Tulsa History Repeats Itself - Again?

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


A City Government entity in the State of Oklahoma cannot publish a Request for Bid without a certification of sufficiency of funding signed by a city officer.

There was absolutely NO FUNDING SOURCE approvied in June.

Nada.

Say, can you give us the actual Link to the Legal News you cited?

Not that you need to actually PROVE anything, but it would be helpful.

Please?

The "bid process" was not even approved until July 10 by a City Council vote of 6-3.

You are the one floating something in this  forum.

You need a citation for your argument regarding the certification.  You've wasted enough of my time that I won't look it up.  NO ONE has made that argument and you're a troll, so it really has no credibility.  Quit it with that crap.

I gave you a link to a place that you can look.  It's not a very good site, but it allows research in the the Legal and Commerce Journal.  It's your burden to show they didn't publish.  No one that is legitimate has made that argument.   The city's sources are pretty clear that there was a bid process -- something you initially said didn't have to happen under Title 60's relevant section (you should be stopped from arguing anything else at this point).

And don't forget your lies about the dates of Martinson talking to the city . . . wow, that was a whopper . . .

You have no source that the City Council approves the bid process.  Please show where what the Mayor's office did was illegal; I am aware of no such section in Title 60 or the city charter.  Again, I think your beef might be with the council's power under the charter.

If you want to change that, move to Tulsa and get involved.  Making up lies upon lies on the internet is not the solution.

I have provided virtually all the sourced material in this discussion.  You have contradicted yourself a couple of times.  You aren't very bright and really aren't qualified to talk city politics.  You've read the World a couple of times and went to downtown in like 1987; that doesn't mean you know a damn thing.  It's been your turn for several posts to support your arguments.

But you won't because you're a d!icktuck.

Poor FB.

[}:)]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


A City Government entity in the State of Oklahoma cannot publish a Request for Bid without a certification of sufficiency of funding signed by a city officer.

There was absolutely NO FUNDING SOURCE approvied in June.

Nada.

Say, can you give us the actual Link to the Legal News you cited?

Not that you need to actually PROVE anything, but it would be helpful.

Please?

The "bid process" was not even approved until July 10 by a City Council vote of 6-3.

You are the one floating something in this  forum.

You need a citation for your argument regarding the certification.  You've wasted enough of my time that I won't look it up.  NO ONE has made that argument and you're a troll, so it really has no credibility.  Quit it with that crap.

I gave you a link to a place that you can look.  It's not a very good site, but it allows research in the the Legal and Commerce Journal.  It's your burden to show they didn't publish.  No one that is legitimate has made that argument.   The city's sources are pretty clear that there was a bid process -- something you initially said didn't have to happen under Title 60's relevant section (you should be stopped from arguing anything else at this point).

And don't forget your lies about the dates of Martinson talking to the city . . . wow, that was a whopper . . .

You have no source that the City Council approves the bid process.  Please show where what the Mayor's office did was illegal; I am aware of no such section in Title 60 or the city charter.  Again, I think your beef might be with the council's power under the charter.

If you want to change that, move to Tulsa and get involved.  Making up lies upon lies on the internet is not the solution.

I have provided virtually all the sourced material in this discussion.  You have contradicted yourself a couple of times.  You aren't very bright and really aren't qualified to talk city politics.  You've read the World a couple of times and went to downtown in like 1987; that doesn't mean you know a damn thing.  It's been your turn for several posts to support your arguments.

But you won't because you're a d!icktuck.

Poor FB.

[}:)]

Try checking the state constitution.

Cities or city entities cannot by our state constitution spend money that has not been certified by a city officer as "sufficient" to pay the obligation.

You're rehashing the vague phrase "Bid Process", again?

That is not COMPETITIVE bidding following state law, with NOTICE, a Bid period, bid specifications, and a selection of the Lowest and Best Bid.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Try checking the state constitution.

Cities or city entities cannot by our state constitution spend money that has not been certified by a city officer as "sufficient" to pay the obligation.

You're rehashing the vague phrase "Bid Process", again?

That is not COMPETITIVE bidding following state law, with NOTICE, a Bid period, bid specifications, and a selection of the Lowest and Best Bid.

I'm not checking the state constitution.  I'm aware of no provision within it that is on point for your argument; if you can find it, please give me a cite and I'll take a look.  But you've been wrong so many times in this discussion, I've got to presume you're wrong again.

Remember, you said they weren't required to get bids.

It turns out they got bids and were required to under the very statute you cited for the opposite point.

So, you've been wrong all along at every step of this discussion and you want me to go and read every vague section of the Oklahoma Constitution.   Sorry -- if you have an argument, make it.  

We know they took three bids.  If you want to provide a source that supports your argument about the bid's illegal proces, go ahead.  I'm done.  People are presumed innocent in this country and for you to accuse the mayor's office of criminal acts (that was a laugher) just shows your ignorance and jealousy.

But you don't . . .

just like you don't have support for 99% of the crap you spew on here . . .

from your tinfoil hat conspiracy . . .

F&M bank . . .

KT . . .

BOK . . .

Tulsa World . . .

Blah blah blah

But what else would you expect from a d!cktuck?

Poor FB.

He sucks at life.

[Gold]

*crickets*