Tulsa Election 2004: March 2004 Archives

Democracy demands precision


In my previous entry, I presented an analysis revealing discrepancies in 50 Tulsa precincts where more votes were counted than there were eligible voters signing in. I offered several explanations for these gaps, but they all boil down to carelessness: A voter was given ballots, but in a moment of distraction she didn't sign the book. An election board clerk overlooked a signature on the precinct register when entering voter IDs into the database. A voter was given a city primary ballot for the wrong party, when the voter's party didn't have a city primary. A voter demanded a ballot he wasn't entitled to, and the precinct workers didn't refuse him. Or, probably the case in three of the precincts, the precinct workers gave a city primary ballot to everyone, regardless of party, even though only one party had a primary.

Anyone could have performed the analysis. The Tulsa Whirled could have, and the Tulsa County Election Board could have and should have. It's like balancing a scorecard at the end of a baseball game -- the left side of the equation should match the right side, and the Election Board has the information to do that kind of comparison.

Imagine if the Election Board had done a self-audit and caught the discrepancy in Precinct 20 right after the election. There would have been no need to take the case to the state Supreme Court. The candidates would not have had to put up money for a recount and would not have had to pay for attorneys. A new primary election could have been held on the same date as the city general, allowing the duly elected Councilor to be sworn in with his colleagues.

So why didn't this happen?

An analysis of records from the February 3rd Tulsa City Council primary election shows that there may have been 50 precincts where more votes were cast in the primary election than the number of voters who are recorded as having signed the precinct register. This is the problem that was uncovered in precinct 20, where nearly 50 more votes were cast in the Democrat city primary than the number of Democrat voters who signed the register. This discrepancy was bigger than the margin of victory in the race, rendering the result mathematically uncertain, and forcing a rerun of the vote, which will take place on April 6th.

In five precincts, the discrepancy was in the double-digits:

5 (R)
2 (R)
3 (D)
2 (R)
2 (R)

None of the other Council races were close enough for the discrepancy to affect the outcome.

What could explain these gaps between the number of votes and the number of voters?

A reader passed along a campaign letter he received from City Councilor David Patrick, who faces former Councilor Roscoe Turner in a repeat of the District 3 City Council Democrat primary on April 6. In the letter, Patrick (or someone writing under his name) takes credit for progress he has had little or nothing to do with. (He is careful not to remind voters of his enthusiastic support for the Vision 2025 tax increase.) He then accuses Turner of being a tool of eeeeeeeevil Republicans.

We face a severe challenge in continuing this progress. A close examination of the facts will show that Republican and other outside interests have joined forces with my opponent, in an effort to discredit me through false accusations and misinformation.

This is pretty rich, coming from someone who received more than half his campaign contributions ($13,400, of which $11,000 were given in amounts exceeding $200) from registered Republicans ($7,500). All of Patrick's contributions over $200 from individuals came from people who live outside the district in some of south Tulsa's wealthiest precincts. On top of that, Patrick got significant contributions from two business PACs. (Turner has received the support of organized labor.) And, as we reported, Patrick received $7,300 from officers and board members of the F&M Bank and Trust Company. Patrick was a supporter of F&M's rezoning bid for 71st & Harvard.

District 3 re-vote spoiled?


Breaking news -- word has reached me that the County Election Board has mailed some unknown number of absentee ballots to registered Republicans for the upcoming rerun of the Democrat City Council District 3 primary. Election Board employees are trying to intercept and recover the mis-sent ballots. It is possible that a judge could order a further delay -- perhaps just a week -- and the printing of new ballots to ensure that these illegitimate ballots won't get counted.

I suspect this is the result of some automated process. Some voters "subscribe" to absentee ballots -- submit a request at the beginning of a year to be sent a ballot for every election that occurs. Still, you would hope that in light of the mess with Republicans voting in Precinct 20 that the County Election Board would be more careful.

More as it develops.

UPDATE: I hear that election officials are saying that 24 mistaken ballots were sent out. If they use the same system for mail-in absentee ballots as they did when I was in college, it should be possible to identify invalid ballots as they are returned to the election board. Back then, I had to place my ballots in an envelope, which then went into another envelope which I signed in the presence of a notary. This notarized envelope would have my name and address on it. If the same system is still used, the election board would be able to set aside ballots from Republican absentee voters -- treating them like provisional ballots. The question is whether they would be legally authorized to do so. And it may be that the absentee voting system is vastly different because of Federal legislation like the 1993 Motor Voter bill.

