Tulsa History Repeats Itself - Again?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Tim Harris's job is to prosecute crimes committed in Tulsa County.

Mayor Taylor stated that the Stadium will be built and operated pursuant to an Oklahoma Title 60 Public Trust.

She also stated that Manhattan Construction had been selected as the Constractor, through a "bidding process" but without the benefit of public notice of a competitive bidding, and a bid letting process.

That would appear to be a matter for the DA to make inquiries.

Unless he wants to end his public career crossing the local power establishment.

Maybe Mrs. Taylor declared the Stadium an Emergency?

Right?

You can say what you want about Charles Norman's documentary appearance on T-GOV, regarding the construction and financing of the PAC.

Other posters and lurkers here as well have seen that broadcast.

Apparently, you act like you haven't seen this documentary, or heard his comments.

Do so sometime.

What crime did anyone commit here?  

Assume you are right and the law wasn't followed (big assumption), that doesn't mean there is criminal liability.  There are a lot of other ways to correct illegal acts by the government.

C'mon FB -- leave the legal discussion alone.  You aren't qualified to evaluate basic points.  Please don't talk about legal issues anymore.  It's like watching what I imagine Rosanne Arnold would look like doing yoga.

You need to show where there wasn't a bidding process and that Title 60 wasn't followed.  No one else out there is making this argument (not even the usual suspects in the tinfoil hat crowd) and since it comes from you, it's less than credible.  

You just don't know if the statute was followed, so you presume it wasn't.  That's the worst kind of tinfoil hat argument.

At least you appear to concede that title 60 public trusts require bidding.

I'll look for the the Dark Lord's analysis, but I've got to say, given the amount of my time you waste with your idiotic claims, it will be a low priority.

You have no clue.

Poor FB.

[:O]

I find it puzzling, given the amount of your time you state you waste responding to my "idiotic" claims, then just WHY bother?

It's almost like it's A JOB.....

............with the other degenerates at.....

Snakey, Turncoat and Flake?

Back to the Public Policy discussion, maybe just maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, statement of bid evaluation requirements, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID Assessment on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Just a "bidding process".

That is NOT a COMPETITIVE bidding process.

Nada.

Nowhere.

Yet, the Mayor announced it.

We ALL heard her.

Right?

Was it an EMERGENCY?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Tim Harris's job is to prosecute crimes committed in Tulsa County.

Mayor Taylor stated that the Stadium will be built and operated pursuant to an Oklahoma Title 60 Public Trust.

She also stated that Manhattan Construction had been selected as the Constractor, through a "bidding process" but without the benefit of public notice of a competitive bidding, and a bid letting process.

That would appear to be a matter for the DA to make inquiries.

Unless he wants to end his public career crossing the local power establishment.

Maybe Mrs. Taylor declared the Stadium an Emergency?

Right?

You can say what you want about Charles Norman's documentary appearance on T-GOV, regarding the construction and financing of the PAC.

Other posters and lurkers here as well have seen that broadcast.

Apparently, you act like you haven't seen this documentary, or heard his comments.

Do so sometime.

What crime did anyone commit here?  

Assume you are right and the law wasn't followed (big assumption), that doesn't mean there is criminal liability.  There are a lot of other ways to correct illegal acts by the government.

C'mon FB -- leave the legal discussion alone.  You aren't qualified to evaluate basic points.  Please don't talk about legal issues anymore.  It's like watching what I imagine Rosanne Arnold would look like doing yoga.

You need to show where there wasn't a bidding process and that Title 60 wasn't followed.  No one else out there is making this argument (not even the usual suspects in the tinfoil hat crowd) and since it comes from you, it's less than credible.  

You just don't know if the statute was followed, so you presume it wasn't.  That's the worst kind of tinfoil hat argument.

At least you appear to concede that title 60 public trusts require bidding.

I'll look for the the Dark Lord's analysis, but I've got to say, given the amount of my time you waste with your idiotic claims, it will be a low priority.

You have no clue.

Poor FB.

[:O]

Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

And you know this how?  Can you prove it?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Tim Harris's job is to prosecute crimes committed in Tulsa County.

Mayor Taylor stated that the Stadium will be built and operated pursuant to an Oklahoma Title 60 Public Trust.

She also stated that Manhattan Construction had been selected as the Constractor, through a "bidding process" but without the benefit of public notice of a competitive bidding, and a bid letting process.

That would appear to be a matter for the DA to make inquiries.

Unless he wants to end his public career crossing the local power establishment.

Maybe Mrs. Taylor declared the Stadium an Emergency?

Right?

You can say what you want about Charles Norman's documentary appearance on T-GOV, regarding the construction and financing of the PAC.

Other posters and lurkers here as well have seen that broadcast.

Apparently, you act like you haven't seen this documentary, or heard his comments.

