Oklahoma Politics: March 2011 Archives

CORRECTION: I originally began this entry referring to a Steve Lackmeyer tweet about a Tulsa news story making his head hurt. Because the link he tweeted led to a "Latest News" page on the Tulsa Whirled's mobile website -- at least it did on the browser on my smart phone -- and the Tulsa County GOP convention was the top story at that time, I thought Steve was referring to that story. In fact, he was referring to a Whirled editorial about Tulsa mayor Dewey Bartlett's veto of a Council resolution rescinding the election for a charter amendment. My apologies for the misunderstanding, and here's the rest of the blog entry.

"This" was a web story by Whirled reporter Randy Krehbiel about Saturday's GOP convention. I'd love to give you my own report, but work prevented me from attending. Steven Roemerman was there, and I'm looking forward to a report on his blog at some point, but for now, all he had to say was that the 10-hour-long event gave him a headache.

John Tidwell, communications director for John Sullivan, tweeted the election results in real-time. To summarize (links lead to a tweet about the candidate or race):

Chairman: J. B. Alexander (stepping up from vice-chairman), by acclamation

Vice Chairman: Molly McKay (2010 nominee for HD 78, patent attorney), by acclamation
1st Congressional

District Committeeman: Don Wyatt over incumbent committeeman and former county chairman Jerry Buchanan, 180-145
1st Congressional

District Committeewoman: Donna Mills over Virginia Chrisco, 233-93

State Committeeman: Don Little over former State Committeeman Chris Medlock and Jeff Applekamp. First round was Medlock 113, Little 108, Applekamp 79; final result was Little 126, Medlock 121.

State Committeewoman: Sally Bell (stepping down as chairman) over Darla Williams, 221-79.

Many of the victorious candidates had the endorsement of Sally Bell. Bell's new job responsibilities wouldn't allow her to devote the time necessary to serving as chairman; state committeewoman involves quarterly meetings of the Republican State Committee in Oklahoma City and occasional meetings of the county party Central Committee and Executive Committee. (For what it's worth, I served as State Committeeman from 2003-2007.)

Krehbiel characterized the convention as a "move further to the right" and a defeat for the "moderate old guard." I don't think that's the case. The "moderate old guard" is pro-life (the pro-abortion Republicans left the local party 20 years ago), pro-2nd amendment rights, and (mostly) pro-limited government, and pro-lower taxes.

The real dispute is the role of the party organization with respect to elected Republican officials. The prevailing faction at the county convention believes that the party should hold Republican elected officials accountable for governing in accordance with the core conservative principles that they espoused when running for office.

The other side -- the "moderate old guard" -- takes the "stand by your man" approach. They don't disagree with the party's conservative core values, but in their view the party organization's job is to advocate for (or at least not to oppose) whatever policies a Republican elected official decides to pursue and should never publicly oppose something a Republican elected official or major Republican donor supports. For example, if the Republican members of the County Commission want to raise local taxes for a downtown arena or river development, the Republican Party shouldn't denounce them for promoting a tax increase, in their view, particularly if major donors support the tax increase too.

The dispute boils down to this: Principle vs. partisanship. Should the party organization back anyone with an R after his name, or should "protect the brand" by insisting that the R actually mean something?

Krehbiel's report mentions a resolution, to be presented at the state convention as an amendment to the state party rules, that would provide a means to censure Republican elected officials who deviate from the party's core principles. Here's the actual wording of the proposed state party rules amendment presented by newly elected Tulsa County GOP chairman J. B. Alexander:

Rule 10

(n) Party Support of Candidates and Elected Officials

In accordance with the framers original intent of the United States Constitution and in accordance with the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, the core values of the Oklahoma Republican Party shall consist of:

* Life - Life is the result of an act between one man and one woman and begins at conception and concludes at natural death.

* Second Amendment - The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of the individual citizen and government has no authority to regulate such right.

* Limited/Smaller Government - Government is instituted to oversee the general welfare of the citizens. Local, state and federal governments have reached well beyond that which is needed to carry out the basic functions of a constitutional government.