In case you missed it, the rerun of the District 3 Democrat Primary will occur on Tuesday, April 6. That leaves a bit more than two weeks to make a difference in what will be a close election, an election that has huge implications for the next two years of Tulsa city government.

That's why I was out in Saturday's beautiful weather knocking on doors in support of Roscoe Turner.

One fellow who answered the door said he had been talking up Roscoe to his parents -- he was visiting them that day. He said he was impressed by Turner's dogged persistence about the voting irregularities in the race.

Another lady was more interested in talking national politics. County and city politics, she said, were all about you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. I couldn't come up with a better description of what we're trying to change at City Hall and the County Courthouse. We are trying to replace the mutual backscratchers with intelligent, independent-minded officials who will seek the best interests of all Tulsans.

More and more of Tulsa's voters are demonstrating that they want honesty, openness, and fairness in government -- they understand that they don't have it now, but they can get it by electing honest and honorable citizens. That's why Chris Medlock and Sam Roop were re-elected by large margins, why Jack Henderson won his primary handily over the Tulsa Whirled's designated candidate, why Randy Sullivan was held to 53% in his re-election bid, why Tom Baker nearly lost to Eric Gomez, why David Patrick had only a three-vote margin (in the invalidated election), and why an entrenched incumbent was turned out of office by neighborhood advocate Jim Mautino.

This election won't change the partisan balance on the Council, in terms of the national political parties -- both candidates are Democrats -- but it will change the partisan balance in terms of local factions and interest groups. A win by Roscoe Turner means a solid majority who will work for fairness to homeowners, city government efficiency, and openness in government.

Roscoe needs volunteers to help knock on doors, make phone calls, drive people to the polls on election day, and to give money to the campaign. You can send checks to the Roscoe H. Turner Campaign Fund, 3415 E Haskell St, Tulsa OK 74115. You can reach him by phone at 834-7580. You can e-mail him at rockyturn at cs dot com. We know from the last election that every vote counts, so do everything you can.

My understanding is that in Judge Gillert's decision to void the election, the question about vacant lots who vote didn't really matter. I am told -- haven't confirmed this yet -- that as long as you register where you are domiciled when you first register, you can legally continue to vote there forever.

The crucial issue in this case was the fact that there were 50 more votes cast in the Democrat City Council primary in Precinct 20 than signed the Democrat registration book. In fact the number of votes cast in the Democrat City Council primary equals the number of votes cast in the Republican presidential primary and the Democrat presidential primary minus one. It is reported that some Republicans realized something was amiss and tried to return the City Council ballot but were told to go ahead and vote.

One theory suggests this was an honest mistake on the part of the precinct officials, who may have been confused over talk that this primary was tantamount to a general election, since no Republican was running. You would hope that precinct officials would understand the meaning of the phrase "closed primary". The Presidential Primary on the same day (for the first time) created an odd situation where everyone (except Independents) could vote in one primary, but only one party could vote in the other. I wonder if this happened in many other precincts -- a similar situation could have arisen in Districts 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 -- all cases where one party had a primary and the other didn't, and in 7 and 8 the primary was like a general in that the winner of the primary would win the seat.

With over 50 invalid votes and a margin of only three, there is no way to know with certainty which candidate would have won if those invalid votes were removed from the pool. So under the law, the election is void, and a rerun of the election will be held with exactly the same candidates on the ballot.

District 3 election voided


This just in: District Judge Tom Gillert has voided the Tulsa City Council District 3 Democratic Primary:


Here's a link to the case report from OSCN.net.

We took it back!


Tulsa's voters sent a message today, and let's hope it was loud enough to echo down the corridors of power. Two incumbent councilors who were marked for defeat by the Tulsa Whirled won resounding victories. One challenger came within one vote per precinct of beating a first-term incumbent who was once discussed as a candidate for Mayor. And another challenger -- underfunded, labeled by the elites as a troublemaker -- mopped the floor with a four-term incumbent. We went three out of four in the closely contested races, and given the prevalence of voter irregularities in Oklahoma, the actual result in the fourth race may not be mathematically certain.

Take Back Our City


Election day is finally here. Today is our opportunity to take back our city, to elect people to the Tulsa City Council who will represent the best interests of all the people, not just certain powerful special interests. We can elect councilors who will conduct the people's business publicly, not try to hide what they're up to behind closed doors.

