Can Sally Bell...

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?

No, because Sally Bell doesn't ride her bicycle around on the Broken Arrow Expressway with a giant inflatable penis.

Voters won't replace an incompetent politician with an insane one. No sense in replacing one big liability with another big liability.

It doesn't change the fact that enthusiasm for Sally Bell isn't very high, but disgust for Randi Miller was VERY high.

Now, could Sally Bell boost enthusiasm for her candidacy before the general election? Maybe. But it pays to remember that Karen Keith has plenty of enthusiastic supporters of her own, where Randi Miller had nearly zero.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Let me type this slowly for you, wrinkle.

It matters because Sally Bell is running for county commissioner. She wants our vote. When you run for office, there are different standards for openness. If she wasn't running, I would agree with you.

It ain't a convenience store or a fighter plane manufacturer. If their owners were running for public office, I would want to see any deals they have with any government agency.

Sally Bell can't get our trust, or our vote, without making this document between her business and the county available to us.

Do you hold Kathy Taylor to the same standard? Do you demand the same amount of openness from her?

I'll be anxiously awaiting for your public declaration demanding she release the records of where she has flown City Councilors on Mare Force One.

Personal attack removed.  Make your point and move on without going into character insults on other members.  If you have a problem with a public figure or authority figurehead who posts here, take that up with the appropriate authorities instead of continuing a public vendetta on these boards.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



Wrong again. Sally Bell has a great deal of the public's trust and confidence. Did you hear, 79% of her own party against an incumbent?

I disagree. It's clearly a case in which the local GOP completely lost confidence in Randi Miller.

Its voters didn't vote FOR Sally Bell as much as vote AGAINST Randi Miller.

I live on the west side, which was considered a Randi Miller stronghold. The disillusionment with her was strong. It certainly wasn't a case in which Sally Bell was setting the world on fire with enthusiastic supporters.

A vote for Sally Bell was a vote against Randi Miller.

Choice.

Are you suggesting Paul Tay would've had the same result?

Isn't there a Godwin's law for invoking Tay's name into a conversation on here?

[}:)]

Yeah, probably. Thirty lashes.
Just trying to make the point in easily understood terms.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

People are jumping to conclusions about Karen Keith before they've even bothered to learn what her policies and initiatives are.

Oh, I've seen enough of what KK's policies, priorities and initiatives are to know all I need to know and know better than to trust with the reigns of County government.

You do bring up a good point, though. KK's had all primary season to lay out her platform on the issues and has not taken a public stand on much of anything at all, at least with Sally Bell you know what she stands for, because it's out there for all to see. The Karen Keith Kampaigners are out there calling for openness and for Bell's Amusement Park to release  their business plan. Maybe KK should practice what her Kampaigners preach and provide the similar openness by making public where she stands on the issues, instead of just trying to get by as an unknown political quantity with her name recognition from her T.V. days and her tenure as  vodoo spin doctor svengali for the Lafortune administration and Vision 2025?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.

Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.

The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.

You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.

Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).

Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?

I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.

You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.

She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got  preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.

Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.

The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.

You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.

Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).

Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?

I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.

You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.

She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got  preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.

O.K., let me get this straight, you claim Ms. Keith is NOT aligned with those currently running the County, the fairgrounds and Vision2025 even though she was seen almost daily on TV, at debates as the spokesperson in support of the Vision and worked for the Mayor as the primary City representative to the County for the Vision project?

No, I have no dilusions of her being the embodyment of the County or Vision2025, just a major player in the "collection of many individuals" who designed, pumped and promoted the project, and who now administor to it. I don't think just voting for V2025, or putting a sign in your yard qualifies you by itself, but if you know the handshake, they might let you sit in on some of the lesser, public meetings required by law.

As for Ms. Bell, why would she need to recuse herself with regard to a Federal Grand Jury? That makes no sense at all. Nobody is recused from a Grand Jury investigation. The Bell's company was contracted with the County, as are the Murphy's. There's no contractual relationship between the Bell's and the Murphy's.

And, the Bell's business plan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Murphys. How Randi Miller may have leveraged the situation in Murphy's behalf could be a major consideration of a Grand Jury in determining if Bell's was mistreated. That has nothing to do with Bell's business plan.