* Lower Taxes - Taxes and mandatory fees have grown to consume approximately fifty percent of an Oklahoma citizen's income. Drastic tax and fee reductions are needed at all levels of government.

Any member of the Oklahoma Republican Party State Committee shall have the right to present evidence of any elected Republican official who consistently works against and/or votes against these core values or publicly supports a candidate of another party.

After such evidence is presented, and a motion and second are made, the state committee shall take a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" of said elected Republican official. A two-thirds majority vote of members present shall be required for a passing vote.

I might quibble with the selection of issues, the wording, or the proposed penalties (really should be more specific and concrete, I think), but I commend Alexander for focusing on a few key issues, rather than demanding allegiance by officials to every point of the party platform, as past resolutions have done.

Count me on the side of accountability. I've always believed it was an appropriate role for the party organization to play, but especially now that Republicans have supermajorities in the Oklahoma House and Senate and every statewide office, we've got to make sure our elected officials aren't led astray by lobbyists looking for special favors. Some organization needs to apply the pressure to ensure that GOP campaign rhetoric turns into reality.

Oklahoma City is in the middle of its "non-partisan" elections, and someone is spending big money to influence the outcome:

Two groups directly or indirectly supported incumbents Salyer, ward 6, and Ryan, ward 8, and supported challenger Greenwell against incumbent Walters in ward 5. Sam Bowman not running for re-election in ward 2, Charlie Swinton received those 2 groups' favor in that ward.

The two groups were/are the Chesapeake Oklahoma PAC, which made direct contributions to the foregoing candidates' campaigns, and the Committee For Oklahoma City Momentum, a §527 group, which made no direct contributions to candidates but instead ran its own parallel campaigns to support its favored candidates.

Oklahoma City historian Doug Loudenback says that, although his preferences largely coincided with those implicitly backed by Momentum, he's concerned about the lack of transparency:

Instead, this article has to do with public knowledge of (1) who are those who form organizations to influence our votes, (2) how much they contribute, (3) how they decide who to favor, and (4) dirty-trick tactics used during campaigns that leave no footprints in their wake, i.e., public accountability.

Right now, we don't know (1) who the contributors to "Momentum" are, (2) how much they contributed, or (3) who made decisions about how the money got spent. There is every reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum is largely funded by some or several of the big moneyed interests in our city.

It's obvious enough that there's some project that someone wants pushed through. Perhaps they want to steer funding to a favored developer or general contractor. Control over the Core-to-Shore redevelopment area might be involved. Voters just gave city government a big pot of money to play with, so it would be worth investing money in a campaign to get control of it.

Perhaps they want to clear away urban design and historic preservation obstacles, the sort that slowed down the undevelopment of Sandridge Commons -- tearing down historic structures, like the India Temple building, which once housed the State Legislature, for a 1960s-style open plaza, the sort that has never worked as a public place. Historic preservation has played a key, but underappreciated, role in Oklahoma City's resurgence, while too many people believe that the city's momentum comes from magically transferring money from citizens to contractors and basketball team owners.

The style of the flyers is highly reminiscent of the work of consultants Fount Holland and Karl Ahlgren. The team also handled the Dewey Bartlett Jr for Mayor campaign. They are quite fond of the Impact font seen in the anti-Brian Walters flyer.

What's fascinating is that the Momentum group is using national politics in supposedly non-partisan city council races. We saw this in Tulsa, as Bartlett Jr's main campaign theme was that Democratic nominee Tom Adelson had given money to the Democratic Party and raised money for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. (Never mind that Bartlett Jr had lent his name to the reelection of Democrat Kathy Taylor, before her decision not to run for re-election.)

But in Oklahoma City, as Doug Loudenback points out, the Momentum group is using whichever ideological appeal will work in a given district, with no attempt to maintain consistency. In one district they attack an incumbent for being insufficiently conservative, linking him with Pres. Obama. In another district, they attack a challenger for being too conservative, and they approvingly link their preferred candidate with a liberal, openly homosexual state legislator.