It's going to be a beautiful day today, and you have absolutely no excuse not to vote. If you have some extra time, walk to your polling place and get some fresh air and exercise while you're at it. Get a good look at the natural beauty God has blessed our city with. We have an obligation before God to be stewards of that beauty. We can build our city in a way that either complements and enhances that natural beauty or hides it beneath man-made ugliness.

As we saw in the primary, one vote really can make a difference.

Elaine Dodd, chairman of the Tulsa County Democrat Party, sends along an amusing little note:

There are many Tulsans, both Democrat and Republican, who believe that our City Council could be doing a better job representing our neighborhoods and the needs of our residents. However, it is troublesome to me that you only recommend four Republican men to be those change agents. There are Democrat challengers to Republican incumbents (including a woman!) who offer themselves to public service on the City Council and who if elected, would be substantial agents of change and sensitive to the frustrations many citizens have had over the past two years with your four male Republicans being part of business as usual.

Dear Elaine,

I'm amused by your claim that my "four male Republicans" -- the candidates I'm endorsing in the four City Council races which are seriously contested -- have been part of business as usual over the past two years. When you look at the facts, I think you'll agree that if the voters follow my endorsements, they would keep two substantial agents of change on the Council and would replace two obstructionists with real change agents.

The opponents of the four candidates I recommended -- your four Democrats in 2, 4, 5, and 6 -- were all endorsed by the Tulsa Whirled. Do you think the Whirled would endorse anyone who would be an effective agent for change?

At least three of your four Democrats have acknowledged taking campaign money from individuals connected with F&M Bank. Tom Baker and Art Justis received large contributions from those sources. Darla Hall said she received $1,000 from F&M officials after the reporting deadline. (Has Andy Phillips received any money from individuals connected with F&M? Has Darla Hall received any more from those sources?) Do you think these donors would give money to people who will work actively for fair treatment for homeowners?

Today was the fifth opportunity for the Tulsa Whirled to print a story listing contributors to City Council candidates, and the fifth day the Whirled took a pass. I had the information from the pre-general election ethics filing Monday night, and had it up on this site early Tuesday morning.

If you want to see who gave what to the candidates for Tulsa City Council, click here.

For my analysis, click here. And this entry covers Randy Sullivan's contribution report.

In years gone by, the Whirled would publish a summary of campaign finance reports the day after they were due, but for some reason this year they haven't bothered. The point of the deadline (which was Monday) in the ethics law is to give the media time to publicize the list of contributors and to allow voters to consider this information as they go to vote.

The Whirled never published a story on campaign contributions prior to the primary, and it looks like they may not bother publishing one prior to the general election either. After reading the above entries, reading this one might tie it all together for you.

Too tired to write tonight, although I've got a lot on my mind. (I've noticed a pattern recently: certain public officials seem to be confusing the personal with the political, and that's affecting they way they handle issues and elections -- in a bad way. I want to write about that.)

This weekend is the last big push before election day, and if you can spare even an hour, there are several candidates worth your support. I listed phone numbers and websites at the end of a previous entry. Call and offer your help this weekend!

In an earlier entry, I called attention to the large amounts of campaign cash given to certain incumbent councilors by donors affiliated with F&M Bank.

I have in front of me a page from the 2001 annual report listing the Board of Directors and Officers of F&M Bancorporation, which is the sole owner of The F&M Bank & Trust Company. In light of this information, I've revised the F&M-related totals on my analysis of campaign contributions.

Because this is from two years ago, some names will have changed. For example, John Conine joined the board in 2002. I am pursuing up-to-date information and will update this entry accordingly when it comes in.

The information below is exactly as it appears in the report, and in the same order. So as not to crowd the home page, I've put some of the info in the extended entry. A * after a name indicates advisory director. The committees are:

1 Director, F&M Bancorporation
2 Executive Committee
3 Audit Committee
4 Trust Committee
5 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Committee

Here are the members of the Board as of the date of this report.

Robert E. Lorton, Chairman & Publisher, World Publishing Co.; Chairman, F&M Bancorporation; Chairman, The F&M Bank & Trust Company. Committees: 1, 2

Anthony B. Davis, Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, F&M Bancorporation; Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The F&M Bank & Trust Company. Committees: 1, 2

Robert R. Gilbert III, President, F&M Bancorporation; President and Chief Operating Officer, The F&M Bank & Trust Company. Committees: 1, 2

Brenda B. Davis, Investments. Committees: 1, 2

Eric L. Davis, Senior Vice President, Commercial Lending, The F&M Bank & Trust Company. Committees: 1, 2

Notes from the candidate forum


I was one of about 30 people that assembled Monday night at Fellowship Congregational Church to hear 10 of the 12 candidates at a League of Women Voters forum. If you had been there, you would have gained some insights into the candidates, and it grieved me to think that for most voters, their only knowledge of this event would be mediated by the Tulsa Whirled. Tami Marler of KOTV News was the moderator, so I'm surprised that no TV cameras were there. I wonder if the League attempted to get one of the talk radio stations to broadcast this.

