Tulsa Election 2023 Category

Originally posted on August 1, 2023. Post-dating to August 8 so it remains at the top of the page through election day. A previous entry has a just-the-facts discussion of the four August 8 bond issue and sales tax propositions.

Here are seven reasons to vote no on all four City of Tulsa ballot propositions at the special election next Tuesday, August 8, 2023:

1. Two-and-a-half years too early: The proposed sales tax may not go into effect until January 1, 2026.* A lot can change in two years and five months. Economic and global circumstances two years from now may be very different -- just think how different the world was two-and-a-half years ago -- and our priorities may change with those circumstances. We shouldn't commit nearly a billion dollars in spending so far in advance, nor should we start borrowing (and paying interest) on revenue that's two-and-a-half years in the future.

2. Hamstringing the next mayor and council: The proposals block the ability of new city officials to pursue capital improvements to implement their election platforms. A new mayor and city council will be elected in 2024, but the August 8 proposals lock up funding for capital improvements until 2030, after the end of the next mayor's term of office in 2028. It's selfish on the part of lame duck mayor GT Bynum IV, who is not running for re-election, to lock in spending priorities for his successor. There's plenty of time before the current tax runs out for the new mayor and council to decide on a new package. The new officials will have 10 months after taking office in December 2024 to put together a package and put it before the voters.

3. Too vague: $162 million is "itemized" for "citywide" but unspecified lists in broad categories -- streets, sidewalks, alleys, ADA implementation (whatever that means), bridge replacement. This list of vague citywide items includes traffic engineering, which is not a capital improvement but an operational responsibility, and project engineering inspection and testing, which in the past was always priced into individual projects as essential to any construction project. In the original 1980 "third-penny" sales tax vote and its early successors, specific intersections, bridges, widening projects, water and sewer lines, etc., were listed in the sales tax ordinance or general obligation bond issue, committing the city to specific projects with definable costs. It was possible to see whether or not funding was going to the most urgent needs and whether all parts of the city were given due consideration. These vague "citywide" line items don't give the voters anyway of telling whether we're being offered good value for money or whether contractor profits are being padded.

We also don't have specifics on nearly $80 million, divided between Proposition 1 and Proposition 4 for "Additional costs for completion of previously approved street projects listed in Improve Our Tulsa Proposition No 1 approved at an election held on November 12, 2019." Which projects overran? How much does each project require for completion?

Besides the "citywide" and "additional costs" items, many other line items are vague and undefined; some of them are outlined below.

4. $75 million for undefined "housing initiatives": When government sets out to solve a social problem, the money is wasted and the problem gets worse. $22 trillion was spent during the first 50 years of the War on Poverty, and there are more people dependent on government than ever before. The city wants $75 million to solve the homeless problem but they won't tell us how they will spend that money, not even why they think $75 million is the right amount to ask for.

The money will be spent in accordance with the recommendations of the Housing, Homelessness, and Mental Health Task Force, a group of the usual suspects and yacht guests that includes exactly one person who might have some direct experience dealing with homeless people.

The people in charge of our city government and the philanthropocrats** who control them see human beings as mere animals, automata that respond to stimuli in predictable ways. Their thinking goes that if you provide the proper environment and nutrients, people will thrive, just like plants do. That way of thinking leads to the arrogant belief that enough government money can fix anything: "If we can put a man on the moon" -- solve an engineering problem using the unchanging laws of physics and chemistry -- "we can end homelessness" -- a complex set of human tragedies that find their explanation in spiritual truths denied by the philanthropocrats and their minions.

The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, informed by a Biblical anthropology, understood that all human beings are created in the image of God and as such have inherent dignity and worth, but also that all human beings are marred by the Fall, and inclined by nature to selfishness and evil, which requires the internal restraint of the Holy Spirit, a conscience externally restrained by the social pressure of a moral society, or, as a last resort, the threat of state violence to prevent violent evil.

Christian ministries like City of Hope Outreach and John 3:16 Mission have helped homeless people successfully leave the streets and rebuild their lives, because they begin with a true understanding of human nature. Materialist philanthropists and social service agencies, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot hope to address the problem and will likely only enable more of the self-destructive and societally destructive behavior they claim to be able to stop, if only they had enough money to spend.

