Tulsa Election 2022: City charter amendments

Voters in the City of Tulsa will be issued a separate ballot at the Tuesday, August 23, 2022, general election, which is also the runoff election for partisan races for federal and state office. The ballot will include the city council election for that district, plus propositions for three amendments to the Tulsa City Charter. Here is the sample ballot for Tulsa District 4, including the three citywide propositions.

My recommendations in summary:

• Proposition 1 (mayoral salary process clarified): YES
• Proposition 2 (one-year residence requirement for city office): NO
• Proposition 3 (increase auditor's term from 2 to 4 years): NO

Kudos to the council for including the actual language to be inserted in the charter as part of the ballot title, rather than just a summary that may or may not be accurate. That said, it doesn't show you exactly what's changing, so I will do that below, with strikethrough to show you what's being deleted and underscore to show what would be added if the proposition passes.

Proposition No. 1 would change Article III, Section 1.2:

During the first term of office under this amended Charter, tThe Mayor shall receive a salary of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) per year payable as employees of the city are paid. Thereafter, tThe annual salary to be received by the Mayor may be changed shall be as provided by ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council; provided, no change in salary shall become effective prior to the commencement of the term of office next succeeding the term in which the change is made and then only in the event such change was approved prior to the general election for the next succeeding term.

It's healthy to be skeptical when something is called a "housekeeping amendment" as substantive changes are often smuggled in under that description, but this seems to be exactly that. It is useful to clarify that the vote to modify the salary involves the passage of an ordinance, as opposed to a Council resolution or some other sort of vote. As an ordinance, it would require not only passage by a majority of the full membership (five affirmative votes, even if some councilors are absent or abstaining) but also the mayor's signature. I will vote YES on Proposition 1. I hate to see the historical information deleted, because it's useful for comparing mayoral compensation to the cost of living increase since the charter came into effect in 1990. The amendment would be even better if it required approval of a salary increase at least 30 days prior to the general election -- enough time for the electorate to hear and consider before casting a ballot.

Proposition No. 2 would affect the residency requirements for city officers in Article VI, Section 7. As this is a wholesale replacement of text, it's going to be clearer to show old and new language side by side, rather than show insertions and deletions. Here's the current language, which includes some transitional language relating to an amendment to Article IV, setting the qualifications for City Auditor.

No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Mayor or City Auditor unless such person shall be a qualified elector and resident of the city at the time of filing for the office. 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 their term of office. The person elected City Auditor in the election held November 10, 2009, shall be eligible to hold that office and perform his or her duties, even if that person does not have the required certification, during the term of office beginning the first Monday in December of 2009. Thereafter, or in the event that person elected in November 2009 does not serve a full term, the person holding the office of City Auditor shall be required to comply with the certification requirements set forth herein. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Councilor for an election district unless such person shall have been a qualified elector and resident of the election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district. The requirement that a person shall have been a qualified elector of an election district for more than ninety (90) days at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that election district shall not apply to the election district held immediately following the adoption of an Election District Plan; provided, persons desiring to become a candidate for the office of Councilor for an election district shall be qualified electors of the election district at the time of filing for the office of Councilor for that district.

Here is the proposed new language:

A candidate for Mayor or City Auditor must have been a qualified elector and resident of the City for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident of that election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing. This requirement shall not apply to an adjusted election district which changed a candidate's residency to a different election district; provided, a candidate must have been a qualified elector and resident within their preexisting election district for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing.

The significant changes here are changing the residency requirement to file for city office from 90 days to a full year -- no parachuting into the district at the last minute to run for office. The term "qualified elector" is defined in Article III, Section 1, of the Oklahoma Constitution:

Subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may prescribe, all citizens of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years, who are bona fide residents of this state, are qualified electors of this state.

The only exceptions I can find are in 26 O.S. 4-101, which excludes felons who have not completed their sentence and the incapacitated from registering to vote.

The language dealing with adjustments to election district boundaries could be clearer. "Preexisting" is an odd word to use; "previous" would make more sense. Does "adjustment" apply to decennial redistricting, or does it only apply to the minor adjustments the Council is authorized to make to account for changes in precinct boundaries? I would drop the third sentence entirely and change the second sentence: "A candidate for City Councilor must have been a qualified elector and resident within the boundaries of the election district as defined at the time of filing for at least three hundred sixty-five (365) days at the time of filing." Alternatively, you could make a person in such a situation eligible to run either in his old district or his new district, which would work against a spiteful Mayor or City Council "adjusting" boundaries to forestall a challenge to one of their council buddies. In 2011, for example, such a provision would have allowed John Eagleton to run for re-election to his District 7 seat, even after Dewey Bartlett Jr's allies on the Election District Commission gerrymandered him into District 9.

While I like the longer residency requirement in principle, I'm inclined to vote NO on Proposition 2 and ask the council to try again with more precise language dealing with changes caused by moving district boundaries.

By the way, despite the deletion of City Auditor qualifications in this section, passage would not eliminate those qualifications, as they are also present in Article IV, Section 1.

Proposition 3 changes the term of office for City Auditor in Article VI, Section 1.2.B:

City Auditor. The terms of office of and the City Auditor elected in the year 2009 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2009, and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2011; thereafter, tThe City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years, with the following exception: the term of office of the City Auditor elected in the year 2013 shall commence on the first Monday in December in the year 2013 and shall expire on the first Monday in December in the year 2014. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Thereafter Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of two (2) years four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

Here's the proposed new text on its own:

City Auditor. The City Auditor shall serve a term of two (2) years until the election year 2026. Commencing with the election year 2026 and ever after, the City Auditor shall serve for a term of four (4) years, beginning on the first Monday in December, in the year 2026.

In a nutshell, the City Auditor's term will double from 2 to 4 years. The current auditor, Cathy Champion Carter, who was just re-elected because no one filed against her, will be up for re-election in 2024. One final two-year term will commence in 2024 and end in 2026, and then every term thereafter will be four years in length, elected in the cycle opposite the mayor. While we have yet to have a City Auditor play the adversarial role expected by the framers of the 1989 charter, and auditors have routinely won re-election with minimal or no opposition, citizens should not relinquish the ability to get rid of a bad city official promptly without having to go through a recall process. I will vote NO on Proposition 3.