My Thoughts on Tulsa’s Charter Change Proposals

In the first of my weekly blog posts on the issues, I’ve decided to tackle the question I get asked the most on the neighborhood debate/forum circuit. People want to know what the candidates think about the proposed charter changes. Before I get started, I want to remind you all that the only influence I could ever have over this is my individual vote at the polls. These proposals are now set for the voters to decide on the Nov 8th ballot.

Weak Mayor/City Manager Form of Government

The City Council has proposed a Weak Mayor/City Manager Form of government, similar to that which Oklahoma City has. This proposal would give the City Council sole control of the local government and would move the Mayor to what is commonly known as a “weak mayor” position. He or she would no longer have executive authority and would become a member of the Council. The Council would hire a City Manager to run the day to day operations of the city and the office of the Mayor would away from the executive decision making and towards baby kissing and ribbon cutting.

My response to this is pretty quick. I dislike it. I’m against it. I will vote “NO.” I’m not universally against this form of government. It’s clearly working in several other cities. I’m against it for us in Tulsa because I believe it gives too much authority to the Council and removes checks and balances from our local government. The responsibility of running the city is a big one and I’m not confident that we’re capable, under our current conditions, of consistently fielding the type of Council that we’d entrust with running the city. I like our current balance. I’m not convinced that the issues we’ve seen recently have to do with our form of government, but rather, with our people. If we have issues with the way our government is or isn’t working, we should address the personnel.

I think it’s important that we “recruit” for our system. I liken this to football. Growing up in Oklahoma, I was lucky to get to watch Oklahoma’s power running game. OU always had mobile Quarterbacks, run-blocking offensive linemen and fast, strong running backs. Other than Cale Gundy and Troy Aikman (who left for UCLA because he didn’t fit the system), I don’t remember OU recruiting big strong-armed quarterbacks until later in the 90′s. That wasn’t appropriate for their system. When you aren’t getting results, you can change your system, or you can change your personnel. I think we’ve got to try to make the current system work. With a few minor tweaks we can better open it up to the type of personnel we need. I’d start by moving committee meetings to Tuesday afternoons or Thursdays so that regular, working Tulsans have a better chance of fitting it into their schedules. This is not supposed to be a full-time job, no matter what they tell you. It’s supposed to be something that a working person can reasonably do. Moving the schedule around a bit and making some changes in the responsibilities of council staff could really expand our pool of potential candidates, which would mean a more consistent string of better candidates. We should want our brightest and best on the council. We should care enough about our city to expect that our elected officials are impressive…and if we’re going to put all the power in the hands of the Council, we need to be able to demand that they are capable of that charge.

I think it’s important to remember that we’re electing people’s judgment. We’re not electing their time. We want a system in which nine great problem solvers, creative thinkers, and decision makers can be assembled, not the nine people with the most spare time.

The group called “Save Our Tulsa” has also proposed three charter changes.

1. Change elections to non-partisan elections

I like non-partisan elections. The overwhelming majority of the issues facing our city have little to do with partisan politics or even basic partisan values like “bigger government vs smaller government.” I don’t mind the (R) or the (D) existing next to the candidate’s name, should people want to use that as a guide, but I think it’s best to have the top two vote getters in the primary then compete in the general, regardless of political affiliation. It gives the voters time to get to know the best two candidates better and allows for competition in districts that typically slant heavily to one side or the other. It’s not okay that we had districts where all the members of a party didn’t get to vote and it’s not okay that registered Independents only get to vote in the general elections.

2. Change the terms to two years and move election dates to the national election cycle.

I like the two year terms on national election cycles. It will put council elections on the same schedule as the national elections, which will expose them to more voters. A higher voter turn-out should be good for the council elections. The lone downfall is that council races will have to compete with national and state races for attention and funds. I would’ve considered this to be a greater issue before, but after participating in this year’s election, which has gotten very little attention anyway, I’m no longer concerned that the council races will be lost in the shadow of other races. That presumes that they’re in the spotlight without those races, which simply isn’t true.

3. Add three “at large” councilors to the council and move the mayor to the council.

The “at large” councilors is a terrible idea. Adding three at-large councilors to the mix would all but guarantee these things: 1. We’d always have two councilors from District 4, District 9, and District 8. Those three districts are the most politically active, have the most money, and are the most likely to produce these “at large” candidates. I’m a fan of diverse representation and this would diminish the influence of parts of town that already struggle to have a voice. 2. We’d almost always have three people who are well-connected, older Tulsans of means. Older people have been around longer and therefore have had time to make more connections. Nothing builds a Rolodex like time. Running a campaign is expensive. Running a city-wide campaign is even more expensive. This plan would appeal to candidates who have the social connections and financial means to run bigger races. Our pool of potential candidates is already painfully small. Our existing meeting schedule excludes Tulsans who aren’t self-employed, retired, or the spouse of the primary earner. This explains why we’ve had an abundance of retirees and self-employed attorneys on the council. The only regular daytime workers we’ve seen on the council have been self-employed or have worked for rare companies who allow their employees to miss work for their council duties. Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against older folks, wealthy people or attorneys, I just don’t think we need to build a system that all but excludes everyone who isn’t one.

Furthermore, the idea of having three people on the Council who want to be the next mayor sounds terrible. We’ve seen what happens when we have Councilors who want to be mayor. Do we really want three people sniping at the Mayor, while sitting next to him?

Some time ago, I was approached by some gentlemen with the Save Our Tulsa group. They had put this plan together and were looking for “young charismatic Tulsans” to champion their cause. I met with them a few times and discussed their plans with them. Ultimately, I chose not to be a part of the initiative because of the “at large” proposal, which I consider a huge mistake.

I don’t need to tell you who the members are. That information is easily found. You’ll now recognize some of their names from the contributor lists of several of the other council candidates and from some e-mails that have circulated, raising funds for my opponents, both in the primary and now in the general.

So, to sum it up…

“No” on the City Manager form of government proposed by the current council.

“Yes” on the non-partisan elections.

“Yes” on the two year terms.

“No” on the at large elections.

If we’re going to have a major overhaul of our city government, it should be done with significant citizen input and a more deliberative and inclusive process. This is too big of a deal to do in this way. The citizen involvement has been almost non-existent.

We’ve got to start standing up for ourselves. There are those in Tulsa that will continue to try to pull the strings of our local government from behind the curtain, and it needs to be made clear that their type of participation is not welcome. When we think about charter changes, we need consider how these plans open us up to unhealthy influence from a select few. We should always pursue policies and structures that allow the general public to have the loudest voice and the best representation over those that favor the elite few. There are those that believe that they know what’s best for Tulsa and that everyone else should just go along with their plans. I say, no thank you. No thank you to your endorsements. No thank you to your political manipulations. No thank you to your pompous assertions that you know what’s best for us. I’ll go on trusting that the people of District 4 will do in the general what they did in the primary. They’ll vote for the candidate who speaks for them. They’ll vote for the candidate who loves his city and believes it can continue to be great without secret deal-making, whisper campaigns, and elitist tinkering. They’ll vote for me.

Next week, I’ll address another issue, so stay tuned.

If you’d like to talk, call me at 918.991.8252

If you’d like a yard sign, e-mail ineedasign@blakeewing.com

If you’d like to donate, visit blakeewing.com/donate

Also, don’t forget to vote on November 8th.

Advertisement