At Large City Councilors

An initiative petition is circulating that if passed would signficantly change the composition of the City Council.  In place of nine (9) councilors, each representing a specific geographic district, the Council would consist of a few councilors representing specific geographic districts and at three councilors elected at-large.  Proponents of this change say it is needed because the current form of government has lead to divisive ward politics that prevents Tulsa from adopting the best policies and programs.  Proponents also believe it is unhealthy for there to be public disagreement within the City Council on major policy issues.

Several Just Progress members and persons and groups outside of Just Progress have asked Just Progress to come out officially against this proposed change in our city's form of government.  Opponents of this change believe it is intended to reclaim the near total dominance of city government the Chamber of Commerce, certain neighborhoods, and certain economic interests have enjoyed most of the city's history.  This dominance has been challenged since the advent of our current form of government by councilors who believe that what is good for these dominant groups is not necessarily what is best for Tulsa and certainly is not what is best for their constituents.  Opponents of the change also believe creative conflict within the Council is healthy because unanimity often leads to complacency or oppression.  Finally, opponents of the change believe it will violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting the representation of minorities on the City Council.

Before the JP Board takes up the issue of whether to get involved one way or another on this issue, it is essential that it knows the views and wishes of JP members.  So, please let us know your views by recording them as comments to this Posting.

Comments

[john wylie]

The at-large election of counselors is problem precisely because of the issues above: It guarantees continued control of the city by a small, wealthy group headed by the Lorton family-who use their money to make more and use their newspaper to squelch dissent. Great Plains Airlines and the resulting debt now owed by ALL citizens is the result, and will get worse if the change is adopted. This is an issue that goers beyond the Tulsa city limits--if TIA goes bankrupt and is seized by creditors (apparently not a pure fantasy), the impact will be felt across a wide area. John WYlie

[Ethan J.]

JP should definitely come out against this proposal. It's clearly a right-wing power grab. All good progressive activists should work to kill this thing.

[Kathy Tibbits]

I do not find TABOR to be aa particularly effective method of running state government. TABOR takes away flexibility to respond to unique circumstances and it institutionalizes mediocrity. It participates in a "race to the bottom" over corporate social responsibility. More business does not necessarily mean a better quality of life for Oklahomans. In fact, favoring businesses which are not home-based actually drain dollars and resources from Oklahoma, eventually creating a negative balance of trade relative to the rate of multiplier for Oklahoma-based businesses and corporations. These compete with businesses which are in Oklahoma because Oklahoma is their home. I think we should prefer Oklahoma businesses rather than business growth. TABOR is rather short-sighted, and it does appeal to the taxpayers' hard, tough, bitter economic pain. But state tax is not the cause. Economic pressures from a shrinking job base, lack of skills growth, monopsony in agriculture and national factors are more direct ways to "fix" taxpayer pain. Maybe we could work on some of those issues instead of inviting Oklahoma to be colonized by external corporate interests.

[Jack Boyte]

I strongly urge the JP board to not only publically oppose this petition, but to provide members with talking points.

I encourage JP members to write letters to the Tulsa World and other media outlets, condemning this attempt by a small group of wealthly RWR who want to create their own feifdom for financial gain.

[Brad Byers]

Definitely we must oppose the city council change and TABOR. The City Council must not be a rubber stamp group for the party in power and the controlling business interests. And TABOR is just one more tool the Radical Right want to use to make Oklahoma and the nation a society composed of only the Ruling Rich and peasants by destroying the middle class.

It is time for Just Progress to begin issuing news releases. We need to weigh in as an organization. It is not enough just to write letters to the editor.

[Jack Boyte]

You're right, Brad. Would you 'weight in' by leading a demonstration at City Hall next month?

