re: City Corruption and PAC money

[Limabean]

Did anyone catch the name of the PAC that some of the indicted individuals participate in?

I hope this PAC hasn't contributed to any of our elected officials.

[DowntownNow]

Lima...its the AGC PAC, a PAC "Established as a PAC to support Oklahoma canidates running for Senator, Legislator or Governor."

Interesting read of who's who on their website

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/oklahoma_agc_pac.asp

[waterboy]

There are some familiar names among the contributors. The same ones being reported in the World stories. However, most of the money donated by that PAC are to the GOP PAC's. Small amounts to individuals but a $10,000 donation to a GOP pac. Not too surprising since we're a solid red state, but $0 donations to local Democratic candidates or PAC's. So much for conspiracy with the mayor or locals.

I suspect this story goes a lot deeper. Tulsa has a long heritage of business under the table, in the back room, by proxy ...whatever you want to call it. In fact, Oklahoma has a history of corruption. Mostly its been hearsay and sour grapes but this one has legs because it was done by a third party at the Federal level with no interference from locals. Lots of firms who were treated shoddily in past bidding processes are smiling contently this week. I know of one who confided such nonsense was happening just this past summer.

Here's what I derive from the news coverage. Taylor could not be involved with the investigation other than probable knowledge of its existence. Lots of people have commented in the past few years on some sort of federal investigation occurring. This one started before her election in 2005. Her choice would have been to get involved and tip off the conspirators by signing on to Bynum's auditing request of Public Works, or to delay any action till the feds finished. The latter action would serve to absolve her of any appearance of involvement in fraud and allow the perpetrators to be snared. Easy choice.

To blame her and insist on her taking the fall because the final announcement of the indictments occurred on her shift (as has been suggested on another thread and in the TW comments) is pure partisan politics and downright shameful. [B)]

[Wrinkle]

On the other hand, if the Mayor knew of this investigation, why did she not jump onboard for an independent audit a long time ago?

...just killin' time waiting for the indictments?

If there's one thing the local established power detests, it's outside intervention. They would be doing everything possible to keep outsiders away.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

On the other hand, if the Mayor knew of this investigation, why did she not jump onboard for an independent audit a long time ago?

...just killin' time waiting for the indictments?

If there's one thing the local established power detests, it's outside intervention. They would be doing everything possible to keep outsiders away.

"Taylor could not be involved with the investigation other than probable knowledge of its existence. Lots of people have commented in the past few years on some sort of federal investigation occurring. This one started before her election in 2005. Her choice would have been to get involved and tip off the conspirators by signing on to Bynum's auditing request of Public Works, or to delay any action till the feds finished. The latter action would serve to absolve her of any appearance of involvement in fraud and allow the perpetrators to be snared. Easy choice. "

Killing time waiting for the indictments? It wasn't her job to stop the feds even if she knew of it. The rumors were written about on this forum years ago that there was some kind of big investigation going on. Did LaFortune sit back and wait for indictments too? Did the councillors?

And, did you want her to jump in with some local yokel guys, tip off the schemers and possibly risk screwing up a perfectly neutral investigation so that you guys could accuse her of interference?

She loses either way with your rationale.

[DowntownNow]

Channel 8 interview on Friday 1/23...Taylor knew nothing of the investigation until receiving word that one of the indicted (assumably Martinez) had aburptly resigned.  Martinez resigned Wednesday according to published reports.  Indictments were unsealed on Thursday.  I think its pretty safe to say that Taylor knew nothing of the federal investigation before that according to her own statements in that same interview and the fact that federal grand jury investigations are kept secret.

So Waterboy, her decision not to previously contract for an independent performance audit was entirely without regard for the federal probe.  She simply didnt want to or she would have done it.

[waterboy]

We're both relying on assumptions, presumptions and hearsay. I'm just answering a simple question based on what I've read here and in the media reports. I read that she knew of the investigation, then I read she didn't. I personally heard rumors of investigations before she was elected. They were explained away. Now it seems they were diversionary explanations.

Think she heard of them too? One could know about an investigation but not know of its progress or its results which may explain the two different remarks. One may also be told to butt out and shut up.

[waterboy]

I wonder how it would have been perceived by you folks had she jumped in with Bynum and had depts. audited by independent parties? Especially if they found nothing? You would have called it another unnecessary expense since we already have auditors assigned those functions. And if those employees are not reliable enough to perform those functions...they should be eliminated. So, with your plan she loses both the respect of her workers and reinforces your contention that she is out of control and abetting corruption.