I missed the first half of the program, but several people told me I didn't miss a thing -- about as substantive as the Q&A at a beauty pageant. The second half of the program featured questions and answers from the audience -- one set of questions about public safety, another group about zoning and land use. The zoning questions -- about the council's power to confirm planning commission appointments, about campaign contributions from planning commissioners, about strip clubs, and about the protest process -- were very revealing.

Whirled reporter P. J. Lassek probably owes me lunch, because a question I submitted gave her a lead for her story in Tuesday's paper. She did a nice job of selecting verbs and modifiers to make Chris Medlock's mild, careful comments look radical and contentious, which I believe is required by the Whirled's stylebook.

I asked the candidates a two-part question: Of the current members of the TMAPC, whose reappointment would you support and whose would you oppose? And have you received any financial contributions from members of the TMAPC?

I've updated the full list of City Council candidates, their major contributors, and their total spending and fundraising. Click here to see the raw details, and you can scroll through nearby entries for analysis.

Randy Sullivan files late


So I'm in Midtown running some errands, and I decide to stop by the City Clerk's office to pick up the handful of C-1 ethics filings that weren't filed on time before the City Council primary. It takes a while, because nearly everyone in the office is sick -- they're down to one employee in the main office and a temp in the ground floor office. The ground floor office tells me they can help me up on the 9th floor, and just as we're going through the primary filings looking for the ones I want, in walks Randy Sullivan, papers in hand. "How's it goin'?", I ask. He looks a bit like a deer caught in the headlights. As he turns in his papers, I say, "I'll bet that's the one we're missing." I can see the gear (singular) turning in his mind, he settles on a sarcastic response. "This'll give you and Michael DelGiorno something to talk about. You be sure and make a big deal about this tomorrow morning. You be sure Michael makes a big deal out of this." I assure him that we will, if it's got something newsworthy in it.

And it does: Like several of his colleagues, Randy Sullivan appears to have been well-rewarded for carrying the water for F&M Bank in their controversial rezoning case at 71st & Harvard. You can see the details on the entry with each candidate's contributors and totals, which I've updated with his report and the late primary reports filed by Todd Huston and Tom Baker.

Sullivan received $7,250 in contributions, more than half of everything he raised and spent, from board members and officers of F&M Bank and Trust: Jay Helm, Anthony Davis, Eric Davis, John Conine, and Rob Gilbert. Another $1,500 comes from developers' PACs. And he was clever enough to delay all of his gifts and expenditures until after the deadline for the pre-primary ethics filing, so that none of this would be known to the voters before they went to the polls on February 3rd.

Sullivan received the biggest chunk of donations from people connected with F&M Bank, topping David Patrick at $7,000, Tom Baker at $1,000, Art Justis at $2,500. Since Justis and Baker had a general election race, I suspect they are getting the bulk of their chunks after the deadline for ethics reporting for the general.

And Joe Westervelt, the chairman of the planning commission (TMAPC) gave Sullivan $300. Justis, Patrick, and Baker each got $500 from Westervelt, Christiansen got $300. I'm thinking that the amount had to do with how vulnerable to defeat Westervelt perceived each of them to be.

More thoughts on campaign contributions and how they influence councilors later, but here's one to start with: Raising money for a city council campaign is hard and unpleasant work, and you're grateful for everything you get, but especially grateful for big checks that reduce the amount of time you have to spend on fundraising. You're naturally going to want to do everything you can for those who help you out, especially if they provide half your campaign funds in one bundle of contributions.

Council candidates on KFAQ


District 2 candidates Chris Medlock and Darla Hall will be on KFAQ 1170 with Michael DelGiorno this morning -- Medlock at 7:10 and Hall at 8:10.

Tentatively, KFAQ plans to have the District 4 candidates on Thursday, District 5 on Friday, and District 6 on Monday, head-to-head, in the 7 o'clock hour. (Hall said she had a scheduling conflict, so she couldn't be present for a head-to-head discussion this morning.)

Tell all your friends to tune in and hear these candidates before they make their choice.

All the names and numbers from the campaign finance reports are in the previous entry.