[Aaron Griffith]

I support Just Progress opposing both of these initiatives. Perhaps we should do an online petition like the one that was very effectively done in the Zoo controversy. Calls to the mayors office would be a good idea as well, since he is supporting the at-large councilor proposal. Since Tom Baker(D-District 4) is set to announce his candidacy for mayor, I think calls to his office should be made as well. I think we should be careful, in regards to the TABOR initiative, to specify that we do not oppose restricting the governments use of eminent domain for private purposes. I think this was piggybacked on this TABOR initiative in order mislead the public that any groups opposed to TABOR support the use of eminent domain for private enterprise. Let's be careful to avoid that trap. Oppose TABOR, but support the denial of eminent domain for private business. I would also suggest that we work with Republican and Independent groups that are in agreement with our stands, because the groups pushing these initiatives claim to be bi-partisan. Finally,(although we'll be a little late to the debate) I would suggest that we also oppose the proposed privately owned toll bridge under the terms of the contract between the County and IVI in South Tulsa on Yale. Let's educate, agitate, motivate, and organize in solidarity for a representative government of, by, and for the people to fight the cronyism of self serving special interest government that marginalizes and disenfranchises the average citizen's role in the decision making process.

[Greg Bledsoe]

Progressives must oppose this grab for power and possible violation of the voting rights act. See the letter I drafted in July but did not send. I wish I had:

On Tuesday, July 26, 2004, civil rights groups from across the country gathered in Washington, D.C. to mark the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.

And in Tulsa Oklahoma, our city’s daily newspaper, the Tulsa World, seems to have forgotten that in 1990 it was a federal court voting rights suit, brought by the local NAACP and African American citizens, that finally motivated a change in our form of government from an at-large city commission to a strong Mayor-Council, with individual councilors elected from nine districts. Representation changed from a time when most elected city officials were white males that often lived within a mile of each other, to a City Council that is geographically, sexually and racially diverse.

Harry Truman and many other armchair historians have often quoted an ancient truism: “Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” In advocating a return to at-large elections for some city councilors the publisher of the World and its editorial writers want to return Tulsa to those golden days of yesteryear. They argue that “ward politics” has infected the city council and that “members elected at large can be more impartial, less influenced by parochial or ward perspectives and more concerned with the problems and needs of the entire community.” Implicit in this argument is that the interests of north, northeast, west and far east Tulsa are not really the “community interests” of the real Tulsa. What the World and its allies are saying is that they reject representative democracy and long to return to those times of oligarchy when deals could be cut with city officials in the cafés of Utica Square or the smoking lounge at Southern Hills, with little thought of neighborhood concerns, balanced growth or equitable division of city projects and services.

There are several pernicious tendencies that at-large elections would foster. First, the expense of a citywide, rather than a district election would tend to naturally select for only those candidates who had sufficient personal financial means or who could command significant campaign contribution. Lets face it, the bulk of city campaign contributions, more often than not, come from bankers, developers and those with commercial interests that are personally affected by the decisions at City Hall. Those persons with sufficient personal money to run for office usually live in the overwhelming white neighborhoods around Philbrook, Utica Square, along South Lewis or at 101st and Yale. Their place of abode, social station and race will obviously color their views at City Hall. Second, it is not unlikely that the extra at-large councilors proposed by the World will be elected from the mid-town and south Tulsa districts (Dist. 7, 8 or 9). This is because those districts contain the higher socio-economic citizens and therefore the most active voters. For example in the 2002 city elections Districts 7,8 & 9 (the midtown and south side districts) had more than 28,000 votes cast while Districts 1,3 & 6 (the north, northeast and far east side districts) had only a little over 14,000 voters go to the polls. Remember, these districts are nearly equal in their population. Yet in the parts of the city where mostly poor, working class black and Hispanic people live, their voter participation in city elections is only about half of that in the affluent sections of Tulsa. It is not hard to understand why their participation is lower. These citizens rent more often than they own and the economic pressure of daily life makes it a burdensome luxury for them to vote. They have also often become disillusioned with a City Hall establishment that, until recently, was dominated by special interests indifferent to their neighborhood concerns. Nevertheless these citizens, even if they don’t vote, are just as entitled to adequate representation as those active votes in the more affluent sections of Tulsa. Indeed because of their racial and economic circumstances and their geography they may need representation more. The Tulsa World and its allies would declare that because two African American councilors have been elected in the two districts where most blacks reside that the city has racial equality. Their at-large representation system would, however, make some citizens more equal than others.

