The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

As reported in today's Tulsa World

Irked mayor bolts meeting

by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
5/20/2009 3:39:10 AM

Mayor Kathy Taylor walked out on a City Council committee meeting Tuesday after being interrupted while trying to discuss the Tulsa Stadium Improvement District.

"Councilor (Bill) Martinson, I would sure like to finish a sentence," she said. "I know you don't want me to, but I would like to, if you don't mind."

Martinson responded, "I do mind because I want to make sure ."

Cutting Martinson off, Taylor said: "OK, when you want to treat the Office of the Mayor respectfully and you want to submit to me a question in writing, I'll put together a response."

She then gathered her belongings and walked out.

"Well, they've dodged another issue," Martinson said as Taylor left.

After the meeting, Taylor said the type of behavior continually displayed at committee meetings will not be tolerated by her or her staff members when they appear before the council.

Martinson said he was frustrated because nobody would answer his questions.

The discussion involved an increased assessment fee on downtown properties that is scheduled to go into effect July 1 and whether the city will continue to provide supplemental funding for services.

The increased fee will continue to fund services such as street cleaning and landscaping but also will fund $25 million of the downtown ballpark construction costs.

The assessment now raises about $500,000 for services alone, and the city supplements that with a cash payment of $429,000 beyond its share of the assessment fee.

The new fee will raise $1.1 million for the services portion of the assessment.

Taylor said after the meeting that the city no longer will continue its $429,000 cash contribution.

Downtown Tulsa Unlimited, which provides the services, sent a letter April 29 to the mayor and council asking about how much would be available. The letter also states that state law requires a municipality to provide the same level of services it was providing before authorizing a district. In 1978, the city chose to make a cash payment in lieu of services which were provided by Downtown Tulsa Unlimited.

Martinson asked several times during the meeting what the city planned to do.

"The city, one way or another, either needs to kick in the nearly $500,000 or needs to provide the services it hasn't been providing that it was paying for," he said.

Taylor said confusion exists about whether the city's "voluntary" supplement for services is required. She said it's not.

Martinson appeared agitated that his question about what the city would provide in lieu of its cash payment wasn't being answered.

"If you're saying the city isn't going to kick in any more money, we've shifted the responsibility to the business owner," he said.

Taylor said the city is providing substantial services downtown, such as planning, street improvements, landscaping and more police security.

The new assessment district was created by the council last July, but the council has yet to approve the assessment roll that allows for the fees to be collected.

In a separate discussion, it appeared that some councilors were not persuaded to move forward Thursday on approving the assessment roll.

They discussed waiting for a pending opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the assessment district, which they were told likely would be ready in early June.

Officials expressed concern that that would not allow enough time to finish the assessment documents and begin collecting fees July 1.

But Councilor Rick Westcott stressed the need to wait for the opinion.

"A wrong decision made timely is still a wrong decision," he said.

Assistant City Attorney Bob Edmiston said that if the attorney general's opinion comes back negatively for the city, it would give "greater merit to a lawsuit" by one of many property owners contesting its assessment fees.

Councilor David Patrick said, "It may be better to do it right the first time."


While I will assume that the agenda item was brought forward for disussion and the Mayor was asked to make comments, I would also assume that those comments led to questions that required answers so that the Council had the neceassary information to move on with the assessment role.  I will reserve any opinion of either Councilor Martinson's or Mayor Taylor's actions until I can watch the replay that starts tonight at 6:00PM.

But what causes me concern here is that Taylor is essentially saying the level of service that has been provided in the past will be dramatically reduced as a result of the City not making a payment in lieu of services as it has done for the last 30 years under the old Main Mall assessment.  This is not what had been promised...what was promised was that all within the IDL would now enjoy the same level of service that had been provided to only a small area the closer they were to the Main Mall. 

There was never any discussion in moving the assessment district forward for approval that the City would not be paying what it had allocated over the last 30 years. 

The legal matters involved seem to regard state statutes as informed by DTU. 