UPDATE: I had asked about the identity of John Conine, a major donor to several candidates. A reader sends along a news clip about John Conine from the July 14, 2002, edition of the Tulsa Whirled, page E2:

F&M Bank & Trust Co. has announced the appointment of John Conine to its board of directors. Conine is president of JFC Management and JFC Automotive Rental Group.

So the F&M-related numbers below have been adjusted appropriately.

Some observations and analysis:

Names connected with F&M Bank pop up for certain incumbents: Tom Baker got $1,000 combined from Eric Davis and John Conine. Art Justis got $2,500 combined from Eric Davis, Anthony Davis, and Conine. And David Patrick hit the jackpot: a combined $7,300 from Jay Helm, Eric Davis, Anthony Davis, John Conine, and Frank Murphy III: all board members of F&M Bancorporation, the holding company for The F&M Bank & Trust Company. (Robert E. Lorton, Chairman and Publisher of the World Publishing Co. -- which publishes the Tulsa Whirled -- is also Chairman of F&M Bancorporation and the F&M Bank & Trust Company.) The connection between these donations is underlined by the fact that they were all received on the same day, January 27, according to the financial reports for Patrick and Justis. (Baker's report fails to list "Date Accepted" for his contributions.)

UPDATE: F&M Bancorporation board members were even more generous to Randy Sullivan, giving him $7,550, more than half of his campaign funds.

Joe Westervelt, a developer and the contentious chairman of the TMAPC, who rudely dismissed the property owners who appeared at last Wednesday's hearing on the zoning protest process, spread some money around. Who are his favorite councilors? He gave $500 to David Patrick, $500 to Tom Baker, and $500 to Art Justis. Interesting: He contributed to three of the four councilors who voted to cut off the homeowners who tried to present their case to the Council last October 30, so he leans toward councilors who like to deny homeowners a fair hearing. He likes Bill Christiansen, too, but not as much, I guess because he only gave Bill $300. (UPDATE: Westervelt also gave Randy Sullivan $300.)

And who are the Radleys? Two Radley couples gave money to Tom Baker, listing Claremore addresses, and Steve Radley (same name as a Baker donor) gave money to Justis, but lists an address of 12217 E Admiral Place, which I believe is the location of a mobile home sales business. Justis also received money the same day from Serenity Homes, right next door at 12221 E Admiral Place, and the Oklahoma Manufactured Housing PAC. Jerald Summers also gave $500 to Justis that day -- is there a connection? And why are people with an interest in mobile homes giving to City Council candidates?

If you've got answers, e-mail me at blog at batesline dot com.

It's striking how many candidates lent themselves money. I count myself blessed and grateful that in my 2002 campaign my friends, family, fellow MIT alumni, and fellow neighborhood activists provided me with about $17,000, and I didn't have to borrow any money. To be sure, I had to forego some pay, and I had personal expenses that I wouldn't have ordinarily incurred (meals out, especially), but my family didn't bear the financial burden of the campaign.

You are reading it here first, thanks to an intrepid volunteer researcher who gathered the information from the City Clerk's office today. Here is a summary of contributions given to the City Council candidates. The reports were due today. In the summary you will see the list of people who have contributed more than $200 dollars in the course of the campaign, followed by cumulative contributions and expenditures. The numbers below cover the entire campaign, including the pre-primary ethics filing and the pre-general filing. Some candidates have had no large contributions at all. For the individual contributions, I list the amounts followed by the names of contributors who have given those amounts. Details are below; analysis will be in a later entry.

UPDATE: Lists of contributors reformatted for ease of reading.

Candidate forum tonight


The League of Women Voters is sponsoring a candidate forum for the Tulsa City Council general election, tonight from 5:30 to 7:00 at Fellowship Congregational Church, 2900 S. Harvard Ave. This will be a great opportunity to hear all of the candidates speak about the issues.

District 6: For Jim Mautino


If Tulsans want to take back our city, one of the most important opportunities is in District 6. East Tulsans have the chance to get rid of an arrogant incumbent who is a tool of the city establishment and bring in a man who will represent their best interests at City Hall.

Jim Mautino, the Republican nominee, is by far the best choice for the District 6 seat. Jim has been a tireless advocate for his part of town, working on zoning and planning issues to protect property values and the quality of life. Jim has persisted and more often than not prevailed because he knows the rules and does his homework, and he won't give up without a fight.

Jim retired a couple of years ago after nearly 40 years with American Airlines, and he's lived all that time and more at his house in Tower Heights neighborhood, with his wife of 50 years, Bonnie.