Many of the undersigned were plaintiffs or lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit that facilitated the long overdue change in 1990. Others are supporters of racial justice and committed to geographically fair and racially balanced representation in the City of Tulsa. Still others are survivors of the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. We all stand together to state here and now that we oppose any change in the district representation of the city council to include at-large voting districts. We will fight any attempt to provide for such districts and if necessary we will file a new voting rights lawsuit to stop what is an obvious attempt to dilute the voting power of the districts that have elected African Americans. We view the suggestion of returning to any form of at-large voting for the city council as a betrayal of the racial equity that was promised by the new city charter. It also adds insult to injury to the 1921 riot survivors. To reopen these now healing wounds is not good for the soul of Tulsa, is not good government and ultimately is not good for business and economic development. We call upon the Tulsa World and its allies to abandon their ill-advised quest and we also call upon the City Council, Mayor and people of Tulsa to reject and such proposed charter change.

[Michael Bates]

Speaking as a right-winger, I agree that this is a power grab, but there's nothing right-wing about it. Grass-roots conservatives don't like this plan either.

[Charlotte Stewart]

I also oppose the proposal for at-large council members. What we need most of all is strong, decisive, and open-minded leadership from the mayor (a new mayor, I should add). We're really in the early stages of making the city council option work for Tulsa, and it can, with the right circumstances, the right people, and enlightened leadership. There's no reason for the people of Tulsa not to be as widely represented as possible. One day this can produce more ideas for strengthening the city as well as everyone's sense of ownership and true community.

[Connie Seibold]

I am definitely opposed to TABOR, which would only make Oklahoma's financial and social problems worse. I had a recent experience in which people who were getting public attention by a very looong petition to oppose the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests then tried to tack on the TABOR petition. This is definitely a dishonest way to get signatures.

I have mixed feelings on the City Council issue, but will definitely vote against it.

[Christie Breedlove]

Greg is absolutely correct and we have to stop dilly-dallying around and make our own statements. I understand the League of Women Voters are against this as well.

We are going to end up with another situation where we (Democrats) look like followers because we sit on the fence waiting to see where this goes instead of being the first to stand up and say, "This sucks and we ain't goin' for it!"

This is part of what Roscoe was saying when he was talking about letting others define who we are and what we believe. You would have to be Ray Charles not to see the effects on the have nots that this charter ammendment would have and I believe we need to expose it now instead of waiting for the NAACP and the League to say something first.

Both parties are being replaced by special interest groups because they are not doing the work they are supposed to be doing. Patti has already been approached about this and she wants to wait and see if it goes away. Well, if she's not going to do her damn job then we will have to do it ourselves!

P.S. I like the idea of a rally at City Hall just before a council meeting.

[Sheila Swearingen]

I am another Just Progress member who thinks the proposed charter change would be harmful to the community. But, having said that, I am encouraged that Mike Bates is also opposed to it. I don't think this is a strictly partisan issue. (The two major proponents of charter change -- or at least the ones who held a press conference -- are a Republican and a Democrat). I can't see any downside for Just Progress in coming out against this change.

And, for the record, the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Tulsa has not taken a position on this. They are beginning a study of the city charter this Wednesday and will not take any position until that study is completed.