Are you suggesting because Randi Miller said she couldn't understand didn't like the Bell's business plan, she allowed Big Splash free rent for last year and a half...and it's Bell's fault for whatever is in their plan?

Even more ludicrous is you feel reading the Bell's plan will clear it all up for you, if not us. Sure.

At most, a Grand Jury may request a brief on the Bell's business plan to acquaint themselves with the operations, but it would never be made public even under those circumstances.

Talk about throwup not sticking.

Here's a dare. I'll swallow a dozen goldfish live in the Bartlett Square fountains Pool-Thing-II in the middle of the intersection of 5th & Main (which seems to attract drunken school girls) if in the next 24 hours you can post here on the TulsaNow forum a complete business plan, from any currently operating Tulsa corporation, which is being used now to attempt to initiate any kind of new contract and produced within the last 6 months, with their certification and written permission for you to do so, executed by an officer of the corporation.

...ain't gonna happen.

You can't even get SemGroup's business plan.

If you can't produce one, then you have to stop calling for the Bell's business plan. There's no way it's going to be made public anyway, nor should.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.

Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.

The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.

You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.

Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).

Isn't that stretching as well? She was the voice of the mayor who supported the initiative. Many people worked to get 2025 passed and were much more involved than just PR. Are they all now part of the "bunch"? I had a sign in my yard. Am I part of the "bunch"?

I don't think the Bell's need to share their business plan UNLESS they continue to use it as campaign fodder that they were treated badly because of the Murphy Bros. To prove their thesis the plan would need to be made public or the public simply will distrust these allegations as scapegoating, which it is.

You still haven't answered the question you begged. If there is an investigation by the feds how in the world would she be a better candidate when she was contractually involved with these people in the first place and will have to recuse herself. Our new commissioner won't be able to serve without claims of COI. The whole thing will be a distraction at least.

She should decide whether she wants blood or change. If she wants blood, participate in the investigation and succeed in starting up somewhere else. If she wants to effect a "fresh approach", stop telling everyone the Murphy Bros. got  preferential treatment or prove otherwise by showing her tidy little plan.

O.K., let me get this straight, you claim Ms. Keith is NOT aligned with those currently running the County, the fairgrounds and Vision2025 even though she was seen almost daily on TV, at debates as the spokesperson in support of the Vision and worked for the Mayor as the primary City representative to the County for the Vision project?

Yes. You confuse the role of a press spokesman, a pr function with active decisionmaking and policymaking. She was their face, not their go to braintrust. I work for a lab Dr., but his CPA doesn't consult with me. Knowing them and being part of the "bunch" is two different things.

No, I have no dilusions of her being the embodyment of the County or Vision2025, just a major player in the "collection of many individuals" who designed, pumped and promoted the project, and who now administor to it. I don't think just voting for V2025, or putting a sign in your yard qualifies you by itself, but if you know the handshake, they might let you sit in on some of the lesser, public meetings required by law.

I disagree. You are delusional (sp) and are the embodiment (sp) of anger at the rest of Tulsa for strongly approving of V2025. By your standards we are all just fools being manipulated.

As for Ms. Bell, why would she need to recuse herself with regard to a Federal Grand Jury? That makes no sense at all. Nobody is recused from a Grand Jury investigation. The Bell's company was contracted with the County, as are the Murphy's. There's no contractual relationship between the Bell's and the Murphy's.

You tell me. You brought up the subject of her recusing herself earlier in this thread. If she can both serve as commissioner and potential witness in an investigation on practices of a board she sits on well then you're the man.

And, the Bell's business plan has nothing whatsoever to do with the Murphys. How Randi Miller may have leveraged the situation in Murphy's behalf could be a major consideration of a Grand Jury in determining if Bell's was mistreated. That has nothing to do with Bell's business plan.

It does if she required one of Bell's and found it deficient but didn't require one of Murphy or did and found it sufficient. YOu think they'll just take Sally's word for it?

Are you suggesting because Randi Miller said she couldn't understand didn't like the Bell's business plan, she allowed Big Splash free rent for last year and a half...and it's Bell's fault for whatever is in their plan?