5. Gilcrease Museum held hostage: Bynum IV & Co. are demanding another $7 million in "matching funds for improvements." In 2016, Tulsans approved $65 million to renovate Gilcrease Museum. In 2020, we were told that it had to be demolished and rebuilt. (Bynum IV chief of staff Blake Ewing wrongly claimed at the Tulsa GOP forum that we didn't know until the museum was closed that demolition was necessary. In July 2021, the doors closed for what we were told would be three years. In March 2023 we were told that more money was required, and recently we were told that the museum won't be open to the public until 2026. Bynum IV & Co. will have deprived an entire generation of Tulsa students of the opportunity to visit Gilcrease Museum during their high school years.

Like the proverbial car dealer who throws your keys on the roof and won't get them down until you buy a new car, Tulsa mis-leaders are demanding more money before they'll let us enjoy the priceless collection of artwork, artifacts, and historical documents that we, the Citizens of Tulsa, own. They don't deserve any more trust when they've already betrayed us over and over again. To earn our trust, the first step is to reopen Gilcrease, and put our collection back on display, with the money they already have in hand.

6. PAC in danger: Now City Hall mis-leaders want $55,790,000 for "Tulsa Performing Arts Center - facility renovation, infrastructure, loading dock improvements, safety and ADA improvements." This is more than half of the money for specified projects in Proposition 2. Given our experience with Gilcrease Museum, I would expect a similar bait-and-switch:

1. Tulsans approve funding for PAC renovations
2. Mis-leaders "discover" "serious problems" requiring demolition (or gutting)
3. PAC closes with a promise to reopen in three years
4. Mis-leaders "discover" a need for more money to reopen
5. Construction delays keep PAC closed for two more years

I believe that Tulsa's mis-leaders wanted a new building for Gilcrease all along***, just like they wanted a new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge, and I strongly suspect they want a new PAC, but they know they cannot convince the voters to approve demolition of a beloved landmark or the full cost of the new facility. So they will deceive Tulsa voters, and if voters are stupid, they will fail to learn anything from past behavior and will let themselves be deceived once again.

Do we want to go for five or more years without a venue for Broadway theater, symphony, ballet, and opera? Until they deliver a new Gilcrease Museum to our satisfaction, we shouldn't trust Tulsa's mis-leaders with another precious cultural institution.

7. Millions more for a toxic lake: Work on the Zink Dam isn't complete yet, and the City wants another $3.5 million (per Proposition 2 in the bond issue resolution) or $5 million (per public statements) for "Zink Lake - infrastructure." Blake Ewing said during the Tulsa GOP forum that this was for parking lots, but when I asked where the document was that spells this out, I didn't get an answer. Meanwhile, Tulsa citizens have unanswered questions about toxic chemicals seeping into the lake from ground water under the refineries, past and present, along the river. Ewing dismissed these concerns as a "political, fun, fun hot button thing to get upset about."

In May 1979, Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one.

Thanks to Jesse Rodgers and City Elders for the logo at the top of the page.

A dialogue pertinent to the August 8, 2023, City of Tulsa special election:

"Homeless problem in Tulsa seems worse than ever and all over the city, not just downtown."

"Don't worry, GT has a plan."

"What's the plan?"

"$75 million."

"To do what?"

"We don't know yet."

"How do we know it will cost $75 million?"

"We have matching funds and other money totaling $104.2 million."

"That's an awfully precise amount for an undetermined plan."

"Top men will tell us how to spend it. Top. Men."

"When will we find out how it will be spent?"

"After you vote to give us the $75 million."

A friend with experience in this realm says that $75 million could probably fix homelessness (except that some will always choose that way of life) IF it was being used by groups that do things right -- that means working one-on-one and slowly with individuals to address their REAL needs. But it won't.

The city ordinance setting out the policy for spending the sales tax money says it will be spent in accordance with the recommendations of the Housing, Homelessness, and Mental Health Task Force, a group of the usual suspects and yacht guests.

Under the "Improve Our Tulsa 3" plan, my friend notes, the people who will be allocating and spending the $75 million are the same people who stuffed a couple hundred people into a hotel on Garnett for 6 months, indiscriminately. People who lived there reported that drugs, prostitution (including coerced prostitution), rape, and gang activity were rampant. A large number of those residents were eventually housed, but many are back out on the streets, some after two or three trips through the housed/homeless cycle. Every time the non-profits get someone housed, the non-profits get money, so they cycle people through. Landlords let people live out the lease, collect the subsidized checks, then they issue a non-renewal notice the day that lease expires. The people are back out on the streets and back on the wait list for housing after having to reapply. The landlord raises the rental price, and they all repeat the process again. That will burn through the $75 million. A few cheap units might be built, but they'll become havens of drugs and crime and prostitution and trafficking.