[Greg Bledsoe]

From just a partisian perspective, it is clear to me that more likely than not the persons elected at-large will be Republicans. Because of party registation and active voting patterns they all could live in what is now Dist. 7,8 or 9. It is unlikely that they would come from Dists. 1, 3 or 6 because of the money needed to run a City-wide campaign. Therefore, it is would be a no-brainer for the Democratic Party to oppose this plan. Even right-wing Republicans like Michael Bates also will oppose this plan because the City-wide financial base made up of developers and bankers will promote their candidates over the more locally (and neighborhood oriented) grass-root Republican. Has a Mayor of Tulsa every lived outside of Districts 7,8 or 9?--that is where the at-large pool will come from. These at-large Councilors elected by the entire population will also be in power competion to what should be a strong Mayor. In effect, we will have 4 Mayors. Think about it. It would be like Bush as president, McCain, Arnold & Giuliani as National Senators at-large. What we need is a strong and effective Mayor who can lead--NOT a new elite city council.

[Elaine E. Dodd]

There can be more than unites us than divides us on the issue of at large city councilors. I have spoken with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who oppose the "McElroy" petition. Let's celebrate our opposition with a bipartisan approach.

[Christie Breedlove]

Greg - I think the last 3 mayors have been from district 4 but I could be mistaken.

Sheila - As for the League, it's the Ray Charles thing. They can see it.

[Greg Bledsoe]

OK--Let's talk amoung ourselves--where have the Mayor's lived. I want to be accurate.

Rogert J. LaFrotune--?
Jim Inhoff-?
Terry Young--? somorehere in the old County Dist. 2
Dick Crawford-in a Condo near 71st and Lewis (This is in Dist 2)
Roger Randle--on 26th Street just east of Peoria ? (This is in Dist. 9)
Susan Savage--North Maple Ridge--off of 18th between Peoria and Cinn.
(this is in Dist. 4)
William LaFortune--?

Can people provide the answers?

The correct argument probably should be not where the Mayor or At-Large Councilor lives but what group will elect him--I still think the core voting distict is 9, with the addition of 7 & 8.

[Michael Bates]

I believe Bob LaFortune lived near Utica north of 31st, which would be District 9.

Jim Inhofe lived and still lives on 32nd between Yorktown and Zunis -- also District 9.

Terry Young -- not sure. I'm guessing somewhere in the Brookside area. I recall some controversy about the way the county commission lines were drawn after the 1980 census -- there was a Simpson cartoon showing him and his wife in bed with the district boundary painted right up the middle.

Dick Crawford lived at about 103rd and Sandusky -- his daughter was a high-school classmate of mine, and I'd been to the house a few times. That address has always been in District 8. Crawford's election in '86 was kind of a fluke, if you remember. Tom Quinn beat Terry Young in the Demo primary. The charter allowed independents to file up to 10 days before the election, so Patty Eaton jumped in as an independent, split the Democrat vote with Quinn and Crawford won -- I believe he was short of 50%.

Randle's and Savage's locations are correct.

LaFortune lives south of 31st on Birmingham -- District 9.

Going back a bit further, I'm pretty sure that Jim Hewgley lived in what is now District 9. I don't know about Jim Maxwell.

Back in early '99 the World published a map showing where all the mayoral appointees to boards, commissions, and authorities lived. The biggest cluster was covered a mile either side of a line from downtown to Utica Square to Southern Hills, with a smattering in other parts of town. I suspect that the situation hasn't changed under the current administration.

[Christie Breedlove]

I think Terry Young lived in Brady Heights when he was mayor. Isn't that district 1?

I wasn't sure how far south district 4 went in the Lewis to Peoria area-recently as well as in the past-(I thought it was 31st)so I thought Randle and Lafortune were in 4. I just know where it butts up to district 3. I thought it would at least go three miles deep.

Either way, as Michael points out these people pretty much come from the middle of town.

Something else to consider. We in North Tulsa usually just vote in primaries. Greg is correct that we don't turnout like the Southside but I don't know if your 1,3&6 numbers were from a primary or the general. In district 3 we had no general in 2002. But 1&6 did. Jack had to run against the white guy from American Airlines who is now running against him as a Democrat and Mautino ran against Art Justice. Are these proposed councilors-at-large going to be two year terms?

It all seems to be splitting hairs but I think it's good to be knowledgible of the details so we have no legitamacy problems when speaking out on the issue.

