Tulsa 2020 charter amendments

PROPOSITION NO. 1: YES

Deleting Any Reference to Primary (Partisan) Elections

Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article VI, 'Election and Qualification of Officers', Section 3.3, 'Refund of Filing Fee', and Section 5, 'State Laws Apply to All Elections', be amended by deleting any mention of primary (that is, partisan) elections?

This a housekeeping amendment. It cleans up language that no longer applies because of sloppy, thoughtless changes to Tulsa's election process (six changes in 11 years). Here is the change to Article VI, Section 3.3, deleting the word "primary," since we no longer have a primary election. The August election is now called a general election, and the November election is a runoff. I will vote YES on Proposition No. 1.

A filing fee paid by a candidate who is unopposed at the primary election, or who receives at the first election wherein his name appears on a ballot more than fifteen percent (15%) of the votes cast for the office for which he is a candidate, shall be refunded. Otherwise, the filing fee shall be forfeited to the City of Tulsa.

Here is the change to Article VI, Section 5:

Except as otherwise provided in this amended Charter, all City elections and recounts of votes shall be conducted and the qualifications of electors determined in accord with the laws of Oklahoma, except that election returns shall be canvassed by the Council. In addition to the dates specified by the laws of Oklahoma, any special election of the City of Tulsa may also be called and held on the Primary and General Election and Run-Off Election dates. The Council may by ordinance authorize the casting of absentee ballots in city elections and establish the procedure therefor.

Here is the resolution putting this item on the ballot as Proposition No. 1. It was approved by a 9-0 vote at the May 6, 2020, regular council meeting.

PROPOSITION NO. 2: NO

Replacing Gender-Specific Pronouns with Gender-Neutral Pronouns and other Gender-Neutral Words Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article VI, 'Election and Qualification of Officers', Section 3.3, 'Refund of Filing Fee' and Section 7, 'Qualification of Officers'; Article VII, 'Removal and Recall of Officers', Section 1.2, 'Grounds for Recall'; Article XI, 'Fire Department', Section 3, 'Firefighters--How Appointed' and Section 4.3, 'Decision', be amended to replace gender-specific pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns and other gender-neutral words?

Here are the specific changes. Article VI, Section 3.3:

A filing fee paid by a candidate who is unopposed at the primary election, or who receives at the first election wherein his their name appears on a ballot more than fifteen percent (15%) of the votes cast for the that office for which he is a candidate, shall be refunded. Otherwise, the filing fee shall be forfeited to the City of Tulsa.

A sentence in Article VI, Section 7:

In addition, no person shall be eligible to hold the office of City Auditor unless such person is a Certified Public Accountant or Certified Internal Auditor and maintains such certification during his their term of office.

Article VII, Section 1.2, paragraph K:

K. Failure to produce and account for all public funds and property in his their hands, at any settlement or inspection authorized or required by law.

Article XI, Section 3:

The sworn members of the Fire Department shall, upon the approval and recommendation of the Fire Chief, be appointed by the Mayor; provided, all persons so appointed shall serve on probation for a period of twelve (12) months from the time of such appointment, during which time the Personnel Committee of the Fire Department may terminate the appointment of such probationary firefighter if upon observation, investigation, or consideration of the performance of duty they deem him that probationary firefighter unsatisfactory or unfit for the service.

Article XI, Section 4.3, first sentence:

If after hearing the Council shall find that good and sufficient cause has not been shown for the removal, suspension, demotion, or discharge, the Council shall order the person charged to be reinstated and shall compensate him them for the time of such removal, demotion, or suspension.

I object to using "they," "them," and "their" as singular pronouns. The correct way in the English language to speak generically about a person whose sex is unknown is with the masculine singular pronouns. "He/she," "him/her," "his/her" are clunky, but would be preferable, as they acknowledge the biological reality of mankind as a sexually dimorphic species. This charter amendment is an opportunity to reject political correctness. I'm voting NO.

UPDATE: An election eve story on KRMG reveals that Oklahomans for Equality, the gay-rights lobbyist organization, is taking credit for Proposition No. 2. The story quotes the organization's technical coordinator, Anna Puhl, as claiming that "the language in the charter was written when only men could take part in the political process, but that hasn't been the case in almost 50 years." As educated Tulsans are aware, the current Tulsa City Charter was created in 1989, and I can't think of a time since then that there hasn't been at least one female City of Tulsa elected official. Even under the previous city charter women served as citywide elected officials, including City Auditor Mary Seaman and Elizabeth Stowell Anderson, Water and Sewer Commissioner Patty Eaton, and Finance Commissioner Norma Eagleton in the 1970s. Women had the vote in Oklahoma prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Here is the resolution putting this item on the ballot as Proposition No. 2. It was approved by a 9-0 vote at the May 6, 2020, regular council meeting.

PROPOSITION NO. 3: YES

Removal of Members of Authorities, Boards and Commissions

Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article XII, 'Miscellaneous Provisions', Section 4, 'Creation of Advisory Boards and Commissions' and Section 11, 'Expiration of Terms and Appointments' be amended to allow the Mayor and City Council to remove members of authorities, boards, commissions and agencies, after enacting an ordinance or ordinances for that purpose?

This would add a sentence to two sections of the City Charter. Article XII, Section 4:

Boards and commissions may be created by ordinance to serve and function in an advisory capacity. Members of boards and commissions created by ordinance shall serve until the expiration of their terms, unless disqualified and removed by the Mayor and City Council prior to the expiration of their terms,as prescribed by ordinance. The members of boards and commissions shall serve without compensation.