Now if Martinson was asking pertinent questions and not getting direct answers, I can see a cause for frustration.  If the Mayor was actively and directly answering the questions and being cut off, then that was wrong too.  But again, I will wait to make a definitive opinion either way until I see the replay.

This did not help the Mayor's position in trying to get approval this Thursday of the Assessment rolls btw.

Wow.  Martinson grows a set and Her Honor reveals herself to be an overstressed, thin-skinned tyrant!  You go, Bill!

Would be great if there was an online news source that would publish stuff like this outside of the World.  But alas, independent journalism is dead in this town, huh?

Martinson was wrong. He asked the question three different ways even though the answer was given the first time. When the Mayor tried to be clear in her answer, he cut her off mid-sentence. She asked him to allow her to answer, he was rude back.

He should apologize.

This was not about funding or budgets or city business. This was about the Councilor being rude. It has been happening over and over. The council sub-committee meetings have become Councilors attacking city employees, volunteers serving on boards, etc.

Why is rude behavior acceptable?  

Every time I've ever met Martinson (I met him at the BOK Center grand opening and at Ikes anniversary party) he came across as an obnoxious doosh.  This isn't surprising to me in the least.

Cry me a river! The Princess cannot handle an awkward conversation? She just expects absolute obedience and deference? Give me a break!

Your views on proper etiquette have caused you to be banned from this forum before.

I'm glad someone else noticed that. I thought that maybe I was the only one.

Speaking of obnoxious dooshes Tim.....

You are a real tight butt.  FOUR YEARS later you are still bringing up this!! Get a life! AND I WAS INVITED BACK!

You don't have to shout.

I like you. I think your opinions are fun. But you have been known to get out of control.

P.S. stop looking at my butt.

But it is sooooooo . . . well, you know.  But with you it looks like I should watch mine, too! Ha ha! Mucho amore, mi amigo!

I think it is sad that instead of responding at all to the thread that, again, I become the topic.  I am not flattered.

So, Tim, you think council committee meetings should be conducted like a Fox talk show? You really wanted her to cut him off at the knees on recorded TV so you could then say she was a shrewish, overbearing nit? Its not obedience and deference, its respect. TV journalists on talk shows are self aggrandizing idiots who play for ratings. We expect more from elected officials.

He's running for her job. She knows it, everyone knows it who is paying attention. Did you see him respond to the Fox reporter over the overblown councillor/mayor parking "issue"? Are those the cajones you want for mayor?

I have not seen the video, have you? It sounds like a heated discussion but what kind of leader is that thin-skinned? Princess! Lots of people get on my nerves on this board but I have never let it dissuade me or go take my marbles and go home, especially if I was an elected official.

"If I were...." is easy to say till you're in the position and everyone is targetting you for something And using this board as an example of your tolerance isn't quite analagous. I can read, I trust that our local media is not totally corrupted and no one has stepped forward to dispute the reporting. You seen anyone dispute the account?

Do you ever remember LaFortune being interrupted in such a manner? Inhofe? Savage? Any elected mayor in Tulsa? And I repeat, if she had responded in kind you wouldn't have called her a Princess you would have called her a nag. She loses by your estimation either way.

It's not about thin skin, it's about having a productive conversation. If a person won't let you finish a sentence when they ask you a question, continuing the conversation (or meeting) is useless and a waste of everybody's time.

Well, H2, it is all you have so there.  I am not in the bag for Martinson or have it in for the Mayor either way, but I would remind you that the World is the lead in framing the Mayor as the antagonist.  The article was not framed as Councilor disrupts meeting, or Mayoral candidate harasses Mayor, or anything like that.  She let Martinson get under her skin.

One lousy interruption? When the responder is being evasive?  That sounds normal? Something else was going on is what it sounds like to me.  But then I am a stupid head.

Evasive and normal are not easily determined. Well, lets put it this way. If a speaker who signed up for the Council meeting bluntly interrupted a councilor and then smart talked back to them when they objected to his style, do you think the councillors would be receptive to the speaker? Or do you think they would admonish him as to decorum? Why then would a mayor have to endure such treatment by a councilor?

Simple questions.

