October 2017 Archives

Reformation begins with the rediscovery of God's Word:

And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.... Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying, "Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."...

Then the king sent, and all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were gathered to him. And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant.

And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel. And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens. And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one's left at the gate of the city. However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech. And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts. And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down and broke in pieces and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And he broke in pieces the pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with the bones of men.

Moreover, the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and burned, reducing it to dust. He also burned the Asherah....

And the king commanded all the people, "Keep the Passover to the Lord your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant." For no such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was kept to the Lord in Jerusalem.

Moreover, Josiah put away the mediums and the necromancers and the household gods and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might establish the words of the law that were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.

-- from II Kings 22 and 23 (ESV)

Solomon's Temple still stood, filled with glorious riches. The priestly line of Aaron was unbroken, and priests and Levites continued to make sacrifices and offerings in the traditions that had been handed down to them from their predecessors, going back centuries.

But when King Josiah ordered a renovation of the temple in 623 BC, the Book of the Law was rediscovered. It was read to him, and he responded with grief and repentance, realizing how far his nation had strayed from God's commandments. He made a covenant in the sight of the Lord "to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book." The king purged pagan worship. Under Josiah's leadership the Passover, which God had commanded to be observed annually to remember His mighty deliverance of Israel from Egypt, was observed for the first time since the prophet Samuel's day -- over 400 years earlier.

The restoration of the true worship of God was not accomplished by means of priestly tradition. It was priestly tradition that had led the nation away from God's commandments. The true worship of God was restored when God's written Word was rediscovered.

As in the 7th century B. C., so in the 16th century A. D. Centuries of syncretism and simony had obscured the teachings of Christ and His apostles. The Christians of western Europe were burdened with a mechanistic penitential system that effectively promised salvation for money. The Book, God's Word, was mumbled in Latin if spoken at all, unavailable to the common people in a language they could understand.

But then the Book was rediscovered. Manuscripts of the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek were compiled and published using the new technology of movable type. God's Word was newly translated into Latin, the language of scholarship, and into the vernacular languages of Europe. As clergy, secular rulers, and the laity read God's Word for the first time in centuries, they rent their garments as they realized how far the Church of Rome had strayed from the Scriptures. As in the days of King Josiah, God's Word was the plumb line by which the straightness of doctrine (orthodoxy) and worship (orthopraxy) was measured, and the church was found in need of rectification.

In control systems -- e.g., your car's cruise control, a thermostat, an aircraft autopilot system -- attaining the desired speed, temperature, or position requires constant comparison of the actual condition to the desired, ideal condition. The error between the ideal and the actual is calculated, and a new command is issued to correct for that error, bringing the actual in line with the ideal by means of a negative feedback loop. If no effort is made to compare the actual state to the standard, feedback is impossible, making correction impossible, and causing the actual to drift further and further from the ideal.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of the Lord remains forever. May those who lead the people of God be ever vigilant to correct teaching and practice by God's Word alone.

George Weigel, a Roman Catholic theologian, has some words for his own church about reformation that American Evangelicals can usefully heed. Reform is not mere change, but restoration of a form that once existed but has been lost.

Authentic Christian reform, in other words, is not a matter of human cleverness, and still less of human willfulness. If the Church is willed by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit, then authentic reform means recovering - making a source of renewal - some aspect or other of the Church's "form" that has been lost, marred, misconceived, or even forgotten. Authentic reform means reaching back and bringing into the future something that has been lost in the Church's present. Authentic ecclesial reform is always re-form....

Weigel quotes Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, writing in 1970 and looking ahead to the end of the century:

From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge - a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so she will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, she will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, she will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members.... But in all the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world....

Weigel elaborates:

What Ratzinger was outlining here was not a plan, but the reality of ecclesia semper reformanda in the late-modern and postmodern West. Genetically transmitted Christianity - the faith passed along by ethnic custom - was finished. Virtually no one in the Church of the twenty-first century, Ratzinger saw in 1970, would be able to answer the question, "Why are you a Christian?" by replying, "Because my great-grandmother was born in Bavaria" (or County Cork, or Cracow, or Guadalajara, or Palermo - or even South Boston). The only faith possible under late-modern and postmodern conditions is faith freely embraced in a free decision, made possible by an encounter with the risen Lord, Jesus Christ. Therefore, whatever institutions of ecclesial life would remain after what Ratzinger dubbed "the trial of this sifting" (which he believed had been underway for more than a century) would have to reconceive themselves as launching pads for mission, communities where those who had received the gift of faith would have to learn how to offer it to others. That gift would not bring with it, as in the past, social status. But it would bring something far more important: it would bring hope, rooted in faith and exercised in charity.