Nice choice. "Light the torches boys, we're going in!"[]

[DowntownNow]

Waterboy, you're prolly referring to the TW article where they stated that Taylor "had indicated" she was aware of the investigation and had been having extensive discussions with FBI, etc.

The Channel 8 interview has Taylor personally answering that she only knew of it as I described above.

Here is the link to both...in the case of the TW it was a clear assumption not based on fact.  The Ch 8 interview can be nothing more than fact since it is her answering that very question.  No assumptions here my friend...just documented fact.

http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=32021
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090123_11_A4_MayorK556200

[waterboy]

I'm always glad to make a new friend.[]

Nonetheless, my insights, though based on conflicting remarks by herzhonor, still stand. She had little to gain and a lot to lose by signing on with Bynum's effort. In fact, that is probably why no one else signed on.

[DowntownNow]

Waterboy - What she stands to gain is some credibility in the minds of the public that she is moving to do the right thing, particularly in light of the fact that some fraud has already been found in the Public Works Department - one division mind you.  To order an audit says to the general public that
"I hear your concerns, I share them and to prove that we are on top of it and no other funny business is going on (especially since the Public Works Depts own officials are balking at an independent audit) we are going to conduct a thorough one of all departments to show we mean business that corruption and misuse of tax payers dollard will not be tolerated."  Truth in transparency.

What does she have to lose?  Face if an independent performance audit finds that there is further corruption within the PWD?  Not that hard choices and swift action should not already be occurring with what has been found already (firing department heads, etc) but finding further fraud and ending it would be seen as a huge gain in her favor.  If the audit finds nothing, she can rest easy in the fact that she did all she could to find anything amiss and the public will give more confidence.

[waterboy]

You're talking current time. I was talking past time. Currently, with all that has surfaced, I agree there is much to be gained by authorizing a widespread government audit by a third party. Let the chips fall where they may. Where does the funding come from?

[DowntownNow]

Well she can find $7.1 million to pay out to BOK for the Great Plains Airlines fiasco when the City wasnt even a part of the lawsuit and should never have been, but that's another debate, so let's make this simple.

The City Council was recently told that there was approximately $135.2 million in unspent sales-tax and bond-package funds dating as far back as 1991.  While some of that money may have specific criteria for its expenditure and must be redirected using approved ordinances, some are unappropriated funds that could be used for such services if I understand this correctly.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Well she can find $7.1 million to pay out to BOK for the Great Plains Airlines fiasco when the City wasnt even a part of the lawsuit and should never have been, but that's another debate, so let's make this simple.

The City Council was recently told that there was approximately $135.2 million in unspent sales-tax and bond-package funds dating as far back as 1991.  While some of that money may have specific criteria for its expenditure and must be redirected using approved ordinances, some are unappropriated funds that could be used for such services if I understand this correctly.

Oh. You're one of those guys. Hold a grudge long do you? She won.

I like simplicity. If the council goes along with the full audit plan and the source of funding is legal, then she should sign on and make it happen. But lets be team players. If its not 100% agreement on the council then ...not. She's not the coach, merely one of the players. The same stalemate is happening at the congressional level. Some folks sit around and wait until controversial legislation is sure to be approved, then vote against it so they can use their negative vote in the next campaign. If the legislation proves to be effective then they take that credit too.

What $ figure do you have in mind? I'm sure there are lots of hands reaching for those unspent, un-allocated funds. May not be much left.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Well she can find $7.1 million to pay out to BOK for the Great Plains Airlines fiasco when the City wasnt even a part of the lawsuit and should never have been, but that's another debate, so let's make this simple.

The City Council was recently told that there was approximately $135.2 million in unspent sales-tax and bond-package funds dating as far back as 1991.  While some of that money may have specific criteria for its expenditure and must be redirected using approved ordinances, some are unappropriated funds that could be used for such services if I understand this correctly.

Oh. You're one of those guys. Hold a grudge long do you? She won.

I like simplicity. If the council goes along with the full audit plan and the source of funding is legal, then she should sign on and make it happen. But lets be team players. If its not 100% agreement on the council then ...not. She's not the coach, merely one of the players. The same stalemate is happening at the congressional level. Some folks sit around and wait until controversial legislation is sure to be approved, then vote against it so they can use their negative vote in the next campaign. If the legislation proves to be effective then they take that credit too.

Kinda like Taylor the Tyrant pushing annual municipal utility rate increases for the next five years and then going before the Corporation Commission to oppose the utility rate increases requested by AEP/PSO expressing concerns that "We must be mindful and protective about cost increases during this time, particularly for those families that we're seeing falling out of the safety net, lower income families and senior citizens." What a hypocrite.