A bit more regarding Sam Roop


Based on some response I've received to my earlier entry, concerning Tulsa City Councilor Sam Roop, his new business, and conflicts of interest, I want to emphasize a couple of things:

  • I am not saying that Sam Roop is guilty of anything or is trying to take unfair advantage of the city.
  • I am saying that there is a built-in conflict of interest between his company's business plan (which sounds like a great service with great potential) and Sam Roop's continued service as a Tulsa City Councilor, for the reasons I stated.
  • In saying that Sam Roop must resign, I am not saying he must resign in disgrace because he's done something wrong.
  • I am saying that in order to pursue this business without a conflict of interest, Sam Roop should follow the lead of many other public officials -- Rodger Randle, David Boren, Bill LaFortune, and Steve Largent are a few names that come to mind -- who left office early to pursue new career opportunities.
  • I am not really interested in what the lawyers have to say about this. I am concerned about divided loyalties tugging a councilor between his own financial interest and the public interest. The letter of the law is beside the point.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on October 28, 2004 2:29 AM.

Little Boy Brad breaks his pledge was the previous entry in this blog.

Tulsa, hiding place for terrorists? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]