Although genetically transmitted Christianity is historically associated with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but there are many regions and communities around the world where being a Methodist or Southern Baptist or Pentecostal is a part of one's family identity.

The terms of Weigel's conclusion may sound as strange to Catholic ears as they are familiar to evangelical ears.

All of which is to say that the reformation we need at this quincentenary of Wittenberg is a re-formed Church of saints. The cultural dissolution of the West precludes arguing people into the faith. Very few people are going to be argued into belief in a world that accepts "your truth" and "my truth," but not the truth. Yes, the Church needs theologians. Yes, the Church needs fully catechized men and women who can make persuasive arguments, but what the reformed Church of the twenty-first century needs most are witnesses: men and women on fire with missionary zeal, because they have been embraced by the love of Christ and are passionate to share that love with others; men and women who see the world through a biblical optic; men and women sanctified by the sacraments; men and women who know, with Saint Paul, that the trials of the present age are preparing within the ecclesia semper reformanda an "eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4:17).

There are many diligent, caring state employees who are distressed by the waste and inefficiency they observe, and it must drive them nuts when state legislators ignore them in favor of the easy fix for budget problems.

Here are two Republican state reps from rural Oklahoma who do care, and who are working to put spending discipline first.

Oklahoma House of Representatives
Communications & Public Affairs
Oct. 27, 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Tom Gann
Office: (405) 557-7364

Contact: State Rep. Rick West
Office: (405) 557-7413

State Representatives Call on Governor to Abandon Tax Hikes and Refocus on Efficiency

OKLAHOMA CITY - State Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, and Rick West, R-Heavener, are calling on Governor Mary Fallin's administration to abandon its drive for tax increases and to instead return their focus to eliminating the many costly inefficiencies in state government.

The representatives said they are alarmed at the findings of today's legislative hearing by the House Government Modernization Committee.

The representatives asked for the hearing after state employee constitutes began informing them of costly and wasteful inefficiencies within a key state purchasing contract.

Testimony to the committee was provided by individuals from a variety of state agencies and revealed the following findings:

State agencies are not taking advantage of savings opportunities available through a key state purchasing contract; and

Other agencies are forced to use a massive purchasing contract that appears to be costing the agencies money (state purchasing officials have indicated a plan to re-negotiate this contract);

A year-over-year increase of more than $100,000 in the Department of Education's appropriation is being spent on to the Department's propensity for making color copies instead of the black and white copies utilized by the previous administration;

A review of the Department of Corrections found $150,000 in savings opportunities that could be realized through very basic reforms in the management of department assets. One state vendor testified that there are a number Department of Corrections' assets that no one appears to be responsible for -- including a 60" WII entertainment system and numerous computers that have not been used in months; and

Some state officials appear to have an attitude of "it's not our money so we don't care" - this according to a vendor who testified of the many savings opportunities.

"After this hearing and with the breaking news of the alleged fiscal mismanagement at the Department of Health, there is no doubt that the executive branch's consuming focus on tax raises is taking them away from their foremost responsibility: streamlining and making state government is efficient," said Gann, the vice-chair of the committee.

"I've already had a number of state employee constituents explain this waste and show me the costly inefficiencies of state government. We need to let these employees do their job to save the taxpayers money, and that's why we asked for this hearing," West said. "This is just the start. The chairman of the Government Modernization Committee has ensured me that he will allow us to continue exposing these inefficiencies with more hearings like this one when the legislative session gets under way next spring."

The representatives indicated they are going to continue to monitor the re-negotiation of the costly state purchasing contract, the implementation of the Department of Correction's reform plan and the other issues raised during today's hearing.

