Tulsa World: Charter changes on ballot

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Saturday, November 21, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Charter changes on ballot
Tulsa voters will decide on three issues in the Nov. 10 election.

By BRIAN BARBER & P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writers
Published: 10/25/2009 2:19 AM
Last Modified: 10/26/2009 2:18 PM

Tulsa voters will not only select the next mayor and decide other local political races in the Nov. 10 general election, they also will determine the fate of three proposed City Charter amendments.

The potential changes, approved by a majority of the City Council to go to a public vote, include establishing a professional standard for the city auditor, lengthening councilor terms and requiring council approval for million-dollar settlements.

Here is a breakdown of the propositions:

Proposition 1: Auditor requirements

What it would do: The change would require candidates for city auditor to either to be a certified public accountant or certified internal auditor at the time of filing for office.

Background: This comes as a result of City Auditor Phil Wood urging the council prior to several election cycles to not only require professional credentials, but to make the position an appointed post.

Wood has told councilors that he believes the position should not be political and that citizens deserve to have someone with qualifications as their city auditor.

Although councilors agree that candidates for the auditor's seat should have professional credentials relative to the job, they did not want to remove the selection of the auditor from the voters.

The Tulsa Metro Chamber is supporting this charter change, saying it would be best to establish a professional standard for the important job.

Proposition 2: Council terms

What it would do: The change would extend council terms to three years and stagger them. Currently, councilors serve for two years and all nine seats are up for election at the same time.

To accomplish the staggered terms, the nine council seats would be divided into three groups with different terms for each group in the 2011 elections.

Councilors in Districts 1, 4 and 7 would serve one year until a 2012 election for three-year terms. Councilors in Districts 2, 5 and 8 would serve two years until a 2013 election for three-year terms. And councilors in Districts 3, 6 and 9 would serve three-year terms ending in 2014.

Background: The charter proposal is a mix of recommendations from Councilor Jack Henderson to lengthen council terms and Councilor Bill Martinson to stagger them.

Henderson for years has fought to stretch the terms even as long as four years, saying few cities have such short terms.

"I don't think it's good that you're campaigning and, once you win, you're almost immediately out campaigning again," he said. "Councilors need enough time to learn the job so they can be effective."

Martinson, who also supports the longer terms, said they need to be staggered as well so there are always councilors available with "institutional knowledge."

"There are so many complex issues such as the budget and zoning that the council has to deal with that I think it's real important to have people with experience on the council," he said.

The Tulsa Metro Chamber is urging voters to reject this proposal, saying it would limit the accountability of councilors and create additional costs by having elections each year.

The Tulsa World uncovered a legal problem with the proposed amendment, even though it had been vetted by the City Attorney's Office.

A state law prohibits county election boards from conducting municipal elections in September and October of even-numbered years.

But councilors maintain that the city primary elections can be moved to August to avoid the conflict.

Proposition 3: Settlements

What it would do: The change would require both mayoral and City Council approval for any claim or lawsuit settlement that is $1 million or more.

Background: The recommendation comes from Councilors G.T. Bynum and Rick Westcott as a direct result of Mayor Kathy Taylor's approval last year of the $7.1 million settlement with the Bank of Oklahoma on a defaulted loan related to the defunct Great Plains Airline.

Since 1993, the city has had only three lawsuit claims of more than $1 million, Bynum said.

Because $1 million settlements are so rare, Westcott said, the change would not hamper the mayor's ability to manage the city's affairs on a day-to-day basis.

"But in that rare occurrence where we have a substantial lawsuit against the city, the council will have the responsibility and duty to help decide whether or not it's a good idea to settle the lawsuit for that amount," he said.

Currently, the mayor is authorized to approve all settlements, and the council's only role is being legally bound to approve that there is enough money to pay the settlement in the sinking fund, which is derived from property taxes.

Bynum said the council votes on budgetary matters as small as animal donations to and from the zoo but has no say in enormous settlement amounts

"This is a loophole we're trying to close," he said. "It's bad policy to have a loophole in place, and this one results in taxation on the citizens so that is why it's relevant."

The Tulsa Metro Chamber is against this charter change, saying it would limit the powers of the mayor and make plaintiffs less inclined to settle lawsuits, ultimately driving up litigation costs.

Brian Barber 581-8322
brian.barber@tulsaworld.com

P.J Lassek 581-8382
pj.lassek@tulsaworld.com

By BRIAN BARBER & P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writers

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

9 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (10/25/2009 3:45:56 PM) This sounds like a once in a lifetime opportunity to just really screw thing up.
	Report Comment FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (10/25/2009 4:09:51 PM) I agree with you Thunder on the charter changes vote. But as to who owns Tulsa, it's apparent we have co-Kings in charge. Both the Tulsa World and the Tulsa Chamber run things at city hall.
	Report Comment Thunder196, Tulsa (10/25/2009 3:52:51 PM) The Chamber RUNS the city. The Mayor usually does what their little black hearts desire. The Chamber is the bunch that has blocked all aspects of help we have begged for in our area of Tulsa.
	Report Comment Thunder196, Tulsa (10/25/2009 4:04:12 PM) If I had to vote today, I would vote yes on the auditor proposition. I would vote no on the councilor proposition. I would vote yes on proposition regarding anything over 1 million dollars. .
	Report Comment Thunder196, Tulsa (10/25/2009 4:05:48 PM) I have not forgotten Kathy Taylor and Dewey Bartlett paying that 7.1 million dollars. When Bartlett was asked about it he said "because he felt it was the right thing to do even though the city wasn't responsible."
	Report Comment Krevlornswath, (10/25/2009 8:05:43 AM) Why is it important to mention the Metro Chamber's position? Why not other groups?
	Report Comment thanks but no thanks, (10/25/2009 4:21:15 AM) Or in other words Phil Woods has high expectations, the voters won't have a clue when to vote for City Council and Kathy Taylor wont ever be able to write another $7,000,000 check on behalf of the City of Tulsa.
	Report Comment Ray, (10/25/2009 12:22:35 PM) So........the Metro Chamber's opinions are: Yes, No, No. Thanks. I'll be voting NO, YES, YES. Why does it matter to anyone what the Chamber wants? They're all in bed with the administration so that should be the deciding factor on how to vote. We didn't elect THEM!
	Report Comment BetterorWorse, (10/25/2009 1:46:17 PM) These comments I posted in the last couple of articles on these issues. The Chamber should not be allowed to take a stand on any public policy issue so long as it receives a majority of its funding from the municipal coffers. Its ludicrous to think that its not in the City's best interests to have Council approval for major settlements - just look at what happened when Taylor dragged the City into the GPA fiasco and immediately coughed up $7.1 million to Bank of Oklahoma for a settlement Tulsa should have never been a party to. Chamber Chairman David Page has no evidence to support his accusation that requiring Council approval would lengthen litigation, decrease settlement opportunities, or increasing judgement size...nothing more than a red herring to distract and level fear in the minds of the voters. And how forunate you have Ken Levit, the Exec Dir of the George Kaiser Family Foundation against this policy change...when his boss was the largest shareholding recipient in BOK of the GPA settlement. It all boils down to the Metro Chamber now becoming a Political Action Committee using taxpayer funds that were supposed to go for marketing and job development in the City of Tulsa. What new jobs has the Chamber brought to Tulsa? Perhaps its time in this latest budget crisis that the Chambers budget gets reduced to fund only what it was intended to do...promote Tulsa for new business development.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.