$75 million for failed homeless strategies (which they won't disclose before we vote) are on the ballot today, Tuesday, August 8, 2023, part of a special election in the City of Tulsa. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Four propositions, three general obligation bond issues and a new 0.95% sales tax, are on the ballot. The Republican Party of Tulsa County has officially come out in opposition to all four propositions, as has independent City Councilor Grant Miller, the only elected official with the courage and wisdom to refuse to send this poorly crafted package to the voters.

Just before 5 p.m. Monday, I received an email from the Tulsa Performing Arts Center, a public trust for the City of Tulsa, urging me to vote yes. I am fairly sure this is illegal, but because it was done at the last minute, any protest or penalty will come too late to undo the effect it was intended to have. The email claims, "As a part of that package, the TPAC would receive nearly $80 million," but the package only includes $55,790,000 for the PAC (Proposition No. 2), and it seems reasonable to fear that the same bait-and-switch that was pulled for Gilcrease will be pulled for the PAC: They'll get this money, then claim they actually have to demolish and rebuild, and then will come back and demand more money and more time; meanwhile Tulsa's orchestral musicians, opera singers, and ballet dancers will be without a place to perform for the next 5 to 10 years. No, thanks. You can read all seven of my reasons to vote NO here.

MORE: For those wondering about the memes on this page: Underpants Gnomes, Gru's Plan.

The Tulsa County Republican Party has officially come out in opposition to the four City of Tulsa propositions for sales tax and general obligation bonds on the August 8, 2023, ballot ("Improve Our Tulsa 3"):

Republican Party of Tulsa County Takes Stance on
Improve Our Tulsa 3 Bond Package
Tulsa GOP is asking voters to Vote No on August 8th

TULSA, OK (08/02/2023)

On August 8th, the City of Tulsa is asking all residents to vote on the Improve Our Tulsa 3 bond package. We love Tulsa; however, Improve Our Tulsa is the wrong approach at this time. It is vague and unvetted by the citizens. This package is being rushed when we have over two years to renew the current tax. Our biggest concerns about this package are the $75MM for UNDEFINED housing initiatives in the housing package, additional funding for the Gilcrease Museum, and the uncertainty with Zink Lake. Should this package be passed, the next Mayor will be hamstrung with the responsibility of implementing something he or she had no part in creating. How is this fair for our next Mayor?

We should learn from our history, in May 1979 Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one. (batesline.com)

These are just a few reasons why the Republican Party of Tulsa County is asking you, the Tulsa voters, to VOTE NO on ALL FOUR propositions on August 8th because history tells us..... WE. CAN. DO. BETTER.

MORE: District 5 City Councilor Grant Miller explains why he voted against sending the package to the voters:

The mayor continues to dismiss the real and valid concerns of Tulsans claiming that people who don't like the idea of not having a plan for $75M of spending on homelessness or want answers regarding chemicals in the river before spending millions on a recreational area are "...just folks, like Councilor Miller, who object to things for the sake of objecting to them." (Link in comments). We can do better than the Mayor's package and come up with something that actually works for Tulsa, instead. And there is absolutely no reason to rush into this. We have more than enough time to go back to the drawing board according to Chief of Staff, Blake Ewing. Everything is and will be funded through 2025. So why did the Mayor say it would be a disaster?! He knows that's not true. Dismissing Tulsans' very serious concerns is terribly arrogant.

Here's the link to Councilor Miller's comments on KRMG.

UPDATE: The Tulsa County Republican Party hosted a forum on the August 8 vote on Thursday, July 27, 2023, at 6 p.m., at the Embassy Church, 7100 E. 31st Street. The panelists included City Councilors Christian Bengel and Grant Miller, Mayor's Chief of Staff Blake Ewing, and me, Michael Bates. Darryl Baskin moderated the discussion and provided a live stream, which is archived on his TulsaLiveEvents.com Vimeo channel.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023, on a day when there is nothing else on the ballot, on a day when only 14 jurisdictions across the entire State of Oklahoma have an election, City of Tulsa voters will be confronted with four ballot propositions, one to enact a new sales tax, and three for new general obligation bond issues. Combined, voters are being asked to approve $815,415,000 in new capital spending, not counting bond interest and fees.