I'll get back to the charter amendment proposals in a couple of days, but we have some historical commemorations that deserve our attention. There's the big one -- the semimillenial celebration of Luther's 95 Theses and the commencement of the Protestant Reformation -- but 100 years ago today there were a couple of events of lasting significance involving the Holy Land. One of those events was the last great cavalry charge in the history of warfare, which broke the Ottoman line of defense and opened the door for the conquest of Palestine by British, Australian, and New Zealand troops.

Beersheba is the ancient city known as the southern end of proverbial description of the extent of the ancient land of Israel -- "from Dan even unto Beersheba." It was at Beersheba that Abraham and Abimelech, king of Gerar, made a covenant, by which the place was named -- Well of the Oath (Genesis 21:31). The name could also mean the Seven Wells dug by Isaac (Genesis 26). The modern city of Beersheba, to the west of the tel, was founded in 1900 as a southern outpost of Ottoman Palestine, strengthening the Turks' claim to the Negev against British control of the Suez Canal and the Sinai Peninsula. Today the metro area has a population of about a half-million people. To the east of the modern city is Tel Be'er Sheva National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site, where you can walk down into an ancient cistern from King David's day.

In 1917, Beersheba was one end of a defensive line that ran to Gaza on the coast, protecting Ottoman and German control of Palestine. In March and April, Allied forces twice attacked Gaza and twice failed to take the city. A long stalemate ensued, which included trench warfare, mounted patrols, aerial reconnaisance and dogfights, and training and reorganization on both sides of the line.

That reorganization included a change of leadership on the British side and a change of strategy, aided by some detailed local knowledge. Historian Barry Shaw explains in a Jerusalem Post story:

Under Gen. Sir Archibald Murray, the British army was badly beaten twice at the battles for Gaza.

Murray tried to put a brave face on his humiliating defeat by misrepresenting the casualty figures and claiming that "it was a most successful operation, the fog and waterless nature of the country just saving the enemy from complete disaster."

The War Cabinet did not see it that way, and Murray was relieved of duty, to be replaced as commander of what was called "The Egyptian Expeditionary Force" by Gen. Edmund Allenby.

This no-nonsense military leader, known as "The Bull" for his build (he stood 194 cm. tall) and demeanor, received instructions from British prime minister David Lloyd George, a Welsh Baptist Zionist, to give the British public a gift by taking Jerusalem by Christmas.

Allenby adopted a new tactic, military deception, by lulling the enemy into thinking he would follow Murray's example and launch a third major assault on Gaza.

Instead, aided and advised by a Palestinian Jew and a Christian Zionist intelligence officer, Allenby was persuaded to swerve south of Gaza and attack Beersheba because, as Aaron Aaronsohn, an agronomist from Zichron Ya'akov, told him, "that is where the water is."

Aaronson's research convinced him that large reserves of water lay hidden under the hot desert surface of the Negev. As he pointed out to a receptive Allenby, without sufficient water for his hundreds of thousands of men, tens of thousands of horses and camels and his motorized vehicles, he had no chance of winning the Palestine campaign.

Aaronsohn also knew the trails and wadis that would allow Allenby's massed troops to negotiate their way from Egypt to Beersheba without getting bogged down in the soft desert sands and for his advanced troops to approach Beersheba relatively undetected.

Shaw describes the battle as Britain's first victory in the Great War after four humiliating defeats to the Turks.

An article on the History of War website explains the strategic importance of Beersheba:

The main Turkish defensive line ended at Kauwukah, ten miles to the north west of Beersheba. There was a simple reason for this. The countryside to the west and south of Beersheba was entirely waterless. Any attacking force would have to carry its own water, and be confident that it could capture Beersheba in a single day, for the only water in the area was within the town. The biggest danger was that the Turks might have time to destroy the wells within Beersheba, forcing the attacking force to retreat back towards its water supplies.

The Turkish defences of Beersheba were strongest towards the south and west. There they had a line of trenches, protected by barbed wire, supported by strong redoubts, all constructed along a ridge. To the north and east the defences were much weaker, and crucially lacked any wire. No serious attack was expected from the area of rocky hills east of the town. Beersheba had just been designated as the headquarters of a new Turkish Seventh Army, but on 31 October that army had not yet come into being. The town was defended by 3,500-4,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry with four batteries of artillery and fifty machine guns.