Apparently, Momentum's bottom line solely relates to anticipated results. In ward 5, Momentum waved the ultra-conservative flag and said that Walters wasn't conservative enough, but in ward 6 it waved the moderate flag and knocked ultra-conservatives, a good part of ward 6 being progressive and moderate in its political makeup. Momentum's unprincipled approach is to do whatever it takes to win.

Loudenback notes a push-polling campaign against an opponent of a Momentum candidate for a race yet to be settled in an upcoming runoff.

I think we are likely to see this approach spread, sadly. The only remedy is for voters to bother to inform themselves and for grassroots candidates to work harder to get their message directly to the voters, one voter at a time. At the same time, we need stronger disclosure rules, rules that don't allow a flood of untraceable money to flow into a campaign in the last two weeks, after the pre-election filing deadline. Contributions and expenditures should be electronically reported all the way up until election day.

MORE: The Oklahoma Gazette has more about Momentum and the other groups trying to influence the Oklahoma City council elections.

RELATED, in an odd sort of way: I finally figured out why photos of Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett are a bit unnerving. It's that uncanny resemblance to wife-stomping western swing bandleader (and Oklahoma native) Spade Cooley.

I was not the least bit surprised at last Friday's announcement that Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin would not use her power to direct the Attorney General to investigate charges against Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. Gov. Fallin is the play-it-safe type. (One indication of that during the general election campaign: The campaign's teleconference with conservative bloggers featured Q&A with two press aides, but not the candidate herself.)

In her response to Tulsa City Councilor John Eagleton, Fallin scolded Tulsa leaders about the need to settle their disputes for the sake of economic development, even as she declined to do what is in her power to help them accomplish just that. If this dispute is " an obstacle to attracting new jobs to... the State of Oklahoma," then shouldn't a governor who promised to focus on jobs do what she can to eliminate this obstacle? Eagleton wrote Fallin precisely to ask her to move the problems with Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr toward resolution.

I don't know if Eagleton had this in mind when he wrote his letter to Gov. Fallin outlining Bartlett Jr's actions that warrant an Attorney General investigation, but I know Eagleton is a lifelong Presbyterian, and the idea of appealing disputes to a higher level of authority is deeply rooted in Presbyterianism, which in turn influenced the design of the American judicial system. In the Presbyterian form of government, if there's a dispute between the elders (the lay leadership of the congregation) and the pastor, it can be taken to the next level up -- the presbytery, a body made up of ministers and elders from churches throughout the area.

Taking the Mayor's alleged misdeeds to the Governor and the Attorney General is loosely analogous to appealing to presbytery. Theoretically it puts the dispute in the hands of officials who are somewhat removed from it. (Practically speaking, Bartlett Jr is much better known in statewide Republican circles than Eagleton, and Bartlett Jr was a $5,000 donor to Fallin's 2010 campaign for Governor.)

In her response, Gov. Fallin wrote, "Many, if not all, of your allegations involve violations of the Tulsa City Charter and Ordinances. I have been advised that Title 51 may only address potential state law violations." In fact, 51 O. S. 93 includes in its definition of official misconduct, "Any willful failure or neglect to diligently and faithfully perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by the laws of this state." It could be argued that, as all Oklahoma cities are creatures of the state, with powers defined and circumscribed by the Constitution and statutes of Oklahoma, an officer's failure to perform the duties required by a city's charter and ordinances constitutes a failure to perform the duties enjoined by the state's laws.

MORE: Mike Easterling of Urban Tulsa Weekly spoke to John Eagleton, several of his council colleagues, and GOP state chairman Matt Pinnell about Eagleton's motivations in pursuing the ouster of Bartlett Jr.

Eagleton, a Tulsa native and Oral Roberts University law school graduate, said there shouldn't be any doubt about why he's pursuing this course of action.