The "temporary" 0.95% sales tax would go into effect when the current 2021 Miscellaneous Capital lmprovements Temporary Sales Tax (approved in 2019) expires on December 31, 2025, or earlier if that tax raises $193 million before that time. Based on my tally of sales tax revenues since the Improve Our Tulsa 2 tax went into effect, and assuming a 5% increase in revenues year-on-year (which is based on recent numbers), we might hit $193 million collected in October 2025, boosted by the increase in the Improve Our Tulsa 2 tax rate from 0.45% to 0.95% in July 2025. Even so, it means that we will vote on a tax and the list of projects to be funded more than two years before the tax goes into effect. Why so early? Why not wait at least until a new mayor and council take office in November 2024 and have had time to assess priorities and re-estimate project costs?

The new sales tax would expire on June 30, 2030, with no provision for an earlier expiration if receipts are better than forecast. If the new sales tax is defeated, Tulsa's overall city sales tax rate would be 2.7% and combined state, county, and city sales tax rate of 7.567%. If the new sales tax passes, the overall city sales tax rate would be 3.65%, an increase of 35.2%.

On the jump page, the ballot language for the four propositions, the ordinances and resolutions approved by the City Council for each, and the list of projects for each:

Some thoughts on the April 4, 2023, school board and municipal results, from my live-tweet thread. (ThreadReaderApp unroll here.)

At 7:36 pm, early results in the Tulsa school board election came from 4 of the 18 precincts in District 1, all east of the river (and thus incumbent Stacey Woolley's home turf). Woolley led Jared Buswell 366 to 67, also dominating absentee and early voting, 160-29. At that point in the Bixby election, only absentee/early votes were in, with incumbent Matt Dotson leading Julie Bentley, 79-42.

In Tulsa and Bixby, challengers Buswell and Bentley were running on platforms supporting transparency and parental rights and opposing obscene materials in school libraries.

At 7:50 pm, we were still waiting for three big west-of-the-river precincts to report, but Woolley's home precinct was also yet to come in. Woolley was leading 865-359. Buswell won the two working-class precincts on the west end of Chas Page Blvd, but not downtown-adjacent neighborhoods, like Owen Park, The [formerly Brady] Heights, and Crosbie Heights.

By 8:00 pm, Woolley had won her home precinct, North Maple Ridge & Swan Lake, 412 to 80. Buswell won the precinct encompassing Red Fork and Carbondale, including Webster HS, 132 to 61 -- dominating but by a smaller percentage and with a much lower turnout.
Buswell won his own precinct (720123), but only 100-72. Woolley won the old West Tulsa precinct, just across the river from downtown. That precinct includes the Westport Apartments and a great deal of public housing. The only precincts yet to report were the Gilcrease Hills precincts in Osage County; those also went to Woolley.

There were upsets, but not in the high-profile Tulsa and Bixby school board races. In Berryhill, challenger Danny Bean defeated incumbent Doc Geiger, 170-76. Tracy Hanlon defeated incumbent Rusty Gunn for a seat on the Sand Springs school board, 289-220. Jerald Freeman defeated Skiatook city councilor Joyce Jech, 98-77.

In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma's 4th largest city, Mayor Debra Wimpee had a good night, even though she wasn't on the ballot. Her endorsed candidates won in all three council races. Adding this election to the 2021 results, the entire council is composed of her allies. Vice Mayor Christi Gillespie won a rematch against longtime councilor Mike Lester, the incumbent she beat in 2019. Challenger Joe Franco beat incumbent Scott Eudey. In the at-large council seat, incumbent Johnnie Parks survived with 45% of the vote. William Vaughn improved his 2019 performance with 36%, but voters opposed to Parks split their votes with two other candidates once again. Some conservative organizations backed George Ghesquire, who finished third.

The award for the lowest turnout in any Oklahoma election went to the Town of Ochelata in Washington Co., which had only 10 voters. There were two propositions on the ballot that each tied 5 votes for, 5 against. The propositions were to decide whether the Town Clerk and Town Treasurer would become offices appointed by the Board of Trustees, rather than elected. Ochelata has 279 registered voters. The Town of Avant in Osage County also voted whether to appoint Town Clerk and Treasurer, and the votes also were tied 8 to 8 for both propositions, but there are only 186 voters, so they managed 8.6% turnout!

Biggest turnout was for a regular election was for a seat on the board of the Indian Capital Tech Center -- 8,029 votes over 4 counties and parts of 4 more. Challenger Mark Walters defeated incumbent Scott Chambers, 4,158 to 3,871. Ascend Action was the consulting team supporting Walters's campaign.

The biggest turnout of all was for the Oklahoma County special election for County Clerk. Republican Marissa Treat (wife of State Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat) won 52% to 48%, with a total vote of 42,410.

