Steve Roemerman has an entry on his blog today regarding Bartlett and his association with Tulsans for Better Government.
Interesting read.
http://www.roemermanonrecord.com/2009/10/was-bartlett-member-of-tulsans-for.html (http://www.roemermanonrecord.com/2009/10/was-bartlett-member-of-tulsans-for.html)
Hmmm, a clueless mayor. Sounds like LaFortune all over again.
Thanks Wrinkle, I'm glad someone found it interesting.
If one attended the council meeting when DB was a member one could get the idea that he possessed the crown of a King and the citizens were his subjects. If one liked the present mayor way of handling the city as a business then you got the man available. Thirty more years of indebting the city without a vote.
I try to keep track of what I sign up for.
Talk about a guy with not enough going on at work. Hope he makes better use of his next three years here.
Were these Tulsans for Better Government some sort of nefarious gangsters or mortgage brokers or something? Or is their only crime that they hailed from midtown and supported downtown development? I was around when the city changed its charter. They needed to. At least one at large councilor does not seem too outrageous to me. Maybe an independent could actually be elected.
And, I live in midtown and support downtown development. If that puts me in a crowd that republicans can't stomach, please let me know.
waterboy, so you think that midtown does not have enough representation, and that they need at least one more councilor? Interesting.
If you will permit me to quote Greg Bledsoe, "This council-packing scheme must be called for what it is,-an undemocratic, ill-advised plan to return power to the traditional elite who fear an active and energized electorate."
The end game for this idea was to have lopsided mid town representation; this is why the opposition to at-large councilors hailed people from all over Tulsa, not just Republicans.
Quote from: sroemerman on October 26, 2009, 02:51:16 PM
"active and energized electorate."
I don't have alot to add to this but I will point out "active and energized electorate"... in Tulsa?
Good luck finding 1 in 20 people around Tulsa that have any idea what is happening around them. Even if you do, they'll think the river projects are about building islands or some sort of flying monkey god or elephant Satan is taking over at the zoo.
Dammit, I'm tired of paying my hard earned tax money on the dog parks and I better see the roads getting fixed before anything else is being done around here.
We might need to find an educated electorate before we can count on having an active and energized one.
I just want to know where FOTD was today. I was counting on him to call the Tulsans For Bitter Government a bunch of "C-Streeters".
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2009, 03:10:13 PM
I just want to know where FOTD was today. I was counting on him to call the Tulsans For Bitter Government a bunch of "C-Streeters".
bump
Quote from: sroemerman on October 26, 2009, 01:34:49 PM
Thanks Wrinkle, I'm glad someone found it interesting.
You're welcome. I read your blog often, even used to post once in awhile anonymously, but....you know.
btw, wasn't Tulsan's for Better Government also behind the councilor recall effort, and comprised of many not-so-Tulsa 'Tulsans'?
With Republicans like Bates and Roemerman, Bartlett doesn't need enemies. :D
Quote from: sroemerman on October 26, 2009, 02:51:16 PM
waterboy, so you think that midtown does not have enough representation, and that they need at least one more councilor? Interesting.
If you will permit me to quote Greg Bledsoe, "This council-packing scheme must be called for what it is,-an undemocratic, ill-advised plan to return power to the traditional elite who fear an active and energized electorate."
The end game for this idea was to have lopsided mid town representation; this is why the opposition to at-large councilors hailed people from all over Tulsa, not just Republicans.
So you say.
Why do you assume that midtown would benefit most from an at large councilman? Especially when midtown is outnumbered by suburban voters? Its a great opportunity for an unknown, non party affiliated visionary to take a seat at the table. I could see some possibility for interesting alliances as well. You see conspiracy by unknown elitists. Sad.
I don't know Greg Bledsoe, and pardon my impudence, but why should I? He has his opinion, I have mine. I truly don't understand why there is so much hatred from you folks about midtown, downtown and the river. We pay for your dang expressways, turnpikes and miserably designed neighborhoods and rarely complain about them because we seldom visit them. Can't you indulge us our walkable neighborhood fantasies without calling us all fearful, undemocratic, traditional, elites? Geez, most of us aren't even sure if we're in midtown, uptown, downtown or what.
You make this seem like a real issue. It confirms my suspicion of Bartlett's weakness that he would take you seriously.