Early on the morning of October 31, 1917, the British guns began the attack on Ottoman positions. By mid-morning the attack on the tel, a key defensive position, had begun, and by mid-afternoon New Zealand ground forces charged up the tel with bayonets and took it. Not long after, the Australian 12th and 4th Light Horse Regiments led the charge for the assault on the town:

The 4th and 12th Australian Light Horse Regiments drew up behind a ridge. From the crest, Beersheba was in full view. The course lay down a long, slight slope which was bare of cover. Between them and the town lay the enemy defences. The 4th was on the right; the 12th was on the left. They rode with bayonets in hand. Each drew up on a squadron frontage. Every man knew that only a wild, desperate charge could seize Beersheba before dark. They moved off at the trot, deploying at once into artillery formation, with 5 metres between horsemen. Almost at once the pace quickened to a gallop. Once direction was given, the lead squadrons pressed forward. The 11th Australian Light Horse Regiment and the Yeomanry followed at the trot in reserve. The Turks opened fire with shrapnel. Machine guns fired against the lead squadrons. The Royal Horse Artillery got their range and soon had them out of action. The Turkish riflemen fired, horses were hit, but the charge was not checked. The Lighthorsemen drove in their spurs; they rode for victory and they rode for Australia. The bewildered enemy failed to adjust their sights and soon their fire was passing harmlessly overhead. The 4th took the trenches; the enemy soon surrendered. The 12th rode through a gap and on into the town. Their was a bitter fight. Some enemy surrendered; others fled and were pursued into the Judean Hills. In less than an hour it was over; the enemy was finally beaten.

Crucially, the wells were intact when the Allies took the city.

By the end of the year the Allies had taken Jerusalem. The conquest of Beersheba was an turning point in the war against the Ottoman Empire, and a landmark of Australian military history.

Read more, and see photos of the charge:

• The Light Horse Charge at Beersheba
• The taking of Tel el Saba, or the role the New Zealanders played in the taking of Beersheba. By Steve Butler
• Col. Jack Davies personal account of the charge at Beersheba
• Photographs of Beersheba by Francis Gillard Rathkey
• A photograph of the charge
• Reenactment of the battle in western Queensland
• The Beersheba Living Museum 5th Light Horse Regiment in Maleny, Queensland, opened its doors for the first time earlier this year.
• ABC: Descendants of the Australian Light Horsemen retrace their ride in Beersheba
• ABC video: Remembering Indigenous [Aboriginal] soldiers at the Battle of Beersheba

MORE: Video from the Prime Minister of Israel's office of today's commemorations, including a dramatic haka (Maori war dance) in memory of the New Zealand soldiers who died capturing Tel Be'er Sheva.

The third of the seven charter change propositions on the City of Tulsa November 14, 2017, ballot would permit councilors to approve resolutions with an emergency clause for immediate effect. A yes vote on Proposition No. 3 would modify Article II (City Council), Section 10 (Effective Date of Ordinances and Resolutions). The mark-up below shows the how the text would change if Proposition No. 3 is approved, with added text underlined, and deleted text stricken.

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.

Ordinances adopting budgets, making appropriations, pertaining to local improvements and assessments, or and any ordinance or resolution adopted as an emergency measure shall take effect at the time stated therein. All other ordinances and resolutions shall take effect at the time stated therein, but not less than thirty (30) days from the date of first publication. Ordinances adopted by vote of the electors shall take effect at the time stated therein or, if no time be stated, thirty (30) days after the election. An ordinance or resolution adopted as an emergency measure to provide for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, welfare, or safety shall describe the emergency in a separate section. The vote of at least two-thirds ( 2/3 ) of the entire membership of the Council shall be required to adopt any ordinance or resolution as an emergency measure.

Here is a link to the current text of Tulsa City Charter Article II, Section 10.

The ballot title reads:

Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article II, Section 10, 'Effective Date of Ordinances and Resolutions', be amended to clarify that the City of Tulsa may adopt resolutions as emergency measures, and state the effective time thereof, in the same manner as it does ordinances?