"The motivation is derived exclusively from the oath I took when I was sworn in to be a city councilor," he said. "If I had not taken that oath, I would not be doing this now. But I promised to defend the city charter, the city ordinances, the Constitution of Oklahoma, the statutes of Oklahoma, the Constitution of the U.S., the statutes of the U.S. against all comers. That includes elected officials who are not behaving in accordance with their oath of office. It breaks my heart to be on this evolution."...

"As I evolved in thought to reach the conclusions I've reached, it was really quite painful to realize that I was going to be going out on this and realize that there would be a collateral attack," he said. "Mistreating the messenger is always easier than defending the actions of the mayor. And I knew that I would be piñata-ed someway."...

[Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Matt] Pinnell was careful to indicate he doesn't blame Eagleton for stirring up trouble.

"He's doing what he thinks is right, whether people agree with him or not," Pinnell said. "I respect him for that."...

"I think he's a good man. I don't have an issue with Councilor Eagleton," said District 4 Democrat Maria Barnes, who got to know Eagleton when they were both elected to the council in 2006. She described Eagleton as a very serious person and said she likes the fact that she always knows where she stands with him -- even if it's on the opposite side of an issue, as has often been the case.

[District 2 Republican Councilor Rick] Westcott shares that assessment.

"There's no guile in John Eagleton," he said. "He is what he is. Like him or not, there's no gray area in John Eagleton's personality, and I mean that as a compliment. He is what you see."...

When he first got to know Eagleton, [District 9 Republican Councilor G.T.] Bynum said, he developed the impression that he was bombastic, very certain of his views and fond of using a flamboyant approach to conveying them.

"What's changed over time is I've developed an appreciation for the kind of thought that goes into those beliefs," Bynum said, though he noted that many people who don't know Eagleton well probably view him inaccurately as a shoot-from-the-hip type.

"I'm a great admirer of Winston Churchill, and I can't help but think that serving on a legislative body with Winston Churchill was a lot like serving with John Eagleton," he said....

I've known John Eagleton for close to 10 years, and my impressions of John line up with those of his colleagues. There is no hidden agenda with John Eagleton. He is pursuing ouster -- a complicated process with a low probability of success -- because he feels it is his duty as a city official.

Congressman John Sullivan was the lone House member from Oklahoma to vote against H.J.Res. 48, the latest short-term continuing resolution, designed to continue funding the government in the absence of an actual budget. Sullivan issued this statement:

Enough is enough, the American people didn't elect us to continue kicking the can down the road with week to week spending bills that pacify Senate Democrats and the White House - they elected us to end the spending spree in Washington. We cannot continue forcing our government to operate on week to week measures, when the problems we face require serious long-term solutions. No one wants to see a government shutdown, but President Obama has been completely absent from the debate, and his lack of leadership in finding common ground ultimately shows his actions don't match his rhetoric, and regaining fiscal sanity is not on the top of his priority list.

The Federal Government is now nearly halfway through the fiscal year without a budget. A budget should have been in place before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2010; at the time both houses of Congress had large Democrat majorities.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Capitol, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has proposed an additional $20 billion in cuts in S. 493, in the form of seven amendments to the small business appropriations bill. Coburn's cuts include duplications identified in the GAO report and subsidies for ethanol (an "alternative energy source" that consumes more energy than it produces and drives up world food prices by diverting corn from guts to gas tanks):

Coburn has posted on the web a 31-page, heavily footnoted, and detailed description (PDF) of the cuts Coburn proposes and the rationale behind each. A few selections from the section on ethanol subsidies:

Consumers pay $1.78 per gallon of subsidized ethanol-blended fuel. Meanwhile, U.S. biofuels consumption remains a small share of national transportation fuel use--7.5 percent in 2012 and 7.6 percent in 2030

Ethanol burns at two-thirds the efficiency of gasoline (68 percent of the energy content of gasoline), ultimately increasing fuel consumption nationally as drivers and boaters are forced to burn more fuel to travel the same distances.

Increases of corn used for fuel production puts pressure on corn prices, demand for cropland, and the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have raised the price of many farm commodities (such as soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food--USDA estimates 40 percent of last year's corn crop will be used for ethanol production....