Last results of the night came from Washita County. All precincts in the state had reported by 9:35 pm.

As I was tweeting, I was periodically refreshing the Oklahoma State Election Board results page, which brought to mind a number of suggestions for improvements, which I tweeted out @OKElections (but with no response):

• A visible permalink for each race, so I don't go all the way back to Achille when I'm refreshing the Tulsa results. This would also make it easier to point people (via Twitter and elsewhere on social media) directly to a specific result of interest.
• Make it possible to look up sample ballots without needing the name and birthdate of a voter in that jurisdiction. Right now there is no simple way to see the ballot title for a proposition in another jurisdiction except to find a voter in that jurisdiction and plug his/her name and date of birth into the OK voter portal.
• Put geographical name first in the list of entities, e.g. "Broken Arrow, City of," "Ochelata, Town of," so that all municipal elections in the results list sort by geographical name, as is the case for school districts. I don't always remember whether a municipality is a city or a town.
• Group local results by type of jurisdiction. Right now, the city and town results are mixed in alphabetically with K-12 and technology center school districts. All results for cities are between Cimarron Public Schools and Colcord Public Schools, and all results for towns are between Tonkawa Public Schools and Tulsa Public Schools.

The day after the election, the Tulsa Whirled decided to report on a Tulsa Public Schools audit finding involving $364,000 in questionably legal contracts. Although the report had been discussed in the TPS board meeting on Monday night, the Whirled delayed reporting on it until it was too late to inform voters deciding whether the school board president deserved another term. TPS board and administration deserve some blame as well -- the open records request wasn't answered until Wednesday morning. The report from the audit firm is dated March 30, 2023, the Thursday before the election.

April 4, 2023, is general election day across Oklahoma for school board races and for municipalities that use the default forms of municipal government established by state statute. Many cities with city charters that define a customized government structure still use the default dates for city elections. As is all too typical for local elections, many races failed to draw more than one candidate.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. To find your polling place and take a look at sample ballots, visit the Oklahoma State Election Board's voter portal.

Four Tulsa County school districts have school board races on the ballot. For Tulsa Office No. 1, incumbent Democrat Stacey Woolley faces Republican challenger Jared Buswell. For Berryhill Office No. 3, Danny Bean vs. Doc Geiger. For Bixby Office No. 3, Julie Bentley vs. Matt Dotson. For Sand Springs Office No. 3, Tracy Hanlon vs. Rusty Gunn.

Three Broken Arrow city council seats are on the ballot: Mike Lester v. Christie Gillespie in District 3, Scott Eudey vs. Joe Franco in DIstrict 4, and four candidates for the at-large council seat: George Ghesquire, Sonjia J. Potter, William Vaughn, Johnnie D. Parks. One Bixby city council seat, Monica Rios v. Ken Hirshey. One Skiatook seat: Joyce Jech vs. Jerald Freeman.

Below is a list of candidates running in Tulsa County school board and municipal elections. The name as it appears on the ballot is followed by the name under which the candidate is registered to vote, the party of voter registration, age as of election day, and then a list of web pages and social media profiles related to each candidate:

School Board seats

Except in the Tulsa school district, voters anywhere in a school district can vote in the election for any school board seat, regardless of election district. In the Tulsa school district, only voters in Election District No. 1 may vote.

Tulsa Public Schools, Office No. 1:

• Jared Buswell (Jared David Buswell), R, 39, 1860 W. 58th St.: campaign website, personal FB, campaign FB.
• Stacey Woolley (Stacey Ryan Woolley), D, 47, 1110 E. 20th St., incumbent: campaign website, personal FB, campaign FB.

Berryhill Office No. 3:

• Danny Bean (Daniel Earle Bean), R, 42: personal FB
• Doc Geiger (James Conrad Geiger), R, 73, incumbent: personal FB

Bixby Office No. 3:

• Julie Bentley (Julie Lynn Bentley), R, 52: personal FB, campaign FB.
• Matt Dotson (Matthew Ray Dotson), R, 42, incumbent: personal FB.

Sand Springs Office No. 3:

• Tracy Hanlon (Tracy Anne Hanlon), R, 42: personal FB
• Rusty Gunn (Rusty Don Gunn), R, 45, incumbent since 2013: personal FB

City Council seats

Three Broken Arrow city council seats are on the ballot. Under the statutory charter, registered voters from anywhere in the city can vote in all races. In Bixby, only residents of Council District 3 may vote; incumbent councilor Paul Blair is not seeking re-election. Under Skiatook's city charter, registered voters from anywhere in the city can vote in all races.