The real issue here is not whether you agree or disagree with Tulsans for Better Government. If you believe the blog (definitely a legitimate if--it is just a blog), Bartlett appears to be completely ill-informed about issues facing the city. You could be for or against the group, but to not even recall the push for the at-large council shows a incredible lack of engagement in the city's affairs. I would expect the average citizen to not recall the at-large push, but not someone who hopes to be in charge of the city. That's like the POTUS not knowing that he was listed as a member of Moveon, nor knowing what Moveon represented when questioned. At a local level, I would say that Tulsans for Better Government is at least as controversial as Moveon. Like LaFortune, Bartlett seems be stradling the fence, hoping to remain above the fray, when ultimately he only appears indecisive and uninvolved. I would much rather have a mayor who voted his convictions--even when I disagree with those convictions--than a mayor who simply votes based upon whomever spoke to him last.
Quote from: pmcalk on October 26, 2009, 08:00:38 PM
The real issue here is not whether you agree or disagree with Tulsans for Better Government. If you believe the blog (definitely a legitimate if--it is just a blog), Bartlett appears to be completely ill-informed about issues facing the city. You could be for or against the group, but to not even recall the push for the at-large council shows a incredible lack of engagement in the city's affairs. I would expect the average citizen to not recall the at-large push, but not someone who hopes to be in charge of the city. That's like the POTUS not knowing that he was listed as a member of Moveon, nor knowing what Moveon represented when questioned. At a local level, I would say that Tulsans for Better Government is at least as controversial as Moveon. Like LaFortune, Bartlett seems be stradling the fence, hoping to remain above the fray, when ultimately he only appears indecisive and uninvolved. I would much rather have a mayor who voted his convictions--even when I disagree with those convictions--than a mayor who simply votes based upon whomever spoke to him last.
He's either clueless or careless.
Good points. Take it a little further: It's not like he's been politically inactive. He ran against Adelson in 2004 for State Senate and he's been a frequent go-to guy in the media when they've wanted opinions on civic matters. You'd think a guy who was an original councilor and ostensibly was behind the movement to end the commisioner form of government would still kep tabs on what they are trying to do with the council form of government. He's served on various boards in the community as well. How
could you be so clueless if you are a part of the local poltical goings-on or careless enough to loan your good and visible name to a group that you don't fully understand what it is they do?
"Son, fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life"
(http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/6d10345ec2c692722f48dc2d2d0ab432.gif)
If you go back and look at all the publicity on this issue (the Oct. 2005 proposal to add 3 at-large councilors & reduce the district councilors to 6) it is hard for me to believe that Bartlett did not know what was going on. This was a big deal.
It was also a big deal that we changed our form of government in 1989 from City Commission/All At-large to Strong Mayor/9-districts in response to a voting rights law suit filed by the NAACP. Bartlett should certainly have remembered this controversy as he was elected to the first city council in 1990 from Dist. 9 under the new form of government.
For Bartlett to say what he is now saying about TBG means he really was seriously uninformed and naive in 2005 or he is not telling the truth now. Either indicates to me a serious question about his qualification to be mayor. If naive--I guess that he will follow others leads rather than decide for himself--indicating to me that the folks who formed TBG in 2005 will most likely be telling him what to sign up for in 2009.
na⋅ive
–adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
Waterboy --if you want to get into the historical minutiae of changing our form of government in Tulsa you can read Tulsans Defending Democracy's presentation to the Mayor's Commission on Tulsa's Form of Government. See attached. At-large will not fly in Tulsa for dozens of reasons, the most basic is that it is not legal under the Voting Rights Act, but there are lots of other policy reasons.
By the way--I have lived in Dist. 9 since 1979 when I graduated from law school. I have plenty of representation and can stand a little democracy from the other parts of the city. The attitude of the TBG folks is best expressed by one of their principals to me at a cocktail party--"I long to return to the day when you could drive a golf ball from your front lawn and hit the lawn of every other member of the city commission."
I find it interesting that, like Randi Miller and Kathy Taylor, Dewey Bartlett Jr made no objection to the use of his name by Tulsans for Better Government in the fall of 2005, when the group was actively collecting signatures for their petition for the at-large councilor charter amendment and these names lent some credibility to the effort. Each of the three only claimed to have been misinformed about or unaware of the purpose of the group when they became candidates for mayor. The petition drive stalled, Mayor LaFortune appointed a citizens' commission on city government as a way to give his pals on TBG a face-saving way to terminate their faltering effort. The at-large plan receved support from only a few commissioners; the final report rejected the proposal. (http://"http://www.tulsansdefendingdemocracy.com/2006/06/citizens_commission_rejects_at_1.html")
A Tulsa World story on October 27, 2005, focused on Tulsans for Better Government's petition drive (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=051027_Ne_A11_Counc56993&archive=yes") for at-large councilors and included a list of advisory board members. Dewey Bartlett Jr's name was on the list. You'd think someone would have mentioned to Bartlett Jr that his name was in the paper in connection with a controversial proposal. Or he might have noticed that this group he was asked to join had generated some opposition.