Once again, I would love to link you to video of the debate on this proposition, but there was no discussion at all when the Council voted to put this proposition on the ballot, and video from the June 21, 2017, Urban and Economic Development committee meeting is not available on the TGOVONLINE.com, which provides (or used to provide) on-demand access to recordings of official city meetings. The minutes for that meeting indicate only that Senior Assistant City Attorney Bob Edmiston spoke and that the proposition would move forward.

Whoever drafted this amendment doesn't seem to understand the difference between AND and OR in describing sets. The current language of the section lists four different classes of ordinances which go into effect at the stated time, without a minimum 30-day delay. An ordinance which falls into any of those four classes avoids the waiting period. The new language changes the "or" to an "and": An ordinance would have to adopt a budget AND appropriate funds AND pertain to local improvements and assessments AND contain an emergency clause in order to go into immediate effect. I don't believe this was the intent. Breaking that first sentence into two would have made it easier to express the intended logic clearly. "Ordinances adopting budgets, making appropriations, or pertaining to local improvements and assessments shall take effect at the time stated therein. Any ordinance or resolution adopted as an emergency measure shall take effect at the time stated therein." Or if you must lump it into one sentence: "Ordinances adopting budgets, making appropriations, or pertaining to local improvements and assessments, or any ordinance or resolution adopted as an emergency measure shall take effect at the time stated therein."

This is clearly intended to be a housekeeping amendment, whose intent is already present in the later sentences of the same section, but a housekeeping amendment should not leave a bigger mess than it purports to tidy. I'll vote NO on Proposition 3 and hope that the City Council will check with a homeschooled eighth-grader about Boolean algebra and logical expressions before they try again.

The second of the seven charter change propositions on the City of Tulsa November 14, 2017, ballot would permit City Councilors to be notified of special meetings electronically. A yes vote on Proposition No. 2 would modify Article II (City Council), Section 3.1 (Meetings). The mark-up below shows the how the text would change if Proposition No. 2 is approved, with added text underlined. If this proposition is approved, no text would be deleted.

SECTION 3.1. MEETINGS.

The Council shall meet regularly at such times and places as the Council shall fix by ordinance; provided, that the Council shall hold not less than two (2) regular meetings each month at the City Hall. The Mayor, the Chairman of the Council, or one-third (1/3) of the members of the Council may call special meetings of the Council upon written notice electronically transmitted to each member of the Council or served personally on or left at the usual place of residence of each member of the Council, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting and upon such further notice as is required by the laws of Oklahoma. The notice shall state the date, time and place of the meeting and the subjects to be considered. No subjects other than those stated in the notice shall be considered at the special meeting.

Here is a link to the current text of Tulsa City Charter Article I, Section 3.

The ballot title reads:

Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article II, Section 3.1, 'Meetings', be amended to allow the required notice of special meetings of the City Council to be delivered to Councilors electronically?

Public notice of special meetings is under the State of Oklahoma's Open Meetings statute.

Once again, I would love to link you to video of the debate on this proposition, but there was no discussion at all when the Council voted to put this proposition on the ballot, and video from the June 21, 2017, Urban and Economic Development committee meeting is not available on the TGOVONLINE.com, which provides (or used to provide) on-demand access to recordings of official city meetings. The minutes for that meeting indicate only that Senior Assistant City Attorney Bob Edmiston spoke and that the proposition would move forward.

I would hope for some more specific language in city ordinance defining what constitutes "electronically transmitted." Text message? Facebook message with "seen" notification. E-mail with delivery acknowledgement? I've seen critical messages I've sent fail to reach some of the recipients or get stuck in a spam trap. I've known of the same thing happening with messages sent to me. But that level of specificity isn't needed in the City Charter. I'm inclined to vote YES on Proposition 2.

The first of the seven charter change propositions on the City of Tulsa November 14, 2017, ballot has to do with abatement of nuisances, specifically with repeat offenders. A yes vote on Proposition No. 1 would modify Article I (Corporate Powers), Section 3 (General Grant of Power), Paragraph O. The mark-up below shows the how the text would change if Proposition No. 1 is approved, with added text underlined. If this proposition is approved, no text would be deleted.

SECTION 3. GENERAL GRANT OF POWER.