Broken Arrow City Council Ward 3:

• Christi Gillespie, (Christi D. Gillespie), R, 53, incumbent, vice mayor: personal FB, campaign FB.
• Mike Lester (Michael Edward Lester), R, 75, former incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB

Broken Arrow City Council Ward 4:

• Scott Eudey (Scott Riley Eudey), R, 49, incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB
• Joe Franco (Joseph Dale Franco), R, 45: personal FB, campaign FB

Broken Arrow City Council At-Large:

• George Ghesquire (George Camiel Ghesquire III), R, 54: personal FB, campaign FB
• Johnnie D. Parks, R, 75, incumbent: personal FB, campaign FB
• Sonjia J. Potter (Sonjia Juanita Potter), R, 76: No social media or website found
• William Vaughn (William Daniel Vaughn), R, 49: personal FB, campaign FB

Bixby City Council, Ward 3:

• Ken Hirshey (Kenneth Loyd Hirshey, Jr.), R, 63: Oklahoma Environmental Quality Board website, company website
• Monica Rios (Monica Joi Rios), R, 48: personal FB, campaign FB

Skiatook, Ward 3:

• Jerald Freeman, R, 85: personal FB
• Joyce Jech (Joyce May Jech), R, 77, incumbent: campaign FB

Endorsements:

If I could vote in the TPS Office 1 race, I would vote for Republican challenger Jared Buswell. Buswell, a member of Asbury Church, serves as chairman of the board of Favor International, a Christian ministry working in war-affected areas of Africa -- specifically northern Uganda and South Sudan -- to relieve suffering, proclaim the gospel, build churches and Christian leadership, educate, build community infrastructure, and train to empower economic development. Buswell has been involved with Favor since 2012 and has helped to build Favor's donor base from $300,000 to $6 million per year. Buswell also has a business called Look Inside Tulsa, which uses 360-degree spherical photography to provide VR views of home and building interiors. Originally from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he came to Tulsa in 2001 to attend Oral Roberts University and has lived in west Tulsa since 2007.

His opponent, incumbent Democrat Stacey Woolley, has presided over the continued decline of Tulsa Public Schools, which badly underperforms the rest of the state by every measure. The Whirled's endorsement is inadvertently damning. The Whirled says that, "Among her top accomplishments is refocusing school meetings to student achievement and simplifying operational votes to a consent agenda." This was a move against public transparency and accountability: Last July, the consent agenda was used to hide the board's acceptance of a grant from a non-profit funded by the Chinese Communist Party; it was only exposed because board members E'Lena Ashley, Jerry Griffin, and Jennettie Marshall voted against the consent agenda as a whole.

The Whirled also applauds Woolley for "help[ing to] update the superintendent's evaluation, making it among the nation's few based almost entirely on student outcomes." If that's so, why does Deborah Gist still have a job, when student outcomes continue to be abysmal? And yet Woolley has repeatedly voted to extend Gist's contract.

Election District 1 includes all of the Tulsa school district west of the Arkansas River, plus downtown Tulsa, the neighborhoods along Charles Page Blvd west of downtown, the southern portion of Gilcrease Hills, Brady Heights, Pearl District south of 6th Street, Tracy Park, Swan Lake, North Maple Ridge, and Riverview. Like most of his prospective constituents, Buswell lives west of the river, in a modest home valued by the county assessor at $119,221, located in Woodview Heights near 61st and Union. Woolley lives in the wealthiest neighborhood in the ward, North Maple Ridge, in the extreme eastern extent of the district, in a home valued by the county assessor at $585,301. It is a sadly frequent redistricting technique to gerrymander a few exclusive neighborhoods into an otherwise working-class, middle-class district, so as to maximize the number of the connected and wealthy on an elected board or council.

In the Bixby school board race, I would vote for challenger Julie Bentley over incumbent Matt Dotson. Bentley is a certified teacher who has taught 13 years in the Bixby district and is the mom of a current Bixby High School student. Dotson appears to be a subservient rubber stamp for superintendent Rob Miller, who has expressed his contempt for concerned citizens who speak at board meetings. Dotson refused to take a firm stand against inappropriate books in the curriculum and the library, preferring to invest total confidence in the district employee he's supposed to be holding accountable. (Miller's blog View from the Edge, which he ended in 2017, shortly before he was hired as Bixby superintendent, reveals his hostility to public accountability for the performance of public schools.)