I've been in this situation before so I can identify with the mayor. I however did not have the option to walk out of the meeting where i was being badgered by a no manners blow hard. It took every ounce of self control not to put them in their place or not to get angry.

Based on the story in the paper I think the mayor handled the situation as politely as she could and she got out before she lost her cool.

That's putting it nicely.  Pick (oops left out the "r") is more like it.  Ask him sometime about why he thought his $2 billion street package was the only solution and watch him avoid a straight answer.  Call him on it and he gets real pissy.  He hates Mayor Taylor and I think doesn't show much open-mindedness in dealing with her.

Exactly Waterboy.  Try that treatment with Martinson and see what that hot-head does. 

Not sure if that is a good analogy.  I know nothing.  Like who is chairing the meetings.  If a speaker was disruptive in the meeting - a public meeting - I am sure we would just tase him, bro and get on with it.

I am not going after the Mayor yet.  The paper said she was upset, not me.  Sounds like Martinson has some issues, too bad the Mayor is not deft enough to make that the story instead of her own pissantedness.

(http://www.hogansheroesfanclub.com/images/tvGuide06may1967p16SchultzPictureLarge.jpg)

Niiiiiiiiice! I love you, man!!

Wasn't the first time she's stormed out of some meeting, and won't be the last.

Okay...maybe a show of hands as to has actually seen the meeting that was at 8:00 yesterday morning or replayed at 9:00 last night? 

I have alsready spoken to several people that watched, none were too amused by either party but did respect Martinson for apparently calling the Mayor to task for avoiding a direct answer.  This would not be the first time.  I dont know this for fact, I will watch tonight and reply after i have witnessed it for myself. 

If the Mayor was attempting to provide a direct answer, then I will say Martinson was wrong.  I know Bill Martinson, I have both admired and condemned his work on the council but will go so far as to say that no two people always agree on everything, if we did, it would be a much simpler world. 

To publicly attack him as being a dude without having walked in his shoes, sat in his meetings, seen the information he has simply because of his views is...well, pathetic.  Just say you dont agree with the man and leave it at that.  Or provide an example as to why he is wrong for doing something or asking questions. 

BTW I have been told that Martinson may not be running...but either way, its speculation.  Do we base today's events on tomorrow's speculation?

This issue is a legitimate cause for concern and therefore questioning...there is no better forum than a publicly televised meeting in which to ask the question and expect a direct answer so that as many may know for fact. 

We will be waiting on pins and needles for your latest post trashing the mayor.

Couldn't disagree more. You see the critical point as being her not answering his question. Doesn't matter to me. Shouldn't matter at all. Being civil and understanding your role as a servant of the people so that constructive work can be accomplished is the critical point.

Poor baby. He didn't get an answer, couldn't understand the nuanced answer or didn't like the answer, so he plays the boorish talk show host. Shows a lack of sophistication on his part. There were avenues he could use, including the media and forums like this to complain about his questions being unanswered. Or, he could keep asking it in different ways till he got some satisfaction like congressman do. But no, he grandstanded.

If you mean publicly attack him for being a 'doosh' and walking a mile in his shoes, Martinson is a businessman and first and foremost should know that first impressions mean EVERYTHING.  In this case, the second impression I got was about as 'dooshy' as the first.;

M'kay, just like the objectivity you show for the Mayor right?

I have watched it twice now.

I usually support the Mayor (and if not, remain silent) on these things, but I am no Martinson hater. I live in his district and supported him last time. I even put signs in my yard for him (and many of you know how I much I detest signs). For me as a lifelong democrat to do that for a republican councilor was hard, but I believed in him then.

I am disturbed about the civility in these meetings. I watch every one of them on television and lately, they have been very rough on city employees and volunteers willing to serve on boards and authorities.

I thought Martinson was over the top this time. The Tulsa World has it written correctly...The Mayor answers, the Councilor asks the question again and when the Mayor tries to answer him, he interrupts her. Then this is said...,

"Councilor (Bill) Martinson, I would sure like to finish a sentence," she said. "I know you don't want me to, but I would like to, if you don't mind."