Quote from: Bledsoe on October 26, 2009, 08:34:49 PM
For Bartlett to say what he is now saying about TBG means he really was seriously uninformed and naive in 2005 or he is not telling the truth now. Either indicates to me a serious question about his qualification to be mayor. If naive--I guess that he will follow others leads rather than decide for himself--indicating to me that the folks who formed TBG in 2005 will most likely be telling him what to sign up for in 2009.
What he said.
What they said.... ;)
Michael, do you recall the "conversation" at the Republican Woman's luncheon between you and Dewey where Dewey was for non -partisan elections? Now he is for partisan elections...and signed a petition to say so....go figure....I guess it's who ever pressures him the most who gets what they want. Greaaaaaaat just what we need......
Quote from: da dawg on October 26, 2009, 10:03:21 PM
What they said.... ;)
Michael, do you recall the "conversation" at the Republican Woman's luncheon between you and Dewey where Dewey was for non -partisan elections? Now he is for partisan elections...and signed a petition to say so....go figure....I guess it's who ever pressures him the most who gets what they want. Greaaaaaaat just what we need......
The question actually came from Sally Bell, and it wasn't clear from Bartlett's answer whether he was for or against. He seemed to be torn between whatever opinion he held (for, I would guess) and the answer he sensed would win favor with the room (against). (Here's the video. (http://"http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/08/bartlett-dodges-questions-about.html"))
During that same forum, Medlock pointed out that the same group pushing non-partisan elections -- Tulsans for Better Government -- started out pushing for at-large councilors. Medlock said that Bartlett had been a charter member of that group. Bartlett did not speak up to deny involvement, defend his involvement, or even to say, "I have no idea what you're talking about." It's as if he hadn't yet figured out that the at-large issue and the group that pushed it were political liabilities.
The devil was impressed with Dew's attitude towards the Mayor sitting on the council and hiring a city manager...
This other stuff is great though, MB. The Repigs on the far right hate seeing a moderate run for Mayor enough to chase down their past bad political acquiescence to the point where most of us today say "who cares?" It's a microcosm of the National thingy with your potty going down the shitter over who will lead this GOP schism.
You gotta love the lame out....
Quote from: FOTD on October 27, 2009, 09:56:11 PM
The devil was impressed with Dew's attitude towards the Mayor sitting on the council and hiring a city manager...
This other stuff is great though, MB. The Repigs on the far right hate seeing a moderate run for Mayor enough to chase down their past bad political acquiescence to the point where most of us today say "who cares?" It's a microcosm of the National thingy with your potty going down the shitter over who will lead this GOP schism.
You gotta love the lame out....
I hate to concur with FOTD, but a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it is cracking me up to see Republicans across the country essentially doing a fatwa against Republicans who are insufficiently rabid-conservative. It's this bizarre "we can win by tearing each other apart and losing," without considering the consequences of a party that shrinks so much that it has no one left but Alan Keyes-type whackos who won't get but 25 to 30 percent of the vote on a good day.
Quote from: FOTD on October 27, 2009, 09:56:11 PM
This other stuff is great though, MB. The Repigs on the far right hate seeing a moderate run for Mayor enough to chase down their past bad political acquiescence to the point where most of us today say "who cares?"
This isn't something I had to chase down, and it only happened four years ago. I've been concerned with the City Council as an institution for a very long time, and the TBG at-large plan was an attack on fair representation in city government. I covered the issue thoroughly at the time, and even expressed specific disappointment with Dewey Bartlett Jr's involvement (http://"http://www.batesline.com/archives/2005/10/who-are-tulsans.html"). (Here's the Internet Archive's snapshot of the same article from December 2005 (http://"http://web.archive.org/web/20051230163643/http://www.batesline.com/archives/002186.html").)
I guess I don't see this as a Republican v. Democrat issue. Both TBG and the group I helped form--TDD were non-partisan and made up of a cross-section from both parties. I am about as liberal a Democrat as Tulsa will tolerate. But I am also a democrat with a little "d."
If you read the TDD report attached to my post above you will see that I have been personally plowing this ground since 1987 and the City has been dealing with this issue institutionally since at least 1954
That usually partisan Republicans like Steve Roemerman, Michael Bates and Conan71 are dubious about supporting their party's nominee speaks more of local issues and their personal convictions rather than some intra-party food fight. They have not bought into Bartlett's hard-right attempt to interject national and state issues into the mayor's race while obscuring important local concerns.
On the local level I am proud to be associated with these guys. I hope they feel the same way about me. On this issue they are true little "d" democrats. On most national and state issues I think we often agree to disagree.