Subject only to such limitations imposed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, by the Constitution and such laws of Oklahoma binding upon cities adopting charters for their own government under the authority granted by Article XVIII, section 3, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and by the provisions of this amended Charter, the City of Tulsa shall have the power:

O. To abate nuisances of any kind, and summarily to abate any nuisance re-occurring on the same property under the same ownership, within twenty-four (24) months of previous nuisance abatement on that property, and to assess the expense thereof as a special tax against the land upon which the nuisance is located; and

Here is a link to the current text of Tulsa City Charter Article I, Section 3.

The ballot title reads:

Shall the City Charter of the City of Tulsa, Article I, Section 3, 'General Grant of Power', Paragraph 'O' be amended to clarify that the City of Tulsa may summarily abate a nuisance re-occurring on the same property under the same ownership within twenty-four (24) months of a previous nuisance abatement on that property?

The abatement process is described in Title 24 (Nuisances) of Tulsa Revised Ordinances. A nuisance can involve anything from high weeds to junk vehicles to meth labs to public indecency to illegal gambling to wild animals. City inspectors notify the owner that a nuisance exists, the owner has a set period to correct the problem himself, at which point the city can take care of the problem (e.g., mowing an overgrown lot, bulldozing an abandoned building) and impose the cost of abatement on the property owner as a tax. There is a process of notice, hearing, and appeal, but if there is a second violation within two years of the previous nuisance, the city can clean up the nuisance without notifying the owner, a summary abatement. This also resets the 24-month clock for further summary abatements.

That this on the ballot indicates that there is some question whether the existing ordinance calling for summary abatement for repeat offenses is permitted under the language of the charter, which mentions abatement, but not summary abatement. I would love to link you to video of the debate on this proposition, but there was no discussion at all when the Council voted to put this proposition on the ballot, and video from the June 21, 2017, Urban and Economic Development committee meeting is not available on the TGOVONLINE.com, which provides (or used to provide) on-demand access to recordings of official city meetings. The minutes for that meeting indicate only that Senior Assistant City Attorney Bob Edmiston spoke and that the proposition would move forward.

While I can see the potential for abuse of summary abatement, I can also see the need. Given that this procedure is already in place, and that this proposition clarifies that it is permitted under the City Charter, this appears to be a housekeeping amendment, and I am inclined to vote YES.

Appreciate the hours of effort behind detailed analysis you can't find anywhere else? Hit the tip jar!

It may come as some surprise to you that the City of Tulsa is holding a special election four weeks from today, Tuesday, November 14, 2017. There won't be any names on the ballot, nor any taxes or general obligation bonds. The ballot will consist of seven proposed amendments to the City Charter which were approved by the City Council over the course of the summer.

While the required public notices have been issued, and the proposals received some attention by news outlets, the official city websites seem to be ignoring the election. As of this writing, the election does not appear in the Calendar of Events on the official City Of Tulsa homepage:

Nor is there any mention of the election on the Tulsa City Council homepage, current news page, or archived news page (click to view screenshots of each), or on the official
Twitter accounts of the City of Tulsa or the Tulsa City Council.

1. Summary nuisance abatement
2. Electronic notice of Special Meeting
3. City resolutions with Emergency Clause
4. City elections to be moved to August
5. Change in membership of Election District Commission
6. Permit political activities by civil service employees and sworn public safety officers
7. Attempt to constrain funds generated by public safety tax

(UPDATE: As a supplement to my commentary on Prop 4, I have written a timeline of the ridiculous number of changes Tulsa has made to its election process. Five changes were made in the six-year period between 2006 and 2012.)

For the fourth or fifth time in the last 10 years (I've lost count), we will be voting on tinkering with election dates. Two other proposals would have an impact on elections -- the composition of the Election District Commission and allowing city employees under civil service protection to participate in political activity.

An election resolution for the first five of the proposed amendments was approved by the City Council on July 12, 2017, and approved by Mayor G. T. Bynum IV on July 17, 2017. Resolutions sending the sixth and seventh proposed amendments to the voters were approved on August 16, 2017.

Here is the sample ballot for the City of Tulsa November 14, 2017, special election.

Because the City Council chose to put these items on the ballot at a time when no state elections are being held, City of Tulsa taxpayers will bear the cost of opening nearly 200 polling places. According to 26 O. S. 13-311, these expenses include, but are not limited to "compensation for members of each precinct election board, per diem and mileage for the chairman and vice chairman of the county election board, the cost of supplies and ballots and the rental of polling places."