Martinson responded, "I do mind because I want to make sure ."  

The Councilor should apologize. It would go a long way in getting me to like him again.

Hey, at least Martin was not screaming at Her Honor!  She was very very understanding when Commissioner Miller was screamed at by a constituent during the River Tax fracas.  As I remember it she actually sat down and held the hand of the crybaby making the disturbance.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851

now, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, what channel are these proceedings broadcast on?  And how would I go about getting the schedule of the broadcasts?

http://www.tgovonline.org/TGOVonline.org/Home.html

I usually watch the council subcommittee meetings on tape on Tuesday night. They are on at 9pm.

I do think it odd that the video I linked above demonstrates someone SCREAMING directly at the Mayor and Miller and when I brought that up here, folk bent over backward to characterize the event as speaking loudly.  Now, with folk not even seeing the video of Martinson he is automatically guilty.  Weird.

hmmm. Could just be you. Didn't seem weird to me. Different circumstances.

Well call you crazy...

Point is she is the same.  She did not even say, 'Excuse me, sir, you are out of order'  in the River Tax fracas. She just sucked it up.  What is it about Martinson's question that bugged her so much?

So H2O who was chairing that meeting? Whoever was should have stepped in.  If Martinson was acting in violation of Council rules then he should be reprimanded.  Otherwise I expect the Mayor to suck it up and get ugly.

Leaving a meeting curtly when someone is obviously using it to badger you is not so uncommon and has dramatic effect as witnessed by so many comments. He made his point, she made hers. Perhaps she wasn't adequately prepared, perhaps she simply behaved like many intellectual leaders who prefer avoiding conflict if it isn't necessary or helpful. Or perhaps she just didn't want to play his game. Maybe they just don't like each other. Its all believable.

Oh, and yes, I think the chairman of the committee meeting was clueless as to their responsibility or it happened too quickly.

Yeah, well, I do not like the way you are responding so GOOD BYE! SLAM!

Fortunately for us no one expects much professionalism or civility on forum boards. :)

The question was (if I understand correctly) where is the $500,000 coming from and where is it going to.  That is all Martinson wanted to know.  Those two simple little questions never got answered.

Channel 8 reports the Mayor answered those two questions when they asked her.  The response, "The general fund allocation won't be paid this year." 

Does that answer the question for anyone?

how true, how true, especially this board.

All of this "back and forth..... he said, she said" is concealing the more important items mentioned by Ms Lasseck's article...

---

---

Just a shot in the wind, but I suspect tempers have become a little "testy" for more than just being interrupted.

OK, is Lassek still with the Tulsa World? She's been there since before I left the area!

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0509/624698.html

MAYOR WALKS OUT ON COUNCILORS

'Several Tulsa city councilors say they are still in shock after Mayor Kathy Taylor walked out of a committee meeting.
'The mayor says it happened when she was interrupted by one of the councilors while trying to explain the new stadium improvement district coming to downtown Tulsa. In a nutshell, the City is no longer going to contribute a half million dollars to a fund for special downtown services. It will now be part of the new Stadium Improvement District.
'Councilor Bill Martinson wanted to know where that money was going. But, in the end, he upset Mayor Taylor. Martinson wanted to know how much the City would be contributing to the ballpark fund for downtown services. The mayor proceeded to explain, but after fifteen minutes, and the question asked several times over...
'"Councilor Martinson, I would really like to finish a sentence," Taylor said. "I know that you don't want me to, but I'd really like to if you don't mind."
"I do mind," Martinson replied. "Because I..."
But, he was cut off in mid-sentence.
"Okay, if you want to submit a question to me in a writing, I'm not, I won't take that..."
Mayor Taylor eventually walked out of the room.
Councilor John Eagleton says the mayor was not answering Councilor Martinson's questions.
"If the question is where is the money coming from and where is the money going, I expect a clear answer to that question," Eagleton says. "We still don't have a straight answer."
'But, when we asked the mayor the same question, she gave us a straight answer.
"The general fund allocation won't be paid this year," Taylor said.
'As for walking out of the meeting?
"I think there have been issues over the last six months both where I've appeared and some our city employees have appeared where the dialog has not been respectful," she says. "And I felt like it was important yesterday to make that statement."
'But, Councilor Rick Westcott says it's just the opposite.
"The City Council feels disrespected by the mayor of Tulsa," he says.
'It seems all anyone can agree on is that they need to stop disagreeing.
We also spoke with Councilor Martinson by phone, who says he never meant to disrespect the mayor. He says he felt like his question was not being answered directly. He says he still does not have that answer.
'Right now, the council is waiting for an opinion from the state Attorney General on the legality of the new stadium assessment fee. Mayor Taylor has put the issue up for a vote on Thursday's agenda. Councilors have until July first to approve it.'