Do so sometime.

What crime did anyone commit here?  

Assume you are right and the law wasn't followed (big assumption), that doesn't mean there is criminal liability.  There are a lot of other ways to correct illegal acts by the government.

C'mon FB -- leave the legal discussion alone.  You aren't qualified to evaluate basic points.  Please don't talk about legal issues anymore.  It's like watching what I imagine Rosanne Arnold would look like doing yoga.

You need to show where there wasn't a bidding process and that Title 60 wasn't followed.  No one else out there is making this argument (not even the usual suspects in the tinfoil hat crowd) and since it comes from you, it's less than credible.  

You just don't know if the statute was followed, so you presume it wasn't.  That's the worst kind of tinfoil hat argument.

At least you appear to concede that title 60 public trusts require bidding.

I'll look for the the Dark Lord's analysis, but I've got to say, given the amount of my time you waste with your idiotic claims, it will be a low priority.

You have no clue.

Poor FB.

[:O]

Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

And you know this how?  Can you prove it?

Are you really claiming Mayor Taylor did NOT say it?

Can YOU PROVE she did NOT say it?

Mr. Prove-It?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Tim Harris's job is to prosecute crimes committed in Tulsa County.

Mayor Taylor stated that the Stadium will be built and operated pursuant to an Oklahoma Title 60 Public Trust.

She also stated that Manhattan Construction had been selected as the Constractor, through a "bidding process" but without the benefit of public notice of a competitive bidding, and a bid letting process.

That would appear to be a matter for the DA to make inquiries.

Unless he wants to end his public career crossing the local power establishment.

Maybe Mrs. Taylor declared the Stadium an Emergency?

Right?

You can say what you want about Charles Norman's documentary appearance on T-GOV, regarding the construction and financing of the PAC.

Other posters and lurkers here as well have seen that broadcast.

Apparently, you act like you haven't seen this documentary, or heard his comments.

Do so sometime.

What crime did anyone commit here?  

Assume you are right and the law wasn't followed (big assumption), that doesn't mean there is criminal liability.  There are a lot of other ways to correct illegal acts by the government.

C'mon FB -- leave the legal discussion alone.  You aren't qualified to evaluate basic points.  Please don't talk about legal issues anymore.  It's like watching what I imagine Rosanne Arnold would look like doing yoga.

You need to show where there wasn't a bidding process and that Title 60 wasn't followed.  No one else out there is making this argument (not even the usual suspects in the tinfoil hat crowd) and since it comes from you, it's less than credible.  

You just don't know if the statute was followed, so you presume it wasn't.  That's the worst kind of tinfoil hat argument.

At least you appear to concede that title 60 public trusts require bidding.

I'll look for the the Dark Lord's analysis, but I've got to say, given the amount of my time you waste with your idiotic claims, it will be a low priority.

You have no clue.

Poor FB.

[:O]

Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

And you know this how?  Can you prove it?

Are you really claiming Mayor Taylor did NOT say it?

Can YOU PROVE she did NOT say it?

Mr. Prove-It?

You're the one making the allegations.  Which usually means, as the accuser, the burden of proof is on YOU.

[RecycleMichael]

I think that professional service contracts are different. Design/Oversight would fall under that.

Each substantial step of the process would follow bid procedures. Who provides the material, which company actually pours the pad, etc.

Don't listen to anything friendly bear says about building anything. Bears live in the woods and caves. The only tool they know how to use is a stick that they poke into tree holes.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

You're totally wrong again.  

The announcement regarding Manhattan was BEFORE the debate.  THe article you cite, from that Friday, is really clear about that point:

"The foundation is one of 23 donors listed in one of the responses to 30 questions submitted by City Councilor Bill Martinson about ballpark details and financing.

. . .

Manhattan Construction Co. is a $1 million donor, and has been picked through a bidding process to build the stadium, one answer states. "


Tulsa World, Friday, July 11, 2008
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080711_11_A1_Temyre369507

The questions were answered that Wednesday, July 9, in the document that was available to the public.  http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/MartinsonQuestions.pdf  (My unsubstantiated guess was that the council was aware well before.)  

Beyond that, that last document is clear that there were three bids made -- from Manhattan, Flincto, and Crossland.  See answers 7 and 8.  It would be nice if you took the time to read before you spout of crappy theories.  

THe city of Tulsa web site is prety clear how these contracts are bid.http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/construction.asp  I don't want to take anymore time to follow up whether they actually advertised, but no one out there seems to question that there were in fact three bids.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't very nice and you didn't try.

You're wrong.

Again.

Poor FB.

