HFFZ analysis: Charter change could have made April ballot
The entry over at HFFZ is more cautious and circumspect in its conclusion, but it seems clear to me that Acting City Attorney Alan Jackere was in error in stating that the Oklahoma Constitution requires daily publication of notice a charter amendment for 21 days at least 20 days in advance of an election. The constitutional requirement applies to adoption of a charter, not to amendments, and the requirement gives cities the option of three publications in a weekly paper or 21 publications in a daily paper. Moreover, Mr. Jackere's opinion notwithstanding, there is nothing that forbids cities with a daily paper from opting for weekly publication.
Yet another misguided City Attorney's opinion overrules the law and the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. His misjudgments always seem to promote the aims of the selfish development lobby. To be clear: There are plenty of good folks in the development business, but the people who control the Home Builders Association seem to believe they have the right to build anything they want, anywhere they want, and they have no respect for the property values of hundreds of thousands of people who own the homes they built and sold once upon a time. The selfish development lobby doesn't have any respect for the rules and procedures that were designed to protect everyone's property rights.
So when will Mayor Bill LaFortune let Mr. Jackere take his rightful place as a developers' attorney in the private sector and give us a City Attorney who believes his job is to serve the interests of all Tulsans? Probably never.
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
i had previously written a dark sided/sarcastic post intended to compliment yourself/site on the up-to-the-minute reporting of the TCCM of last evening. instead i deleted it and post only this compliment to yourself.
blogging at a TCCM. now THAT is something that "they" are going to have to get used to. watch for a city ordinance preventing this activity in the near future. the first ammendment ONLY applies to the whirled. and you sir, are infringing on the domain of the guild.
Does anyone who watched the TCCM agree with me that the point the speaker was trying to make about the expense of the bond issue as a stand alone election was an unnacceptable expense, due to the fact that there would be another special election in a month's time that all these measures could appear on one ballot? I don't understand how some of the Councilors(the usual suspects) were able to spin this into an arguement for witholding the charter ammendment from the May 10 special election, waiting for the next general election, attempting to open this back up for debate, or putting this into committee to languish. I don't think the speaker was expressing his concern for the charter ammendment not passing, but for the possibility of the failure of the bond issue. I would wager that the charter ammendment not appearing on the library bond issue(as promised, but conveniently pulled at the bequest of the Mayor- notice a trend) played a much larger role in it's defeat than many will admit. Let's hope the same fate doesn't befall the bond election, although at this point, I sincerely believe that a protest vote is justified, if not required. It's hard to vote for the bond issue in good conscience after witnessing the blatant manuervering to satisfy the uterior motives of powerful special interests by the "bought and paid four" and "pass the bill" Lafortune. Since, the Mayor is unwillling to name or hold those involved in this situation accountable for their incompetence, ultimately he is responsible for this fiasco. It's time for "pass the buck Bill" to show some real leadership and find a way to get this proposal(that he supposedly supports) on the May 10 ballot without incurring additional costs to the taxpayers. Maybe he could eliminate one of those expensive positions on his cabinet? I think that would just about cover the cost of the election.