Mayor Taylor To Give BOK $7 Mil for Great Plains

[FOTD]

CM...I was not discussing what you did or tried to accomplish as a councilor. A few issues we might have had agreed and still might agree today on seperate ones. But your personal history has very little to do with this issue. That is why I will not be baited by non sense like "what were you doing?"

It's like you are playing a game of gotcha for that pathetic station you work. Take some lessons from Russert. If you are going to make some sort of "conflict of interest" claim, not only save us the grief in cost and time and uncertainty, but let the Mayor distinguish between then and now and what her role was if any in the process of this loan. Russert might advise you to have a balanced discussion or not one at all. Of course, your station plays to one audience and they are not balanced and the dead air is even unfair.

Burner, nice sucker punch. I see you brought your sidehick Inteller along.

Rico gets the post of the day award.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

The blame needs to be laid at the feet of those in charge at the time the deal went down.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. That wouldn't include us, however. De-funding the investigation, by itself, was a CYA act of loath. I wouldn't even pay those funds if the investigation gets done. And, how is it no one was ever tried, much less now serving time for this criminal act.

Perhaps we should start with those who made 'moral' commitments that are based upon illegal obligations?

quote:
The bank at that time was doing you and me and the taxpayers a favor. Or so they must have thought at the time. They thought they were helping create jobs which would increase the tax base. And no doubt they were doing what banks try to do in making loans. But they would not have made such favorable terms, not acruing interest nor forgiving indebtedness, had they not wanted to help the city.

Doing me a favor???!! Sure.

It was an inside deal on our backs, intended to make huge wealth at our expense. Sharing the profits wasn't in the cards, just sharing the loss now, it appears.

quote:
The deal went south. The taxpayers need to blame the deal makers and not scapegoat the lender. We do have a moral obligation. If I were a lender, I'd have a difficult time lending to some who might suggest the borrower/guarantor has no legal obligation to repay the debt.

The lender was on the inside, like all the other parties.

quote:
CF, I never said I owned stock in the bank. The Areema gets its nickname from the 2025 "vision" thing being reamed down our throats. It will cost you much more than $20.00. And do not give any loss leader or economic driver non sense.

Do you know the difference between public and private projects?

quote:
Wrinkle, that argument about ad valorem taxes going down someday is bunk.

It's true Ad Valorem would go down if the sinking fund achieves a certain level. I certainly don't expect any of our leaders to let that happen, even if they have to give away money to keep it from happening.

quote:
What this is in plain terms is politics. I asked a friend who listened to Faux radio at 2:30 if there were any defenders of the city or the bank on Medshlocks show. They said absolutely not. The news tonight did not report any of this either. And there is no doubt the bank may have had political motives as well.

Chris responded well to this lame argument.

quote:
Corporate welfare sucks. That's what this was a failed attempt at. Is it not surprising you lash out at FOTD for wanting the city to keep their word, to do the honorable thing, and to do what good partners do for each other.

It's called backscratching. And, in this case is illegal. The City of Tulsa was not a party to the deal, why are we now expected to pay a debt we do not owe? The place for BOK to do this would be the bankruptcy court handling GPA assets.

They didn't cover themselves?? I'd call it bad banking.

Let Susan Savage pay it, she's the one who's claimed to have made a verbal committment, certainly not in our behalf. And, it was immoral for her to have attempted to do so.

quote:
And the owners of the bank do for this community that which can not be quantified.

Well, there's something which can be debated at length. I've not seen everything, but what I have always comes with a conditional benefit.

I still believe crimes were committed.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Well, Master Bates puts everything in black and white.  If Krazy Kathy decides to foist tax payer dollars when it has already been deemed that we don't need to then taxpayers can sue her qui tam for misappropriation of funds and get her removed from office.  I say go for it.

Anyone got a bucket of hot tar and a pillowslip of feathers?

Then, see you tonite at the City Council meeting.....

[cannon_fodder]

As I understand it, the amount that was defaulted has $7.5 million outstanding.  So we are getting  a 5% discount on a debt that the last mayor was warned he couldn't legally pay.

Here's my problem:

1) the debt is not clear cut.  The FAA ruled that we held out illegal collateral.  There was no clause that the city would assume the debt nor that would compensate BOk for a bad loan.