[}:)]

[Double A]

The contracts will be awarded to Manhattan's subsidiary Canterra. I know some Carpenters who worked for Manhattan. One day their foreman came up to them, told them they no longer work for Manhattan and that they now work for Canterra. They didn't think too much of it, and just continued with their jobs as usual, that is until they got their checks and found out they were suddenly making three dollars less an hour. This is how Manhattan affords to make their "generous donations". What a great corporate citizen they are![sarcasm off]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think that professional service contracts are different. Design/Oversight would fall under that.

Each substantial step of the process would follow bid procedures. Who provides the material, which company actually pours the pad, etc.

Don't listen to anything friendly bear says about building anything. Bears live in the woods and caves. The only tool they know how to use is a stick that they poke into tree holes.

Professional Services contracts with Architects and Engineers, by STATE LAW, are not let on a competitive bid basis.

CONSTRUCTION contracts are.

Manhattan is a Construction Company.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

You're totally wrong again.  

The announcement regarding Manhattan was BEFORE the debate.  THe article you cite, from that Friday, is really clear about that point:

"The foundation is one of 23 donors listed in one of the responses to 30 questions submitted by City Councilor Bill Martinson about ballpark details and financing.

. . .

Manhattan Construction Co. is a $1 million donor, and has been picked through a bidding process to build the stadium, one answer states. "


Tulsa World, Friday, July 11, 2008
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080711_11_A1_Temyre369507

The questions were answered that Wednesday, July 9, in the document that was available to the public.  http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/MartinsonQuestions.pdf  (My unsubstantiated guess was that the council was aware well before.)  

Beyond that, that last document is clear that there were three bids made -- from Manhattan, Flincto, and Crossland.  See answers 7 and 8.  It would be nice if you took the time to read before you spout of crappy theories.  

THe city of Tulsa web site is prety clear how these contracts are bid.http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/construction.asp  I don't want to take anymore time to follow up whether they actually advertised, but no one out there seems to question that there were in fact three bids.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't very nice and you didn't try.

You're wrong.

Again.

Poor FB.

[}:)]

Say goldie locks, how about showing us where this was put out out to bid on one of the bid sites? One more thing, why didn't the award of this contract require Council approval? Hmmmm, donors were given special consideration in this "bid process"?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think that professional service contracts are different. Design/Oversight would fall under that.

Each substantial step of the process would follow bid procedures. Who provides the material, which company actually pours the pad, etc.

Don't listen to anything friendly bear says about building anything. Bears live in the woods and caves. The only tool they know how to use is a stick that they poke into tree holes.

Professional Services contracts with Architects and Engineers, by STATE LAW, are not let on a competitive bid basis.

CONSTRUCTION contracts are.

Manhattan is a Construction Company.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Maybe it's accidental, but you're confusing "bidding process" with competitive bidding process.

These require a public notice period, description of the Bid Letting process, and a selection of the "lowest and best bid".

The City Council approved by 6-3 the BID on a Thursday night.

Friday, THE VERY NEXT DAY, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Manhattan Construction had been awarded the Stadium construction project through a "bidding process".

There was no competitive bidding process.

Nada.

You're totally wrong again.  

The announcement regarding Manhattan was BEFORE the debate.  THe article you cite, from that Friday, is really clear about that point:

"The foundation is one of 23 donors listed in one of the responses to 30 questions submitted by City Councilor Bill Martinson about ballpark details and financing.

. . .

Manhattan Construction Co. is a $1 million donor, and has been picked through a bidding process to build the stadium, one answer states. "


Tulsa World, Friday, July 11, 2008
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080711_11_A1_Temyre369507

The questions were answered that Wednesday, July 9, in the document that was available to the public.  http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/MartinsonQuestions.pdf  (My unsubstantiated guess was that the council was aware well before.)  

Beyond that, that last document is clear that there were three bids made -- from Manhattan, Flincto, and Crossland.  See answers 7 and 8.  It would be nice if you took the time to read before you spout of crappy theories.  

THe city of Tulsa web site is prety clear how these contracts are bid.http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/construction.asp  I don't want to take anymore time to follow up whether they actually advertised, but no one out there seems to question that there were in fact three bids.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't very nice and you didn't try.

You're wrong.

Again.

Poor FB.

[}:)]

At a Committee Meeting he chaired a few hours before the  Council's 6-3 vote ON THE EVENING OF JULY 10, Mr. Martinsen stated he was preparing a list of questions for the Mayor's Office.

In fact, he prepared a list of 30 Questions.

Those were presented to the Mayor's Office.

On July 10.  

In the July 11 newspaper article in the Tulsa World, the 30 questions indicated that Manhattan Construction was selected by a "bidding process".

There was no public notice as required under state competitive bidding law for construction projects over $25,000.

It was NOT a competitive bidding process according to state law.

Three companies MAY have stated that they submitted bids.

Wonder if a FOURTH construction company, or an out-of-state construction company, might just sue the City of Tulsa?

