Lawsuit Filed Against Mayor Kathy Taylor in Novus Development Deal

[DowntownNow]

Published in the Tulsa World this morning:

Lawsuit: Mayor went too far for ballpark
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Friday, July 17, 2009
7/17/2009 3:36:36 AM

Mayor Kathy Taylor is accused in a lawsuit of inappropriately interfering with a land deal to free the site for the downtown ballpark.

An amended lawsuit filed Wednesday in Tulsa County District Court adds Taylor as an individual and alleges that she acted "outside the scope of her authority as mayor."

The lawsuit was filed by Will Wilkins of Novus Homes and his mother, Cecilia Wilkins, of W3 Development.

They initially filed the lawsuit in August against the Tulsa Development Authority for alleged breach of contract when the authority ended an exclusive negotiation period with Novus on property that is now part of the master plan for the downtown ballpark. They added the city to the lawsuit in April.

The latest amendment comes after two Development Authority members said in depositions that an action by Taylor to secure land for the ballpark was "irregular."

The lawsuit charges that Taylor and the city renegotiated and amended a Tulsa Development Authority contract with Greenwood Community Development Corp. without consulting or getting approval from the authority.

The action resulted in a land swap for Greenwood, freeing up its site for the ballpark.

As of Thursday, Taylor had not been served with the amended lawsuit but was aware of the motion to add her to it, the mayor's spokeswoman, Kim MacLeod, said. A private attorney will represent Taylor, MacLeod said.

The lawsuit states that on June 19, 2008, Taylor, purportedly acting on behalf of the Tulsa Development Authority, personally signed a real estate contract to which the authority was a named party.

However, the mayor's powers in regard to the authority are expressly limited to appointing authority members, who are volunteers, the lawsuit states.

The mayor does not have the authority to exercise the powers of the Development Authority by entering into or negotiating contracts on behalf of the authority, the lawsuit states.

In depositions, Tulsa Development Authority Chairman Carl Bracy and authority member John Clayman said they were unaware that Taylor personally handled the renegotiation or had signed an amended contract between the authority and the Greenwood corporation until June 27, when a special meeting was called for the Development Authority to ratify her action.

Clayman said he was surprised to see that the mayor had signed the contract on behalf of the Development Authority and that he perceived the action to be "irregular."

"I had never seen that done before," he said.

Clayman said he voiced concern about the action and asked whether anyone knew how it would affect a land agreement with the Greenwood corporation and the Novus development.

A week before they learned that Taylor had signed the contract, but a few days after the Tulsa World published an article about a change in the ballpark site, Clayman and Bracy exchanged e-mails expressing concern about the city's actions.

Clayman said in his deposition that his e-mail to other Development Authority members stated that "no one from the city should be setting policy for us."

Bracy responded by saying that "the city has caused this quandary, and I do not want TDA to be the fall guy."

The lawsuit states that Taylor's action not only inappropriately freed the site for the ballpark, it allegedly influenced existing Development Authority relationships to allow the Tulsa Stadium Trust to procure other land for surrounding development, including a parcel that Novus was negotiating to redevelop.

The lawsuit alleges that once the ballpark site was announced, negotiations with Novus began to break down.

Then suddenly Novus was told that it had to meet 20 standards before contract talks could begin, the lawsuit states.

Bracy said in his deposition that he could not recall those standards being imposed on other Development Authority development contracts.

Wow, this seems to be a far different kind of story about this issue than the TW has run before.  I wonder if they are more emboldened to print more to the story than they used to since she's on the way out?

Doesn't sound like TDA is doing any more favors for the City on this one though:

Clayman said in his deposition that his e-mail to other Development Authority members stated that "no one from the city should be setting policy for us."

Bracy responded by saying that "the city has caused this quandary, and I do not want TDA to be the fall guy."

[RecycleMichael]

So your real identity is now known, Will (DowntownNow).

This is why you are opposed to everything downtown.

[cannon_fodder]

The more that comes out, the more disappointed I am that the deal to get a ballpark downtown was hammered through on shaky grounds.  I want a ballpark downtown and  I think an assessment downtown is a fair way of doing it, but it just seems like it was pushed through by any means available and damn anyone who thinks differently.  I cannot, however, intelligently comment about the nature of this suit.

[sgrizzle]

[TheTed]

With that deal falling through, we're gonna have a beautiful ballpark in some ugly surroundings come opening day, barring some super quick construction. Hopefully we at least get some construction started by then so it'll be slightly less ugly.

[Conan71]

I cannot, however, intelligently comment about the nature of this suit.

So, babble on idiotically on it if you can't comment intelligently.

[Wilbur]

This doesn't smell good.  Why do I have the feeling we're going to be paying for this, as well as the ballpark, because everyone had stuff crammed down their throats and not nearly enough time to evaluate.

