Opinion/Editorial

Charting Updated Course (Printable Version , E-mail to a Friend )
Some changes needed for City Charter. But some needed changes don’t make the cut
by Michael Bates

Every odd-numbered year, the City Council is obliged to conduct a review of the City Charter, to receive and consider suggestions for charter amendments. Over the years, I’ve submitted a dozen or more proposals, none of which have ever made it to the ballot. In fact, despite major and minor problems with the Charter, the Council hasn’t put any amendments before the public since 1996.

On Thursday, Nov. 17, the Council voted to put five charter changes on the April 4, 2006, city general election ballot. A sixth change, concerning zoning protest petitions, was approved by the Council earlier this year and was supposed to be on the ballot with last April’s general obligation bond issue, but because of a suspicious snafu, the necessary legal notice wasn’t published and the item had to be pulled. That amendment will be on the March 7, 2006, primary election ballot. 

The Cockroach Caucus-affiliated Council majority (Baker, Martinson, Sullivan, and Neal--Christiansen was absent, and so counted as an automatic “no” vote) blocked several worthy amendments, and they were joined in two cases, to the shock of many, by Council Chairman Roscoe Turner.  There was speculation that, two weeks ago, Turner traded his vote on the Council residency requirement for Randy Sullivan’s support for unionizing part of the city’s workforce.

If that was the deal, Sullivan didn’t keep his end of the bargain--he voted no on unionization. I find it hard to believe that Turner would make such a deal or that he would trust Sullivan to keep a promise.

Councilor Bill Christiansen, who normally votes with the Cockroach Caucus, except on issues specific to his south Tulsa district, wasn’t present for the meeting and so avoided taking a stand that would hurt him politically either with his developer allies or with the south Tulsa homeowner groups he’s trying to cultivate. On one important neighborhood issue, Christiansen’s vote would have been decisive.

Here’s a quick look at what voters will see on next spring’s ballots, and what didn’t make the cut.

On the March 7^th primary election ballot:
Re-enable the zoning protest petition: Requires a 75% Council supermajority (seven of nine votes) to approve a zoning ordinance amendment if a protest petition is signed by owners of at least 20% of the property being rezoned or 50% of the property within 300’ of the rezoning. This is a protection for property owners against arbitrary and capricious zoning changes. The protection exists in state law and was already in the city’s ordinances. 71^st and Harvard area homeowners relied on this protection when they circulated a petition protesting the commercial rezoning of residential land at that intersection. Acting City Attorney Alan Jackere threw out the ordinance on the grounds that the 1989 charter required a majority vote to pass an ordinance; he claimed the language prohibited any ordinance that requiring a supermajority for approval.

This amendment was approved by the Council for the same April 2005 special election as the general obligation bond issue, but then the dog ate Bill LaFortune’s homework: City officials failed to transmit it to the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News in order to publish the constitutionally required election notices. Miraculously, the bond election notices did arrive in time for publication.

The Council voted 7-1 in favor; Martinson was the lone vote against. The amendment should energize neighborhood activists to get to the polls, something that will help Chris Medlock and hurt Bill LaFortune in the Republican mayoral primary.

On the April 4^th general election ballot:
Allow the Council to hire its own attorneys: This is a long-overdue idea, essential to the notion of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. Currently the Council’s attorney is assigned that duty by the City Attorney, who continues to hold authority over him. The City Attorney is appointed by the Mayor, so there’s at least an informal conflict of interest when the Council’s aims don’t coincide with those of the Mayor. An attorney is an advocate, and the Council needs someone with an undivided responsibility to provide legal advice and advocacy to further the policies adopted by the Council. Lest you think that this is just a problem for the current Mayor and Council, this idea was first put forward during Susan Savage’s years as mayor. Sam Roop is now a mayoral aide, but as a Councilor he was a leading advocate for this amendment.
This amendment passed the Council 6-2, Baker and Neal voting against.
Require the publication of resolutions:  This is a housekeeping amendment, to clean up an ambiguity in the charter. Resolutions as well as ordinances will have to be published in the legal notices. It passed unanimously.
Requiring city-appointed members of authorities, boards, and commissions (ABCs) to be residents of the City: This ought to be a no-brainer. ABCs, whose members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council, have a lot of influence over city policy. If a board member no longer wishes to live in Tulsa, he should no longer be making decisions on behalf of Tulsa. It passed unanimously.
New city election dates: The state changed the law (26 O.S. 13-301) to require more time between primary and general elections and to relieve county election boards from having to run more than one election in a single month. Tulsa’s current election dates meet the required five-week interval, but the primary doesn’t line up with the state-specified election date in February. Prior to 2004, Tulsa’s primary always fell one week before the state-mandated school board election date, forcing the election board to staff two elections in eight days. Tulsa could go ahead with the current primary date, but the City would have to set up and staff polling places; the County Election Board couldn’t help.