Endorsements from conservative groups:

• Tulsa County Republican Party: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Bixby Parents Voice: Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Moms for Liberty: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3).
• Oklahomans for the Second Amendment (OK2A): Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3); Christie Gillespie (Broken Arrow Council 3), Joe Franco (Broken Arrow Council 4), George Ghesquire (Broken Arrow Council At-Large). William Vaughn (Broken Arrow Council At-Large) also had an A-rated survey.
• Oklahomans for Health and Parental Rights: Jared Buswell (Tulsa schools, Office 1), Julie Bentley (Bixby schools, Office 3); Christie Gillespie (Broken Arrow Council 3), Joe Franco (Broken Arrow Council 4). George Ghesquire and William Vaughn in the Broken Arrow Council At-Large election each had an A-rated survey, but OKHPR did not endorse in that race.

The incumbent and challenger in the Tulsa School Board District 1 race have each raised over $50,000 according to campaign contribution and expenditures reports filed with the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk.

As of the March 20, 2023, close of the pre-election reporting period, Democrat incumbent Stacey Woolley had raised $51,798, while Republican challenger Jared Buswell had raised $58,643.

Woolley's donor list includes contributors connected with the foundations whose influence has propelled Tulsa Public Schools toward its abysmal academic performance. Maximum $2,900 donors include the Lynn Schusterman Revocable Trust, the Stacy Schusterman Revocable Trust, Frederic Dorwart (attorney for the George Kaiser Family Foundation and related entities), and Philip Kaiser (son of George Kaiser). George Kaiser made a personal donation of $500. Big Democrat donors George Krumme and Burt Holmes also gave maximum donations. Attorney Robert A. Curry gave $1,500 in aggregate, and Joseph Parker Jr. and Robert Thomas each gave $1,000. Employees of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, the George Kaiser Family Foundation, Tulsa Community Foundation, Zarrow Family Foundations also appear on Woolley's list of contributors. Other notable names include left-wing Democrat Tulsa City Councilors Laura Bellis and Lori Decter Wright, former Democrat Mayor M. Susan Savage and her ex-husband Grant Hall, Democrat State Reps. Melodye Blancett and Suzanne Schreiber (also a former school board member), and Democrat former school board member Cindy Decker, head of GKFF-backed Tulsa Educare. "Friends of Shawna Keller," the campaign committee of the east Tulsa school board incumbent defeated a year ago by E'Lena Ashley, gave $1,000 to Woolley.

Republican challenger Jared Buswell raised $57,643.55, including $6,573.55 in in-kind contributions. Buswell received maximum $2,900 contributions from H. Michael Krimbill, L. Avery Krimbill, Christie Glesener, Tom Culver, and Vivienne Culver. The latter two contributions were in-kind as office rent reductions. Buswell received several large PAC contributions: Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC), $2,350; Women Working for Oklahoma PAC, $2,000; Oklahoma Realtors PAC, $1,000. Other lare donors include Brian & Pauline Robinson, $2,500; Kent Glesener, $2,500; Rob Prulhiere, $2,000; Julia Sublett, $2,000; Suzanne Behr, $1,500; Frances Fleming, $1,500; Michael Phillips, $1,500 (including $250 in-kind for yard signs); Jody Tell, $1,200; Matthew Watson, $1,000; Ken Sellers, $1,000; Thomas Carruth, $1,000; Michael Ross, $1,000; Reed Downey Jr, $1,000; Alvin Loeffler, $1,000. Former District Attorney Tim Harris, who ran unsuccessfully for the District 7 board seat last year, contributed $250 to Buswell. Buswell reports giving $2,750 to his own campaign, plus another $349.48 in in-kind contributions, purchasing push cards, yard signs, and other printing for the campaign.

The initial set of documents sent by inquiries@tulsaschools.org in response to my Open Records request did not include the full list of Woolley's contributors. Melissa Remington of Tulsa Parents Voice observed that the sum of itemized contributions in Schedule A was over $30,000 less than the reported contribution total. Remington also noticed that the list of contributions abruptly ended on January 17, 2023, despite a well-publicized fundraiser hosted by Democrat former Mayor Kathy Taylor and Democrat State Rep. Monroe Nichols on February 16. Remington called the discrepancies to the attention of Woolley, the school board clerk, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, and others.