2) Under LaFortune the city attorney  said we can't legally pay for it, now we change our minds?

3) And a slew of potential conflicts of interest -
a) A mayor who was on the BOk Board of Directors
b) A city attorney who is on a "6 month hold" from practicing with the firm representing BOk (Dorwart)
and c) and counselors who accepted campaign donations from BOk (Kaiser)

So I can't say it's total BS because I'm not fully aware in this complex situation.  But it certainly warrants a close eye.  The city should never have been in this situation to begin with.

Why not orchestrate a pass-back?  Hand over the money and have BOk donate it to a park, fund, or some other project.  They get to count the revenue on their books and the right off on the donation, and the city gets a new park.  Seems like a decent compromise - giving them $7.1 out of $7.5mil isn't much of a compromise.
- - - -

As a side note, it turns out I know the attorney representing BOk on this matter.  Haven't talked to him in a year, but full disclosure.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I don't think we should skip out on an obligation due to an error in paperwork. Hopefully we are settling it for a reduced amount. If that is the case I think we should just count ourselves lucky that Kaiser isn't a D--k and suing us for the full amount plus some.

ahh, they are....

CJ-2004-6124

Actually, the City of Tulsa was just added as defendant on June 25, 2008, just in time for this latest action by Ms. Kitty.

That had to be REQUESTED and granted by the Judge. Why would we want to join into a suite as defendant when we were not originally so named?

Appears some collusion is also involved here, besides the unwarranted attempt to steal taxpayer money.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I don't think we should skip out on an obligation due to an error in paperwork. Hopefully we are settling it for a reduced amount. If that is the case I think we should just count ourselves lucky that Kaiser isn't a D--k and suing us for the full amount plus some.

ahh, they are....

CJ-2004-6124

Actually, the City of Tulsa was just added as defendant on June 25, 2008, just in time for this latest action by Ms. Kitty.

That had to be REQUESTED and granted by the Judge. Why would we want to join into a suite as defendant when we were not originally so named?

Appears some collusion is also involved here, besides the unwarranted attempt to steal taxpayer money.

Maybe CannonFodder will opine, but just HOW does the City get added as a defendant THREE years AFTER the original case is filed?

Unless the City of Tulsa ASKED to be added as a defendant?

Many things are smelling about this so-called "Settlement".

[Wilbur]

How amusing the two latest stories seem to be:  We can't afford gasoline for police cars but we can afford to pay $7.1M that is not our debt.

PATHETIC!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Well, Master Bates puts everything in black and white.  If Krazy Kathy decides to foist tax payer dollars when it has already been deemed that we don't need to then taxpayers can sue her qui tam for misappropriation of funds and get her removed from office.  I say go for it.

Anyone got a bucket of hot tar and a pillowslip of feathers?

Then, see you tonite at the City Council meeting.....

My computer screen is covered in coffee, thanks alot [}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

As I understand it, the amount that was defaulted has $7.5 million outstanding.  So we are getting  a 5% discount on a debt that the last mayor was warned he couldn't legally pay.

Here's my problem:

1) the debt is not clear cut.  The FAA ruled that we held out illegal collateral.  There was no clause that the city would assume the debt nor that would compensate BOk for a bad loan.

2) Under LaFortune the city attorney  said we can't legally pay for it, now we change our minds?

3) And a slew of potential conflicts of interest -
a) A mayor who was on the BOk Board of Directors
b) A city attorney who is on a "6 month hold" from practicing with the firm representing BOk (Dorwart)
and c) and counselors who accepted campaign donations from BOk (Kaiser)

So I can't say it's total BS because I'm not fully aware in this complex situation.  But it certainly warrants a close eye.  The city should never have been in this situation to begin with.

Why not orchestrate a pass-back?  Hand over the money and have BOk donate it to a park, fund, or some other project.  They get to count the revenue on their books and the right off on the donation, and the city gets a new park.  Seems like a decent compromise - giving them $7.1 out of $7.5mil isn't much of a compromise.
- - - -

As a side note, it turns out I know the attorney representing BOk on this matter.  Haven't talked to him in a year, but full disclosure.

And they could build that park in north Tulsa to make up for the one they renegged on when the river tax-grab/slush-fund failed.

[Conan71]

Interesting, this suit was just filed against M. Susan Savage yesterday, anyone know if this could be related?