#    #    #

So the Mayor fillibustered for fifteen minutes is how I read this.  Kudos to KTUL!  Seems as if Westcott and Eagleton - two Bar-certified loyyahs - felt that the Mayor was not redirecting or answering the question.  If this were testimony would that qualify as contempt?  Walking out is contemptible on its face, but then to use that tired 'let me answer' when there is not an answer forthcoming shows poor executive skills.  Sorry she is used to folk just catering to her but that is why this is a story.

Why was this even made an issue? The council and mayor have been struggling for king of the hill since the charter was changed. Well, we need something and someone to chatter about. Might as well be her.

And strange that Wilbur was able to determine that the money was not going to be paid by the city anymore (Surprise! Low tax receipts>no money for the bills) but Westcott and Eagleton couldn't read the writing on the wall? Do they not see budgets? Forecasts? Untill they admitted they knew what was up. Rico alluded to squabbles behind the scenes that the Mayor spoke of. I think they knew and wanted her to say it as clearly as possible to be used as ammo for political purposes. If legal processes stop the Drillers stadium, now that's a story.

We don't need this stuff hung on the clothes line. They made their plays and made their points.

Since the council system has been installed they have reserved the right to question a speaker that was not making a closed presentation where they are presented with a copy before the speaker begins.  At the present the Mayor is not a employee of the city therefore appears as a commoner before the council with a deep conflict of interest.  Under such conditions the councilors have a duty to question the speaker as a representatives of the people.  IMO only.

Actually, Shadow, she is still an employee, just an unpaid employee. However, I think they should question anyone presenting to them, yet still retain some decorum.

Fifteen minutes her 'sentence' went on! Must be one of them German sentences!  Sounds like the right honorable councillors showed remarkable restraint!

The councilors all looked like they just watched dad slap mom at the dinner table.

Check the wage hour code on who is a employee.   Check the IRS code on expense accounts for volunteers.  Check the charter on salaries of elected employees.  Check issuing revenue bonds before they are approved by council.  Check the natural gas company on assessing the rate payers hidden in the bills for naming rights.  Check  on the spirit of the code that would require an employee mayor before there can be a volunteer mayor. Check on family interest as a beneficiary of the construction of the ball park.  The list could go on and on under failures to recognize the citizens rights.   IMO

That's a lot to check on. Might take awhile. But I assume you're contending that she can't be an employee yet you hold her responsible for a lot of mischief. She must be a witch then. Her powers over others are immense. How else could she do such damage as a mere citizen?

Waterboy:
After four sessions with the IRS when an expense account becomes compensation and having spent years in the labor movement along with being native born in the city, I am seeing the elitist abort the citizens rights after taking over absolute control.   In the promotion to amend the charter it was presented the strong mayor would be controlled by the council being able to approve such strong mayor submitted budget.  The items in question, that the mayor refused to answer and left the meeting indicates that charter was being held in default.  By simple reasoning it was obligatory on the councilors to question the submission of an incomplete budget, in constant change, before its approval.  The same conditions could exist like the air lines deal passed by a hand picked committee that would dare question the 7M payment on which the budget shortage is reflected in the future furloughing of 4K city employees.

A bouquet of roses to the councilors who would stand up to their obligation.

Click on the icon of books and read “employee” as it defines one.