Even more ludicrous is you feel reading the Bell's plan will clear it all up for you, if not us. Sure.

Diversionary. Didn't say or imply either. I'm speaking of her tactics in saying she was treated unfairly and that their plan was a good one. She expects us to take her word for that? I wouldn't show my business plan to anyone but an investor and she isn't legally required to show her plan to anyone unless it goes to court and she is forced to, but why bring it up if she isn't going to show it?

At most, a Grand Jury may request a brief on the Bell's business plan to acquaint themselves with the operations, but it would never be made public even under those circumstances.

Talk about throwup not sticking.

Here's a dare. I'll swallow a dozen goldfish live in the Bartlett Square fountains Pool-Thing-II in the middle of the intersection of 5th & Main (which seems to attract drunken school girls) if in the next 24 hours you can post here on the TulsaNow forum a complete business plan, from any currently operating Tulsa corporation, which is being used now to attempt to initiate any kind of new contract and produced within the last 6 months, with their certification and written permission for you to do so, executed by an officer of the corporation.

...ain't gonna happen.

Nor do I expect them to or demanded such. I have a dare for you. Accuse Miller of having sex with dogs and you have the pics but you're not going to show them to anyone because you were there and it might tend to incriminate you but you just want people to know. See how far that gets you with the public.

You can't even get SemGroup's business plan.

If you can't produce one, then you have to stop calling for the Bell's business plan. There's no way it's going to be made public anyway, nor should.

Thanks. That's what I thought. You can't answer the questions so you dodge, weave, obfuscate, interpolate and otherwise use your skills to change the subject.

I'm tired of hearing how badly Bell's was treated. The county treats most of their concessionaires badly from conversations I've had with them. It has nothing to do with how well Ms. Bell will do as a commissioner. If indeed there is fire behind the smoke on the fairgrounds I would rather someone with no axe to grind, no appearance of conflict of interest and lots of political savvy would oversee the operation.

[Conan71]

I honestly could care less if Sally shows Bell's business plan.  I don't personally think it should be a job pre-requisite, I simply said I found it ironic someone who values secrecy is promising transparency, that's all.

Wrinkle keeps adding imaginary arguments.  

Originally what I said about the conflict-of-interest issue has to do with an investigation by the commission to review the various contracts the Murphys have with the fairgrounds.

My exact words were:

"I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys."

No mention of a grand jury.  A grand jury cannot void any contracts, yet the county commission has oversight of the fair board and can demand such an investigation.  The county commission answers to the citizens of Tulsa County.  If we are, in fact, only making 1/3 of what we should be making off a midway contract, this is a priority issue for the citizens, especially if we want government to pay more of it's own way with less taxes.  If we are allowing a different amusement park to continue operating without the same stipulations the Bells operated under, while being rent scofflaws and opening without completing repairs deemed necessary by the ODOL, that's a serious issue to the county.

All we get out of a grand jury is possible criminal indictments.  I don't believe that would cover any civil remedy for the taxpayers of Tulsa County.  If there has been fraud and malfeasance, I want it prosecuted, but I also want any financial wrongs corrected.  

I envision civil remedies to include finding what our out is on the midway contract and put it out for bid.  Whomever the successful vendor is, they have no right handling fair money and being trusted to honestly give the fair board it's take.

The conflict-of-interest is obvious: Murphy was given a new contract with first right of refusal on the Bell's property, should Bell's ever happen to vacate.  In short order, Bell's lease was not renewed.  The Bells have publicly stated they believe Murphy was behind all of this.  It sure looks and smells that way, but Sally Bell doesn't even remotely have the appearance of a neutral party on such an investigation.

The Bells are but one family of taxpayers who have a right to know what happened along with the rest of us Tulsa County citizens.  

Wrinkle, usually your arguments are much more cogent and not stretching.  You've thrown a lot into your replies on this which was not there initially.  You are right, there is nothing to keep Sally Bell from testifying before a grand jury, but she would need to recuse herself from any investigation by the commission of the fair board business dealings with the Murphys.

I must not be too far off the truth if one of your replies only conjured up a "karma's a b!tch" comment (or close to it).