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Say goldie locks, how about showing us where this was put out out to bid on one of the bid sites? One more thing, why didn't the award of this contract require Council approval? Were donors given special consideration in this "bid process"?

That should be FB's job.  He says it didn't happen.  As my link from the city states, the notice for bids are posted in the Tulsa Legal & Commerce news and on the city web site.  I've been through both and they don't have online archives for these things.  I tend to have some trust in this group of city leaders -- they're doing a pretty decent job in my book.

If you want to provide a source for your presumption of graft or that there was no process, go ahead.  But just following FB's playbook won't get you far, unless you want to look like a tool.

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

At a Committee Meeting he chaired a few hours before the  Council's 6-3 vote ON THE EVENING OF JULY 10, Mr. Martinsen stated he was preparing a list of questions for the Mayor's Office.

In fact, he prepared a list of 30 Questions.

Those were presented to the Mayor's Office.

On July 10.  

In the July 11 newspaper article in the Tulsa World, the 30 questions indicated that Manhattan Construction was selected by a "bidding process".

There was no public notice as required under state competitive bidding law for construction projects over $25,000.

It was NOT a competitive bidding process according to state law.

Three companies MAY have stated that they submitted bids.

Wonder if a FOURTH construction company, or an out-of-state construction company, might just sue the City of Tulsa?

If you want the bidding process to be more transparent, take it up at the next City Council meeting.  I believe the City publishes dates and times for the review of these projects here:  http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/construction.asp

Also, you can see where they gave notice here: http://www.oklahomanotices.com/

It looks like they published it in June in the Legal and Commerce News.

You're really wrong on your timeline.  Martinson asked his questions on the 9th of July, the same day the document I provided is dated -- it was published in the paper July 10 (that's how papers work, you don't print news from the future -- "today Bill Martinson will ask several questions about the stadium and the city will respond as follows").  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080710_11_hr842284

You have no support for your argument that there was no bidding process at play here.  I have given you a wealth of links and you have nothing other than your assertions lies to the contrary.  (And this is all comical since your initial argument in this thread is that no bids contracts are legal under the Title 60 sections dealing with public trusts.)

The notice to receive bids was published under state law, the group in charge met, and chose the bidder.  That's exactly what the statute requires.

At least you now concede that the statute doesn't permit no bid contracts for public trusts (boy, that sure looks like a floater of an argument now).

I have no clue about the alleged "fourth" company and neither do you.  Quit making stuff up.  If you have something to show to the contrary, be my guest.  Show 'em or ****dgeU.

I'm done with you for the day.  Have more important things to do than watch you contradict yourself and make up facts.

But, for the record, you're wrong again.

Poor FB.

[]

[USRufnex]

Gold, you know every time you read and respond to one of FB's posts, God kills a kitten...

Bears drool, oligarchs rule!!! /sarcasm.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

At a Committee Meeting he chaired a few hours before the  Council's 6-3 vote ON THE EVENING OF JULY 10, Mr. Martinsen stated he was preparing a list of questions for the Mayor's Office.

In fact, he prepared a list of 30 Questions.

Those were presented to the Mayor's Office.

On July 10.  

In the July 11 newspaper article in the Tulsa World, the 30 questions indicated that Manhattan Construction was selected by a "bidding process".

There was no public notice as required under state competitive bidding law for construction projects over $25,000.

It was NOT a competitive bidding process according to state law.

Three companies MAY have stated that they submitted bids.

Wonder if a FOURTH construction company, or an out-of-state construction company, might just sue the City of Tulsa?

If you want the bidding process to be more transparent, take it up at the next City Council meeting.  I believe the City publishes dates and times for the review of these projects here:  http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/construction.asp

Also, you can see where they gave notice here: http://www.oklahomanotices.com/

It looks like they published it in June in the Legal and Commerce News.

You're really wrong on your timeline.  Martinson asked his questions on the 9th of July, the same day the document I provided is dated -- it was published in the paper July 10 (that's how papers work, you don't print news from the future -- "today Bill Martinson will ask several questions about the stadium and the city will respond as follows").  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080710_11_hr842284

You have no support for your argument that there was no bidding process at play here.  I have given you a wealth of links and you have nothing other than your assertions lies to the contrary.  (And this is all comical since your initial argument in this thread is that no bids contracts are legal under the Title 60 sections dealing with public trusts.)

The notice to receive bids was published under state law, the group in charge met, and chose the bidder.  That's exactly what the statute requires.

At least you now concede that the statute doesn't permit no bid contracts for public trusts (boy, that sure looks like a floater of an argument now).

I have no clue about the alleged "fourth" company and neither do you.  Quit making stuff up.  If you have something to show to the contrary, be my guest.  Show 'em or ****dgeU.

I'm done with you for the day.  Have more important things to do than watch you contradict yourself and make up facts.

But, for the record, you're wrong again.

Poor FB.

[]

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.