Over the next week or so, I will analyze each proposal in detail -- show precisely what charter language is being changed, report, based on City Council minutes and meeting videos, on who proposed it and their rationale, report on objections raised by councilors, city staffers, and others, and give you my analysis and conclusions about each amendment.

UPDATED to add links to later entries discussing the individual propositions. On 2017/11/09, I changed the description of Proposition No. 7 from "Lockbox for funds generated by public safety tax" to "Attempt to constrain funds generated by public safety tax," which is a more accurate description.

From an essay in The Public Discourse by Robert R. Reilly, replying to an essay by Patrick Deneen, who claims that the Founders created a Hobbesian republic containing the individualistic, antinomian seeds of its own destruction.

However, he fails to mention that Madison, like almost all of the Founders, makes explicit that the principal condition for the success of the republic is virtue. In Federalist 55, he states:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

Without the exercise of those qualities, Madison said, "the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." Ironically, it is precisely the chains of despotism that Deneen suggests the Founders laid in creating a Hobbesian regime, the very thing Madison is rejecting here.

As Professor Thomas G. West points out in his superb new book, The Political Theory of the American Founding,

the founders' concern with natural rights and their concern with virtue did not belong to distinct categories of thought. Instead they thought of virtue as a condition of freedom and a requirement of the laws of nature. In the Virginia Bill of Rights, as elsewhere, we are told that "no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved . . . but by a firm adherence to . . . virtue."

The reason is that the key to republican government is not merely free choice. As we know from the Weimar Republic, people can freely choose anything, even Hitler. The key, as the Founding Fathers knew, is virtue.

Freedom is not divorced from nature; it is rooted in and limited by nature. Virtue is conformity with what is naturally good. That is why freedom, rightly understood, is freedom to choose the good. It is not license or licentiousness, which is unnatural, i.e., against nature. Only a virtuous person is capable of rational consent, because only a virtuous person's reason is unclouded by the habitual rationalizations of vice. Vice inevitably infects the faculty of judgment. No matter how democratic their institutions, morally enervated people cannot be free. And people who are enslaved to their passions inevitably become slaves to tyrants. Thus, the Founders predicated the success of democracy on the virtue of the American people. If there is any one thing on which the founders and the founding generation agreed, it was this. Without it, the republic would fail, and it is why it is failing now--not because of the Founding but despite it.

Walt Helmerich III, whose foundation donated $1 million toward the 1991 purchase of the riverfront property now known as Helmerich Park, and who served on the board of the bank that owned the land, rebuffed an overture from a private developer who wanted to create a "major mixed-use entertainment, recreational, retail and office complex" on the site, according to a sworn declaration by Rodger Randle, who was Mayor of Tulsa when the land was acquired. The city's half of the purchase price was paid out of the Park Facilities Improvements Account of the surplus from the 1985 Third Penny Sales Tax fund.

Randle's history of the park's acquisition provides some important context in the dispute over the city's proposed sale of part of the park at the corner of 71st and Riverside for commercial development.

In March 1991, according to Randle, Helmerich contacted him, offering to raise private funds for half of the $4.5 million purchase price for the 67 acres between 71st Street and Joe Creek, Riverside Drive, and the Arkansas River.

At about the same time, Randle writes, local zoning attorney John Moody approached him on behalf of an out-of-state developer with a plan for commercial development for the land, telling Randle that the developer would seek to purchase the land from the bank. Randle attempted to arrange a meeting between Moody and Helmerich, so that Moody could present his plan, but Helmerich was not interested:

Mr. Helmerich was a member of the board of the First National Bank. Helmerich was also an avid supporter of public parks. I was informed that Mr. Helmerich wanted to cancel the meeting and was not interested in Moody's proposal. I directed a member of my staff to inform Mr. Moody that the meeting had been canceled.