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2314922&db=Oklahoma

[Chris Medlock]

News from the special Airport Board Meeting:

I attended the special meeting of the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust that was held at 8:30 AM in Room 1101 of the Tulsa City Hall. Even though this was on the same floor and mere feet from Mayor Taylor's office, Kathy Taylor never appeared during the meeting.

All board members were present in the room with the exception of Meredith Siegfried, who was on a speaker phone as she was in Singapore on business.

The meeting was late starting and relatively brief. There were few surprises, but one jumped out at me. Richard Studenny, the attorney for the Tulsa Industrial Authority AND TAIT [the lender AND the borrower] back when the Great Plains deal was cooked up, will potentially be given a free pass.

TIA, and indirectly BOK, was going after Mr. Studenny's malpractice and/or errors and omissions insurance to recoup their financial losses. Studenny was fired, after a too lengthy drama in the media, by then Mayor Bill LaFortune. It was always speculated that Studenny knew where "all the bodies" were buried at the Tulsa Airport.

Now with Kathy Taylor's rushed and hushed settlement, the word is that both the bank, and TIA will waive any claim to Studenny's insurance. This let's him off free and clear, unless the City Council and/or the mayor muster the political will to pursue him in court. Remember though, this will be a brand new law suit and the clock and the cash machine will have to begin anew.

What's that smell? Can you smell that smell?

[tim huntzinger]

The smell? You been using mouthwash today? JUST KIDDING!!

So Taylor is protecting Studenny's insurance company bc she used to be on the BOK's Board so he does not fink out the TIA? Wait, what?

[Double A]

Queen Kathy never met a shady Taxpayer funded swindle she wouldn't cosign:

In her first year as Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce, she used taxpayer money to fund a questionable foundation with close ties to former Democrat state senator and convicted felon Gene Stipe in a purely speculative venture in direct competition with the City of Tulsa.

In 2004 a Commerce Department Appropriations Bill implemented under Taylor's authority includes $350,000 to the Rural Development Foundation.

According to an Oklahoma House of Representatives press release dated September 9, 2003, the Rural Development Foundation was "pondering" development of a system that would convey water to communities in Pottawatomie, Okfuskee, Creek, McIntosh, Okmulgee and Seminole counties. Just what the hell does "pondering" mean?

"We would either deliver raw water to their own treatment plants or reservoirs, or sell them filtered water, or maybe it would be a combination of the two," said Steve Phipps. He said he was a consultant to the tax-exempt foundation, which is based in Antlers.

The address of Rural Development Foundation office is recorded as 111 Main Street, Antlers Oklahoma. Steve Phipps also owns an abstract business in Antlers, the Pushmataha County Abstract Co., at that same address.

As Commerce Secretary, Kathy Taylor was responsible for managing the entire Department appropriation, including the $350,000 to this foundation. The question most taxpayers should be interested in is how someone could set up a foundation, quickly secure a water rights agreement and then get that much money from the Commerce Dept with no track record of accomplishments on a purely speculative deal?


The Rural Development Foundation also received $350,000 from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry in 2004. Further, an agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce transfers that $350,000 to the Commerce Department effective June 30, 2005. That agreement is signed by Kathryn L. Taylor and dated September 9, 2004. Thus, Rural Development Foundation apparently gathered a total of $700,000.00 in Oklahoma taxpayer funds.

Kathy Taylor's appointment to the Henry transition team and later as Secretary of Commerce for Governor Brad Henry followed significant campaign donations to his election effort after contributing to Henry's opponent Republican Steve Largent prior to the election.


Da Mare has certainly proven she has a grift for graft straight out of the pay to playbook for the best government money can buy. God save us from the Queen Carpetbagger.

[FOTD]

She should be running against Inhofe.[:X]

[Chris Medlock]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

The smell? You been using mouthwash today? JUST KIDDING!!

So Taylor is protecting Studenny's insurance company bc she used to be on the BOK's Board so he does not fink out the TIA? Wait, what?

Hmm...sorry about the smell remark, I didn't notice you came in the room. Just kidding!!!

Studenny's practice would be substantially damaged by a negative judgment against his insurance. Would he be able to get it for future business? How much more would premiums be? Not to mention opening the door for Bar Association sanctions. No body wanted Studenny talking.