Article XII, Section 11:

All elected and appointed officers, and members of boards, commissions, authorities, and agencies created by this amended Charter, ordinance, agreement, or pursuant to law shall serve until the expiration of their terms and until their successors are elected and qualified or appointed as provided in this amended Charter, unless disqualified and removed by the Mayor and City Council prior to the expiration of their terms,as prescribed by ordinance.

This is a step toward greater public accountability and control of the various quangos and boards that have an inordinate amount of influence over how our city is run. If the citizens vote to "throw the bums out" of the mayor's office and city council, the newly elected officials ought to have the power to throw the bums out of the city's authorities, boards, and commissions. When and how this will be allowed is a matter that will be settled by ordinance, and we'll have to watch what goes into that legislation, but the first step is to change the charter to make it possible to clean house. I will be voting YES on Proposition No. 3.

Here is the resolution putting this item on the ballot as Proposition No. 3. It was approved by an 9-0 vote at the May 13, 2020, regular council meeting.

PROPOSITION NO. 4: NO

City Attorney Appointed by Mayor to the Classified Service and Confirmed by City Council

This is a proposed amendment to the Tulsa City Charter, that currently provides the Mayor with sole executive authority to appoint the City Attorney to either the City's classified or unclassified service, which would amend the current Article X, 'Civil Service Commission and Merit System', by adding a new Section 4.1 to be entitled 'City Attorney appointment', requiring the Mayor to appoint future City Attorneys to the Merit System's classified service, and the Mayor's appointment shall be subject to confirmation by majority vote of the entire City Council. Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article X, 'Civil Service Commission and Merit System' be amended by adding a new section, Section 4.1, to be entitled 'City Attorney appointment', providing that the person appointed by the Mayor to the office of City Attorney, which office is created by City Charter Article Ill, Section 4, shall be appointed to the classified service, and shall be subject to confirmation by the City Council?

While I like the idea of the City Attorney needing to be confirmed by the City Council, as we do with heads of executive branch departments at the federal level, I disapprove of putting heads of departments and other high-ranking, policy-making officials under Civil Service protection (at the federal level, these jobs are explicitly exempt from Civil Service protection, classified as "political appointees"). Putting department heads under Civil Service protection insulates them from accountability to the public. It creates a "deep state" in City Hall. A new mayor or new city council should be able to fire a City Attorney if for no other reason than to appoint someone in line with their philosophy of government. I will vote NO on Proposition No. 4.

Here is the new section 4.1 that would be added to Article III, Section 4:

The person appointed to the office of City Attorney created by Article III, Section 4 of this amended City Charter shall be appointed to the classified service of the City of Tulsa; notwithstanding the provisions of Article II, Section 19, the Mayor's appointment of the City Attorney shall be subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.

Here is the resolution putting this item on the ballot as Proposition No. 4. It was approved by an 8-0 vote (Councilor Hall-Harper was absent) at the May 20, 2020, regular council meeting.

PROPOSITION NO. 5: YES

City Attorney Duties Listed in the City Charter

This is a proposed amendment to Tulsa's City Charter. The current Charter states that the City Attorney assists and advises the Mayor. In fact, the City Attorney advises not only the Mayor, but also the City Auditor, the City Council, and Councilors. Likewise, the City Attorney is required to approve as to form and legality all City ordinances and resolutions, but the current City Charter does not state what effect absence of approval has on an ordinance or resolution. In fact, the absence of the City Attorney's approval would not necessarily prevent the enactment of an ordinance or resolution. Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article III. 'Mayor', Section 4, 'City Attorney' be amended, by stating, at Section 4.C., that the City Attorney assists and advises the Mayor, the City Auditor, the City Council and Councilors, and by further stating, at Section 4.D., that the City Attorney approves as to form and legality all ordinances and resolutions, or declares, in writing if requested, the reasons for not approving them, provided that absence of this approval shall not prevent the Council and Mayor from duly enacting an ordinance or resolution?

This would change the introductory paragraph and two subparagraphs of Article III, Section 4, which describes the role of the City Attorney. It clarifies that the City Attorney serves all city elected officials and agencies, not just the Mayor, and, crucially, it removes the veto power that the framers of the 1989 charter granted to the City Attorney, who could stop an ordinance favored by the Mayor and Council and the general public by inventing some legal pretext for blocking it. The amended language still requires the City Attorney to give advice about the form and legality of proposed ordinances, but it allows the elected officials to press ahead over the City Attorney's objections. While I would prefer for the City Council to hire its own independent legal adviser -- how can an attorney serve clients in two separate branches of government who are supposed to serve as a check and balance on each other? -- this limitation on the City Attorney's power is a step in the right direction, so I will vote YES on Proposition No. 5.

Here are the specific changes to the charter: Article III, Section 4, introduction, third sentence:

The City Attorney shall be the chief legal advisor and attorney for the city and all offices, divisions, departments, boards, authorities, commissions, and agencies thereof of the city.

Article III, Section 4, Paragraphs C and D:

C. Assist and advise the Mayor, the City Auditor, the Council, and Councilors;

D. Approve as to form and legality all ordinances and resolutions adopted by the Council, or state in writing inform the Mayor and Council, in writing if requested, the reasons for not approving them, provided thatthe absence of any such approval shall not prevent the Mayor and Council from adopting and approving any such ordinance or resolution;

Here is the resolution putting this item on the ballot as Proposition No. 5. It was approved by an 8-0 vote (Councilor Hall-Harper was absent) at the May 20, 2020, regular council meeting.