Fellow Tulsans, in just eight days we have the opportunity to determine whether our city government will be run for the benefit of just a few favored interests, or for the benefit of all of Tulsa's citizens. There are four key council races (two others will be landslides for the dominant party in those districts). Who wins these races will determine the direction of the city for the next two years. If we have five councilors willing to stand up for ordinary Tulsans, five councilors willing to hold city bureaucrats accountable, five councilors willing to stand up for what's right, even when the Whirled and the Chamber Pots and the developers' lobby threatens and abuses them, our city will be able to move forward.

What if we stay home a week from Tuesday? What if we decide we can't make a difference? If the good guys lose and the bad guys win, especially by a large margin, it will embolden the bad guys to abuse the system for their own benefit.

A couple of incidents at last Thursday's Council meeting illustrate why we need change:

The Council was supposed to deal with an important zoning issue in east Tulsa -- the final plat for a zoning change involving the concrete plant on 11th Street east of 129th East Avenue. This concrete plant had, under previous ownership, illegally expanded operations into a residentially zoned area, and they sought a zoning change to bring their operations into compliance. This case strikes at the concern that many east Tulsans have: Will the green, semi-rural atmosphere that attracted them to east Tulsa be replaced by heavy industrial development? And will new development be required to obey the law, or will the rest of the city treat east Tulsa as a dumping ground?

Jim Mautino, a 40-year resident of the area and a long-time neighborhood leader, has been following this issue closely for years, and it was thanks to his efforts that the batch plant was pressured into bringing its operations into compliance. Every Thursday, for the last seven weeks, Jim Mautino has seen the item on the agenda, and has come down to the Council meeting to address the Council on this issue. And every Thursday, the item is pulled at the last minute at the urging of Councilor Art Justis, who doesn't want the issue to come up before the city elections. Did I mention that Jim Mautino is the Republican nominee for District 6? I'm told that Justis thinks it's hilarious, how he can manipulate the system to inconvenience Jim Mautino and delay a decision until after the voters make their choice. That kind of contempt cannot be allowed to go unanswered.

Here's another thing from last Thursday night. Several of us attended to urge the Council to adopt a "consensus" that they support retention and strengthening of the zoning protest process. Homeowners were promised that this issue would be addressed before the Council primary. The Council directed the TMAPC to make a recommendation on the issue by January 20, and to produce as soon as possible a document explaining the current process, so that it would be well-defined for the next group of property owners to encounter this issue. In both cases the TMAPC has been sitting on its hands. I told you what happened on Wednesday when Chairman Joe Westervelt, the angry face of the development industry in our city, abruptly dropped the item from the agenda, then turned his back on the citizens who had gathered to express their views.

To their great credit, Councilors Bill Christiansen and Chris Medlock are holding the TMAPC's feet to the fire on this issue. They put the item on the agenda, to keep it in front of the Council and to keep the heat on INCOG to do the job they promised to do. The pressure did get INCOG to produce a draft of the protest petition process document, after months of inaction.

So how did their fellow councilors respond? Tom Baker, retired bureaucrat, scolded his colleagues for criticizing and questioning the motives of public employees in a public forum. (I didn't hear anyone question motives; that's his spin.) He said that it sets a bad example, and the public might treat public employees badly if they see their Councilors asking tough questions. So Tom Baker isn't bothered when public employees and commission members mistreat the taxpayers. He doesn't care a bit about accountability. He needs to be removed by the voters next Tuesday. Randy Sullivan, who, alas, was reelected in the primary, joined Baker in denouncing any tough questions directed at the actions of the bureaucrats or the planning commission members. Baker and Sullivan aren't watchdogs; they're lapdogs.

If we want responsive, representative government, we're going to have to act next Tuesday. Better yet, start early, and volunteer this final week to help one of the good guys with time, money, or both. Here's the contact info for the candidates who need and deserve your help:

Chris Medlock, District 2, http://www.chrismedlock.com, or call him at 496-3997.

Eric Gomez, District 4, http://www.eric4tulsa.com, or call him at 378-0992.

Sam Roop, District 5 (no website, but call him at 665-1869).

Jim Mautino, District 6, http://www.jamesmautino.com, or call him at 437-2642.

We need these men on the City Council. They will work for us. Let's take back our city on March 9th!

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Tulsa Election 2004 category from March 2004.

Tulsa Election 2004: February 2004 is the previous archive.

Tulsa Election 2004: April 2004 is the next archive.

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?]