Remington and I subsequently received an update to our separate open records requests from Emma Garrett-Nelson, whose email signature gives "pronouns" "(she/her/hers)" and describes herself as Executive Director of Communications & Strategy, with the following statement: "We uncovered a glitch in our Adobe PDF reader that we've since addressed, so please use these rather than the files we sent you on March 28. This is everything responsive to your request." The attachment was an oddly-formatted report of contributions only, in which the page header appeared at different places on the page and contribution amounts appeared in a variety of font sizes, including unnecessarily small. The original version was clearly a scan of the filed hardcopy report, complete with the Tulsa Public Schools "RECEIVED" date stamp. The new contributions-only report has no scanning artifacts -- text is selectable and there are no date stamps.

The explanation of "a glitch in our Adobe PDF reader" doesn't fit the evidence. In the original version there are no indications that the reverse sides of pages were not scanned or that consecutive pages were missed by a scanner. An explanation more consistent with the evidence is that the Woolley campaign failed to submit a complete report by the deadline, whether or not accidentally.

This raises a concern with the current process. The "Executive Director of Communications & Strategy" is likely to depend on the goodwill of her boss, Superintendent Deborah Gist, for her continued employment. She would have some incentive to help cover over the mistakes of an incumbent candidate who has been an unquestioning supporter of her boss. It would be best for all concerned if all campaign ethics reporting, for every office and proposition in every political subdivision at every level, were through the Oklahoma Ethics Commission's Guardian system, rather than forcing citizens to make open records requests to access campaign filings that should be accessible to the public the instant they are submitted.

To its credit, for the first time in a long time the Tulsa Whirled reported on the pre-election ethics filings, but reporter Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton failed to notice the discrepancy in contributions and didn't find any significance in the maximum donations to Woolley. The Whirled reporter found it interesting that current school board member E'Lena Ashley contributed to Jared Buswell's campaign, but not that former board members Suzanne Schreiber, Cindy Decker, and Shawna Keller (via her campaign fund) did.

FILES: The following are the files provided by the Tulsa Public Schools district clerk in response to my open records request. I have run each through optical character recognition and changed file names to improve consistency and searchability.

• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Jared_Buswell-2022Q4.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Jared_Buswell-2023-PreElection.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2022Q4.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2023-PreElection-Original.pdf
• Ethics-Tulsa-School-D1-Stacey_Woolley-2023-PreElection-Contributions-Revised.pdf

Tulsa County Republican Chairman Ronda Vuillemont-Smith is seeking a second two-year term in that office. During her first term, Ronda built a record of success in advancing Republican principles and Republican candidates.

I first met Ronda sometime around 2010, as she became active in local politics through the Tea Party movement, founding the Tulsa 9/12 Project to help promote the restoration of America's founding principles to government at every level. In 2012, Ronda and I were part of the coalition that defeated the county "Vision 2" tax increase. I proudly endorsed her in her first run for Tulsa County GOP chairman back in 2015, a race she lost by a slim margin.

In my 2015 endorsement, I wrote this, which I feel even more strongly today than I did then.

In a state where Republicans are overwhelmingly dominant, Democrats are not the chief threat to the implementation of Republican policies. The biggest threat comes from Republicans who wear the name but don't understand or adhere to the principles the party professes. They may simply be corrupt or self-dealing, or they may be liberals who have realized that registering Republican is their only hope of winning.

From Capitol Hill to City Hall, the actions and inactions of elected Republican officials have made the activists who helped them get elected wonder what, exactly, was the point of their exertions.

In such an environment, the role of party leadership must shift. When a party is a minority or just beginning to dream of majority status, you will gladly take any elected official who will bear the (R) after their name. But in our current environment, we need party leaders who will protect the Republican brand, who will be a voice for the grassroots party activists to counterbalance well-heeled lobbyists.

Ronda Vuillemont-Smith has shown herself willing to confront Republican elected officials when they need it. She's also shown herself to be a skilled and experienced organizer. That's why, if I were at this morning's Tulsa County GOP Convention, Ronda would have my vote.

Ronda has had numerous successes in her first term as chairman, but she knows that there is more to be done to build a party organization that successfully turns out the Republican vote and that builds our bench and at the same time improves local government by helping conservative Republicans win non-partisan races for city council and school board.

A leader, even a highly skilled organizer like Ronda, can only take on a handful of projects of reform and improvement at one time while still successfully executing the routine duties of the office -- running precinct meetings and county conventions three out of every four years, rallying volunteers for voter turnout, fielding questions from the media, providing resources to Republican candidates, keeping the office staffed, running county conventions, and raising money to keep all of these activities going. Tulsa County Republicans would serve themselves and their cause best by reelecting Ronda Vuillemont-Smith as Tulsa County GOP chairman.