Later in the declaration, Randle explains the constraints created by the "Brown Ordinance" process, which ensures that Third-Penny sales tax funds are spent as promised and which imposes a process for amendment intended to draw public attention to any proposed changes, including the expenditure of surplus funds:

In this case, we were allocating the surplus funds specifically to the Park Facilities Improvements account of the 1985 third-penny sales tax. Had we wanted to include the future option of this land being developed by a private party for economic development purposes we would have allocated all or part of the surplus 1985 sales tax funds to acquire the property to the sale tax's Urban and Economic Development category as we did other items in the 1985 third penny sales tax ordinance, TRO, Title 43-B, §§ 100, et seq., as amended. We did not do this because itwas our intent to use the property exclusively as a City park....

In my opinion, any sale of any part of the park property for a commercial shopping center, such as is proposed in this case, would be a violation of this ordinance, an attempt to divert the funds to other purposes or projects and a breach of official City policy as clearly established in 1991.

Randle also explained the decision to put the property in the name of the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority:

Prior to closing on the property, city staff recommended that formal legal title be held by TPFA, as was done with the convention center. Why this was done is not clear to me but had something to do with achieving maximum flexibility regarding municipal bond financing for possible recreation facilities at the park. At no time was it contemplated that the park could or would be sold for private commercial development.

As a Title 60 trust, TPFA would be able to issue bonds against its own anticipated revenue. This suggests to me that they were considering the possibility of revenue-generating activity on the site as a means of financing recreational facilities -- perhaps concessions renting bicycles or canoes, a rentable facility for events, a snack bar or cafe. In this situation, TPFA would have borrowed against anticipated revenues from these activities to build the facilities to house them, without requiring additional taxpayer investment. Such a scenario wouldn't make sense unless you intended to keep the land under public ownership.

The copy of Randle's statement that I received was an attachment to a letter from attorney James L. Sturdivant to Mayor G. T. Bynum IV. The late Tulsa philanthropist Patti Johnson Wilson was Sturdivant's client and was one of about 30 contributors to the $1.25 million in private donations that was added to the Helmerich $1 million and the city's $2.25 million to purchase the land for the park. Sturdivant writes, "I do not know the amount of her contribution but I do know Patti would not have given money to the City to engage in a land play. She certainly would have given to acquire a park."

Sturdivant and Randle both expressed concern about the impact of the park land's sale on future donors. Sturdivant writes, "Will future donors worry about the City taking their money, buying park land, then selling it?" Randle stated, "[Selling the land for commercial development] was never contemplated because it would undercut the City's future ability to seek private donations for other projects. Donors would be uncertain that their funds would be used as intended. In this case, in addition to Mr. Helmerich, almost thirty other private parties contributed."

The complete text of Randle's declaration follows the jump:

In honor of the upcoming semimillenial celebration of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Desiring God Ministries is running a daily series of biographies during the month of October, entitled "Here We Stand: A 31 Day Journey with Heroes of the Reformation," presented both as text and podcast. These are brief -- about 5-7 minutes each -- and my youngest and I have been using them as bedtime reading, each reading alternate paragraphs and learning about these courageous saints who were faithful to the Gospel at great personal cost.

The RSS feed for "Here We Stand" contains direct links to each article and its corresponding MP3, but for your convenience, here are the articles/episodes that have been published to date.

• Intro: Here we stand
• Preview: John Wycliffe: The Morning Star of the Reformation
• Day 1: Peter Waldo: The First Tremor
• Day 2: Jan Hus: The Goosefather
• Day 3: Girolamo Savonarola: The Florentine Forerunner
• Day 4: Peter Melanchthon: The Gentle Lutheran
• Day 5: Wibrandis Rosenblatt: The Bride of the Reformation
• Day 6: Wolfgang Capito: The Protestant Peacemaker
• Day 7: Menno Simons: The Fearless Pacifist
• Day 8: Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Phoenix of Florence

Also on the website is a video series by John Piper: "Are the Solas in the Bible?" The "Solas" are the principles at the heart of the Reformation, each expressed in Latin with a form of the adjective solus, alone. These videos, running about 15 minutes each, are something like watching a chalkboard lecture: Piper discusses several passages of scripture, which are shown on screen, with words circled and underlined as he speaks about them.

• Introduction: What Are the Five Solas
• Sola Gratia: By grace alone
• Solus Christus: Christ alone
• Sola Fide: Through faith alone
• Soli Deo Gloria: To God alone be the glory
• Sola Scriptura: By the Scripture alone