[Greg Bledsoe]

In the 3/02 general election-66.6K voted city wide, in which LaFortue was elected. The figues in my previous post were from this election. I think this is the last election in which all voting stations were open for all the city. Does anyone know anthing different? Was there any kind of general city bond or sales tax election between then and now?

In the 3/04 general election only 20.1K voted city wide-
Dist. 7,8, & 3 did not vote at all because there was no opposite party candidate.

[Christie Breedlove]

That's right, Patrick went against Slankard in the 2002 general. It's hard to believe it was 2004 when we had the city council election from hell.

When were the Go Bond elections?

[Christie Breedlove]

I stand corrected. - Christie

There is currently a petition drive in Tulsa to change our Charter. The change that is being proposed is one to reduce the number of City Council Districts and add up to 3 City Councilors elected at large. This change is being endorsed by many Republicans, including Mayor LaFortune, and by many Democrats. The City Council could not be changed with recalls, so now the hope to do so with Charter change.

When studying Charter change, the first thing that occurs to me, as County Chairman, is that Democrats will have a much tougher time getting elected, and electing Democrats is the goal of our Party.

The second is that east, west, and north Tulsa will have little say in what happens in Tulsa. Neighborhood associations in all parts of Tulsa will lose their voices, if they disagree with plans for their neighborhoods. The Councilors elected at large will most likely be people backed with lots of money and influence, and will almost always come from midtown or south Tulsa. Will the only people with a voice at the table be those with money and/or influence?

I know that many see the current City Council as ineffective. Is the Council seen as ineffective because the Councilors are pursuing their own personal agendas (and those of their friends) or are they vigorously representing their constituency? If we do not like what those that represent us do, we can elect someone else. That is why we have elections and that is what makes us a democracy.

You may not like the actions or votes of a City Councilor that someone else elected, but that does not mean that the City Councilor's constituency is unhappy with his/her representation of them. The idea of City Council Districts was to ensure that each Tulsan and each District in Tulsa had an equal voice in city government. There will always be Tulsans who do not like the decisions of the City Council. Having equally represented districts provides some check and balance in the City. It helps to ensure that the streets in one neighborhood are not the only streets repaired, that one neighborhood does not get all the new fire equipment, etc.

We do not have Senators or Congressmen elected at large from the entire country. We do not have state senators or representatives elected at large from the entire state, nor, do we have county commissioners elected from the entire county. Changing the charter would weaken the voices of many Tulsans.

If you are asked to sign the petition to put Charter change on the ballot, I urge you to refuse to sign. If the petition acquires enough signatures, which it probably will, and we are asked to vote on Charter changes to the make-up of the City Council, I urge you to vote against these changes.

To those Democrats who are currently supporting Charter change, I know my stance with not be popular with you. I urge you to consider what is fair and equitable to all Tulsans. All Tulsans benefit by fairness and equity.

Patti Basnett
Chairman

[Aaron Griffith]

Thank you, Patti. Just Progress needs to make sure we have Patti's back.

[Kay]

It seems most of us are on the same page with regard to our stances on this. The important question now becomes what do we do about it? I don't think its enough to simply issue press releases and hold press conferences. The efforts on the part of our opponents is a grassroots effort -- involving one-on-one contact and petition drives. I know on the TABOR thing, people are out in downtown Tulsa every day, and in all of the hot spots of the city, and they are getting paid $1.75 per signature to collect these signatures, and while doing so, shaping public opinion about these things. But these people are not well-informed, and an organized counter-effort on the part of passionate well-informed citizens could be very effective. It seems like each of us could take an hour at lunch, go out to the same places, and hand-out little quarter sheets that say "Before you sign that petition, think about this ..." and start shaping the dialogue around TABOR. What's the saying? Something like "One citizen defending his homeland is more powerful than ten hired soldiers ... " what do people think?

[Kay]

I also agree with what Elaine said -- let's use this as an opportunity to bring people together!