Oklahoma City’s legislative liaisons were on the ball and won an exemption for the capital city’s too-close-together election dates, but Tulsa’s charter-specified dates weren’t given the same treatment. For 2006, the Council voted to shift the dates to match OKC’s, to comply with the law. For future elections, the proposed amendment says to use whatever February and April election dates are specified by state law. 

Short of modifying the charter, the City could try to get an exemption for Tulsa’s dates in the next legislative session. (Medlock was the lone vote against the amendment, hoping that this option would be pursued.) If we are going to change the dates in the charter, let’s move them to the Fall of odd-numbered years. A longer, warmer campaign season mostly during Daylight Savings Time would encourage more grass-roots campaigning and give more voters the chance to quiz aspiring elected officials face-to-face.
Requiring the Mayor to make timely appointments to ABCs: This change would ensure that appointed ABC members are held accountable by elected officials on a regular basis. As it stands now, a board member continues to serve until a replacement is appointed, allowing the Mayor to keep a controversial board member making policy without a renewed mandate from the Council. The charter change would give the Mayor 60 days to make an appointment or reappointment; otherwise, the appointment devolves to the Council. The charter amendment would give the Council the discretion to extend the deadline for good cause. It passed unanimously.

What didn’t make the cut?

 Amendments that would have bolstered the principle of geographical representation, would have removed recall as a weapon of moneyed political interests, and would have protected the investments of owners of historic homes:
Requirement for a Councilor to live in the district he represents: Failed by a 3-5 vote on Nov. 3 (Henderson, Medlock, Mautino for; Christiansen, Martinson, Neal, Sullivan, Turner against; Baker absent). I’m embarrassed that this didn’t pass. In defending his vote, Turner said that under state law a constituent could bring a complaint against a councilor who moved out of his district, and the Council could vote to remove him. (Maybe I’m more embarrassed that no one from District 7 cared enough to complain that Randy Sullivan had absconded to District 9.) An alternative legal theory points out that the charter trumps state law, and our charter only appears to require that a candidate was a registered voter in the district at some point in his life for 90 days or more. That means I could run in Districts 4, 6, and 9, all at the same time.
Tougher requirements for recall: Failed 3-5, with Turner voting along with the Cockroach Caucus. This proposal allowed recall for cause only, required recall petition circulators to live in the affected district, set a consistent standard for number of signatures required (25% of the vote in that district in the last mayoral election), and clarified the requirement for comparing petition signatures. In other words, it would no longer be possible for a well-financed group with a grudge to trigger a recall by importing paid circulators into a district to fill petition sheets with sloppy forgeries. Under the proposed reform, recall would have been restored as a way for real voters with a real complaint to get rid of an official. The naysayers on this issue didn’t like the signature comparison requirement.
3/4 supermajority required to remove historic preservation (HP) overlay zoning: Failed 4-4 along the usual pro-neighborhood, anti-neighborhood lines. Christiansen’s vote would have been decisive; his absence was effectively a no vote. By holding everyone to the same standard, HP zoning boosts property values and encourages the restoration of classic old homes. HP zoning creates a stability of expectations that makes it worthwhile to pay a premium to purchase and maintain a historic home. But as Yorktown Historic District homeowners learned, HP zoning can be swept away if a developer with enough clout wants it gone. The amendment would have restored a sense of stability by raising the bar for removing HP zoning. Too bad that Tom Baker, who represents most of the HP-zoned neighborhoods in Tulsa, didn’t value historic neighborhoods enough to support this measure.