According to CBO: The increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.

In turn, that increase will boost federal spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program) and other child nutrition programs by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in FY 2009." These domestic nutrition programs comprise over 60 percent of the farm bill....

Emira Woods, Chairperson of Africa Action said, "In the midst of a global food crisis and rising hunger, the ethanol industry expropriates land in Africa and elsewhere to grow food that fuels cars. We applaud Senators Coburn and Cardin for introducing legislation to end this shameless subsidy."...

[According to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences] "Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to 'dead zones' in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the academy's Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent."

The redistricting committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives has set up a redistricting webpage with some interesting summary data that they will use to redraw the lines for their chamber of the State Legislature.

They provide a very helpful link to the U. S. Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Office, where you can download population data (down to the block), maps, and shapefiles for GIS.

The Oklahoma House redistricting page also has spreadsheets summarizing population changes between 2000 and 2010 for each county, State House district, State Senate district, and congressional district, and maps illustrating State House district population change and deviation from the ideal population (state population / 101).

Five of the 10 districts which are farthest below the ideal are in midtown and north Tulsa: 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78. (Three of the districts have been held throughout the decade by Democrats.) They need to be expanded in area to grow by 4,000 to 6,000 population. Three districts in the top 10 that need to lose people are on the suburban fringe of Tulsa County: 74 (Owasso), 98 (Broken Arrow), and 75 (southeast Tulsa, north Broken Arrow). The area of brown on the Tulsa County map (shrinking districts) corresponds roughly to the Tulsa Public Schools district boundaries.

There are a couple of possible solutions to balance the population of Tulsa area districts. One would be to expand the central districts out further, cutting into areas currently in suburban districts that need to lose some population. The other possibility would be to eliminate one of the central districts -- perhaps 70, since incumbent Ron Peters is term-limited, or the oddly-shaped 78 -- split it up among the other central districts, and then recreate the district somewhere in the suburbs. This is how HD 98 was reborn in 2001 -- transplanted from the western suburbs of Oklahoma City.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin's press office emailed me with the first in a planned series of monthly columns along with her official press portrait, a high-resolution 2400x3000 JPEG image. Her first column is on saving tax dollars by consolidating administrative and IT among state agencies and moving to electronic billing.

The portrait is lovely, and I'd like to share it with my readers, but as my template only allows about 500 pixels in width, I can't share it with you all at once. Taking a page from the Johnny Cash songbook, I'll post it one piece at a time, over the next month or so, left to right and top to bottom in 500x500 pixel chunks. Here's part one:

Here's the Governor's inaugural column:

Headline: "Time to Modernize our Government"

By Governor Mary Fallin

Over the course of this prolonged national recession, Oklahomans and Americans everywhere have been called on to make sacrifices. They've balanced their budgets by tightening their belts, and they have found creative, sometimes difficult, ways to live within their means.

Government is not immune to the recession, nor should it be exempt from the kind of sacrifices that Oklahoma's families and businesses have been making for several years.

Going into Fiscal Year 2012, our state government is facing a $500 million shortfall. Balancing the budget will require difficult decisions and budget cuts.

Originally, those budget cuts were estimated to be as high as 8-10 percent for every agency. While not impossible to absorb, those kind of deep reductions would certainly have a real impact on agencies dealing with public safety, health, and education. I am proud to say that, through the use of innovative cost-saving measures, my executive budget has reduced those cuts from 8-10 percent to a much more manageable 3-5 percent. That's an enormous difference, and it's one that allows us to trim government waste and tighten our belts without jeopardizing the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets or the health of our citizens; if, that is, these reforms are adopted by the Legislature.

Many of our proposed reforms are just common sense, like moving the state from paper to electronic billing. Everyone knows that it is wasteful to have one government agency print, write, and mail a check to another government agency rather than transfer that money with a few clicks of the mouse.

Other changes involve consolidating administrative and information technology services, so that multiple agencies can share the same support personnel. The Legislature has already taken strides to implement these consolidations, which have the potential of producing over $100 million in savings annually, and they should be applauded for it.

