lesson.

this will likely pass 7-2 or 6-3 in a few weeks