My Take on Charter Change Proposals

Dear Just Progress Members

 

The World finally ran a story on the City Charter Ballot Proposals.  For purposes of stimulating a discussion or debate on these matters, I am sending you my take on these issues and posting it on the Just Progress Conversations Blog so you can offer commentary on them.

Proposition 1:  Would permit the City Council to have its own attorney free from supervision from the City Attorney.

This proposal was in response to the City Attorney refusing to represent the City Councilors who wanted to vote against F&M Bank's zoning request and advising them they would have to retain their own counsel at their expense and could be held liable for thousands of $ in damages to the Bank if their votes were determined to be inconsistent with current zoning laws and regulations.

My View:  I'm voting yes on this Proposition.  The City Attorney's office mainly serves the Mayor.  I'm a firm believer in separation of powers and believe our legislative branch, the City Council, should be given independent legal help in regard to their legislative duties and not be hamstrung by a recalcitrant City Attorney who is doing the bidding of a Mayor.

Proposition 2:  Would require all resolutions approved by the City to be published.

My View:  This is a no-brainer.  Every one should vote Yes on this measure.  I'm shocked this has not been required before.  Citizens are entitled to know everything the City legislates.

Proposition 3:  Would require all members of City Boards, Commissions, Authorities and Agencies to be residents and qualified electors of the City of Tulsa.

My View:  I'm probably going to vote Yes on this one, but I have mixed feelings about it.  Sometimes a non-resident has the most expertise.  Sometimes ex-offenders who cannot vote have relevant expertise.  But, it probably will be rare that such excluded folks will have expertise or valuable experience that no Tulsa resident qualified to vote could provide.

Proposition 4:  Would change the dates of city elections and the terms of city officers to conform to a recent State law. 

My View:  I'm voting Yes on this one.  There is no reason for the City's elections to by out of sync with the rest of the State.  I think the reference to the terms of office do not relate to how many years an officer can serve but rather when each term begins.

Proposition 5:  Would make it more difficult for voters to recall elected city officials.  If passed, the City Ordinances will have to be amended to state specific grounds for which an official can be recalled.  Only qualified electors living in the district of the elected official may circulate the petitions.  Signatures on the petition will be invalid unless they correspond with the name of the signer as it appears in voter registration books.  Each Petition must contain a valid phone number of the organizers of the petition.  An election will not be called unless the circulators get valid signatures equaling 25% of the district's total vote during the last Mayor's race.

My View:  I'm probably voting yes. I certainly believe it should be harder to recall city officials.  As of now, they can be recalled for any reason or no reason other than the voters are just mad at them or one political party decides to make trouble for the elected officials of the other party.  The requirement that signatures must correspond to the way the signers' names appear on voter registration books would make the City's requirements the same as those of the State.  I certainly have no problems with the % of valid signatures needed to call a recall election or the telephone number requirement.  But, I have reservations about restrictions on who can circulate a petition.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme court struck down a similar restriction on grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on petition sponsors' First Amendment rights.  I believe that decision was a good one.  It is hard to circulate petitions, and petitioning is an Old American custom.  For that reason, I may vote No.

Proposition 6:  Would require the Mayor to make appointments to City posts, subject to the Council's approval, within 60 days or such other time as the Council mandates.  It would permit the Council itself to make the appointment should the Mayor fail to make the appointment within the designated time.

My View:  I'm going to vote NO on this measure.  Again, I firmly believe in the separation of powers doctrine.  The Appointments a Mayor gets to make are to positions that are administrative, executive in nature.  These appointments are subject to Council approval, which is all the input the legislative branch should have.  Legislators should never have the power to appoint an administrative/executive officer.  If a Mayor fails to make appointments, that should be raised as a political issue and perhaps could be the basis of recalling a Mayor.  But, the City Council should not have authority to appoint persons who serve in another Branch of government.

Comments

[Jack Boyte]

Good analysis.......I concur.

[Francie]

Yes, really good breakdown. Thanks Gary.

[Aaron Griffith]

I voted yes on all of these. I don't think Gary fully understands the issues surrounding appointments, given the fact that appointments whose terms have expired are allowed to serve indefinitely after their terms have expired if they are not reappointed or someone else is appointed by the Mayor. This has been routinely abused my current and past Mayors to keep controversial appointments who would not otherwise be reappointed and disenfranchises the public's ability to protest these appointments. This is a desperately needed change to correct a flaw in our charter. Please vote for it.

[XeLdA]

I AM AN ABSOLUTE SUPPORTER OF CHARTER CHANGE.
YES, PRESIDENTIAL IS GOOD-BUT OUR NATION DOESN'T FIT ON IT AND BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS WORKING HARD TO BE STABILIZED. THEREFORE, WE MUST SWITCH TO A PROTOTYPE SYSTEM OF A GOVERNMENT LIKE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OR THE LESS FIRM PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM.
AND THEN MAYBE LATER ON, WE CAN HOPE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
-ONLY IF OUR NATION IS READY.

PLEASE LEAP THE CHARTER CHANGE FORWARD!!
FOR THE JUSTICE OF THE ERROR OF OUR PAST
FOR THE PRESENT GENERATION AND FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS OF RP
AND FOR THE REAL FREEDOM-NOT TEMPORARY DIFFERENCE BUT PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!

[IllNiño]

This is a great blog for Tulsa. However, your last post is dated a year ago. I guess I'm a bit late to the party. Sorry.
I look forward to reading and commenting on future, contemporary posts, i.e., the streets issue, the drillers' stadium issue, and of course, the lack of voter participation in local and state wide elections.

p.s. the city attorney's office does not exclusively work for the Mayor's office. In fact, if anyone of you has had to go to Municipal Court, then you had to have dealt with the city attorney's office, as they are responsible for prosecuting crimes in municipal court.