The budget includes a host of other proposed consolidations and changes, all of which are designed to allow government to perform its vital functions while operating in a more cost-effective manner.

As you might expect, not all of these changes are easy to make or popular among the directors of government boards and agencies. Change can be difficult, and we can expect any challenge to the status quo to be met with resistance.

That resistance will always be headed by individuals who, however well-intentioned, do not want to see a change to business-as-usual and oppose our attempts to make government smaller, smarter and more efficient.

That is their right. But it is our right as citizens to demand that our government make smart, sometimes difficult choices, rather than once again kicking the can down the road and burdening taxpayers with unnecessary expenses.

If the Legislature passes the modernization reforms proposed in my budget, the state of Oklahoma stands to save roughly $286 million annually. That money allows us to close the budget gap without big cuts in vital government services. It brings our government out of a 20th century model and into the digital era and it allows our public employees to better serve our customers, the people of Oklahoma.

In the following weeks, it's my great hope that the Legislature will pass these reforms, get them to my desk, and work with me to deliver the kind of state government the people of Oklahoma deserve.

Most Tulsa County Republican precinct organizations will hold precinct elections tomorrow, Saturday, March 5, 2011, at 10 a.m. (There are a few exceptions.) Any registered Republican voter is eligible to attend and vote in his precinct's election, at which precinct officials for the next two years and delegates to this year's county GOP convention are elected. The precinct meetings will also consider resolutions for inclusion in the county platform. While platform planks are often about national and state issues, it's certainly appropriate to address city and county issues in the platform as well (even if it gives Republican elected officials fits).

Click this link for the list of 2011 Tulsa County Republican precinct elections.

If you don't know your precinct number, visit the Oklahoma State Election Board precinct finder.

Urban Tulsa Weekly gave its cover story spot this week to Oklahoma Observer publisher Arnold Hamilton. It's called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Republican Galaxy," but it's all about how poor lefties like radical pro-abortion, anti-religion activist Barbara Santee and homeschool hater Jim Wilson will survive Republican domination of the Sooner State.

Hamilton notes the transformation that has taken place over our state's first 103 years:

Less than a century ago, Oklahoma was known as a hotbed of the populist-progressive movement, embracing politics so radical, so anti-corporate, so anti-establishment, so pro-little guy that it's almost incomprehensible when compared to 2011.

What Oklahomans have figured out, although it took a while, was that progressivism doesn't work. A progressive constitution of the sort Oklahoma was born with is the governmental equivalent of designing a plane without due respect for the laws of gravity and aerodynamics. It's the political version of the old hobo anthem, "The Big Rock Candy Mountain." Oklahoma's progressivism has held us back, as our neighbor to the south as zoomed ahead as one of the most prosperous and fastest growing states in the union

Hamilton seems to forget that the progressivism for which he waxes nostalgic was thoroughly racist. The same solons who framed our "progressive" constitution took up Jim Crow laws as their first legislative priority.

Hamilton says that Oklahoma is now "reliably red, corporatist Republican," but I think he's mistaken to use the adjective corporatist. Oklahoma Republicans are mainly populists, at least at the grass roots level. Corporatists will always flock to and seek to influence the dominant party, whichever it may be, and the newly elected Republicans will have to resist pie-in-the-sky promises of economic development for special tax credits and subsidies held out by their fair-weather friends in the corporate welfare world.

The coping strategies suggested by the lefties that Hamilton interviewed include ignoring local news, watching liberal TV fantasies ("The West Wing") like some lovelorn spinster reading Harlequin paperbacks, drinking heavily, and leaving the state.

State Sen. Jim Wilson says he may retire to Vermont, after drowning his sorrows in tequila (worm included). That's a fine idea, and I hope many of his left-wing compatriots follow his suggestion. If you'd rather not live in a state committed to the free-market principles and traditional mores that made America great, there are plenty of other options out there.

As Tommy Duncan sang, "If you don't like your bunk, pack up your junk."