[Wrinkle]

I stated Ms. Bell might have to recuse herself if a matter of Bell's ever came before the Commission. I also stated it would be very unlikely that would ever happen since there's no contracts between them at this point, and none likely to come up anytime in the next decade or so. Not the same for the Murphy's. There's no conflict.

Not only is she, or anyone else, not allowed to recuse from a Grand Jury investigation, she wouldn't possess the authority to do so.

A Grand Jury investigation and the normal business of the Commission are descrete things which do not compromise each other. There is no conflict.

As for Ms. Keith, you contend she was handed scripts to read, kind of like a newscast. Is that right?

If so, then we should probably get back to basics and ask what makes her qualified for the job. We've been led to believe her wide and varying input to Vision2025 was the basis of her experience. If she were just reading scripts, then what qualifies her to be a Commissioner for the County?

I've been assuming both candidates were qualified for the job and that the differences were primarily new vs existing. If we now require new evidence of a candidates qualifications, then it's premature to base campaigning on new vs existing arguments at all.

[RecycleMichael]

If this is going to be a thread about qualifications to be commissioner, someone should start a new one.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I honestly could care less if Sally shows Bell's business plan.  I don't personally think it should be a job pre-requisite, I simply said I found it ironic someone who values secrecy is promising transparency, that's all.

Wrinkle keeps adding imaginary arguments.  

Originally what I said about the conflict-of-interest issue has to do with an investigation by the commission to review the various contracts the Murphys have with the fairgrounds.

My exact words were:

"I believe it would be a COI for Sally Bell to spearhead an investigation into fair board dealings with the Murphys."

No mention of a grand jury.  A grand jury cannot void any contracts, yet the county commission has oversight of the fair board and can demand such an investigation.  The county commission answers to the citizens of Tulsa County.  If we are, in fact, only making 1/3 of what we should be making off a midway contract, this is a priority issue for the citizens, especially if we want government to pay more of it's own way with less taxes.  If we are allowing a different amusement park to continue operating without the same stipulations the Bells operated under, while being rent scofflaws and opening without completing repairs deemed necessary by the ODOL, that's a serious issue to the county.

All we get out of a grand jury is possible criminal indictments.  I don't believe that would cover any civil remedy for the taxpayers of Tulsa County.  If there has been fraud and malfeasance, I want it prosecuted, but I also want any financial wrongs corrected.  

I envision civil remedies to include finding what our out is on the midway contract and put it out for bid.  Whomever the successful vendor is, they have no right handling fair money and being trusted to honestly give the fair board it's take.

The conflict-of-interest is obvious: Murphy was given a new contract with first right of refusal on the Bell's property, should Bell's ever happen to vacate.  In short order, Bell's lease was not renewed.  The Bells have publicly stated they believe Murphy was behind all of this.  It sure looks and smells that way, but Sally Bell doesn't even remotely have the appearance of a neutral party on such an investigation.

The Bells are but one family of taxpayers who have a right to know what happened along with the rest of us Tulsa County citizens.  

Wrinkle, usually your arguments are much more cogent and not stretching.  You've thrown a lot into your replies on this which was not there initially.  You are right, there is nothing to keep Sally Bell from testifying before a grand jury, but she would need to recuse herself from any investigation by the commission of the fair board business dealings with the Murphys.

I must not be too far off the truth if one of your replies only conjured up a "karma's a b!tch" comment (or close to it).

You make a good case. And, your concerns are limited to commission instigated investigations which may occur.

That point could be argued, and you've done that well. While there remains no direct relationship of the Bell's with the Murphy's, it's not exactly non-descript either.

I really wasn't approaching this from a civil standpoint. I want County business done properly, openly and transparently. That's what Sally Bell would bring to the table.

If the Murphy's and/or other County officials have irregular arrangements which affect taxpayer benefit, then the practice should stop no matter who initiates the change.

I agree Sally Bell should not be directly involved in any formal investigation by the County of the Murphy's which may result in civil or criminal proceedings. But, evaluation of County business and contractual arrangements are a normal function of the Commission, actually the Board of County Commissioners, a 5-member board. So, those things aren't up to any one Commissioner.

Good business and what's currently being done may not be the same thing, especailly as it relates to public benefit.