[swake]

This doesn't smell good.  Why do I have the feeling we're going to be paying for this, as well as the ballpark, because everyone had stuff crammed down their throats and not nearly enough time to evaluate.

Paying for what? I have never understood what the damages are here, it makes no sense. It was an agreement to negotiate, not an agreement to sell. The agreement to negotiate was canceled. There was never any assurance that a deal to sell the property would be reached so how could there be damages for a deal not being reached?

If we are talking about me selling you a car and I decide I don't want to sell it, I want to give to my kid are you going to sue me? For what?

[RecycleMichael]

This was our discussion from last summer...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11003.0

This is our discussion when the Judge ruled against Novus...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=11338.0

[TheArtist]

When your not a private entity but are supposed to be working for the taxpayers, and doing so fairly, this situation smells bad. From what I can tell, it appears they changed the rules of the game mid stride and asked Novus to do things that they hadn't asked others to do, plus it now appears that there were other shenanigans going on. One would expect that when negotiating, the rules would be the same for each party and not subject to being changed on a whim for political or personal reasons.  I cant really speak to the legality of it, but it sure doesn't sound right.  

Whats really frustrating is that it appears that they wanted all the property in order to have some control of what goes around the ballpark to make sure its good development that will compliment the ballpark area, and also perhaps so that a larger developer could have enough property to make a large development go through....Novus was willing to work with them on that front, but seems to have been rudely pushed aside.  Again, perhaps legal, but not good.  I doubt they would have done this if someone "more well connected" had been negotiating on that property. Each person should be able to know what the rules of the game are, and follow them to the end conclusion. Each person should be treated the same and fairly no matter what the circumstances. I know, silly and stupid to hope that. Perhaps Novus spent the time, money and effort the did, and wouldn't have made the cut, but we wont know, games were played, and perhaps even illegal or "irregular" actions were taken behind the scenes which manipulated the outcome of the situation. How can anyone now go into these types of negotiations and know what the rules are, or whether they got, or didn't get the deal or even to negotiate fairly, because of some whim or manipulation of someone for who knows what reason? 

[Double A]

The City Council should seek an Attorney General's opinion on Taylor the Tyrant's actions in this matter. The Ethics Advisory Board should address this matter, too.

[DTowner]

I agree that even though there may be no liability, the way Novus Homes was treated doesn't smell good.  Nonetheless, I don't understand how this discovery regarding the Mayor's alleged illegal action helps Novus.  From the article, it appears that the land deal with the Greenwood Development Corp involved land different from that involved in the TDA and Novus negotiations.  While wrong doing by the Mayor with respect to the Greenwood land, if proven, paints her and potentially TDA in a bad light, that still doesn't prove Novus' claims. 

Also, based on the allegations against the Mayor as described in this Tulsa World article, it is unclear to me what standing Novus has to challenge or enforce TDA rules or other laws against the Mayor over a transaction separate from its negotiation agreement and to which it was not a party.

[cynical]

Another issue that will probably decide Novus's case is the fact that under Oklahoma law there is no implied covenant of good faith in any contract except insurance contracts.  If Novus is arguing that the TDA and whoever else was involved breached an obligation to negotiate in good faith, they simply can't get there from here.  The "smell test" that has been invoked so often doesn't establish a cause of action. 

[Wilbur]

Paying for what? I have never understood what the damages are here, it makes no sense. It was an agreement to negotiate, not an agreement to sell. The agreement to negotiate was canceled. There was never any assurance that a deal to sell the property would be reached so how could there be damages for a deal not being reached?

If we are talking about me selling you a car and I decide I don't want to sell it, I want to give to my kid are you going to sue me? For what?

While I agree with your comparison, government is held to a higher standard.  What we will be paying for is the expected profit Novus would have made, but instead, went to the Kathy Taylor faction.

I believe there was an exclusive negotiation agreement between the two parties.  Had that exclusivity expired, I would have no problem with the authority going someplace else, but that didn't happen, and was never given the opportunity to happen.

Tell me Novus will have no problem saying the Mayor forced this on the authority and, low and behold, the new group was all her friends.

I say again, this stinks!

[JCnOwasso]

This is crooked and illegal.  In the feds we call it an unauthorized commitment.  When someone acting with implied authority makes an agreement that they have no legal authority to make.  And since it was the Mayor, the group would think that the mayor has the express authority to do so. 

Unfortunately, the TDA was proper f'd either way.  They could have broke the unauthorized commitment, but they would have faced a lawsuit their as well.

And as for the comment about changing your mind about selling a car...  Not really a good example.  A better one would be this.  You enter into a negotiation to sell your car with a person, telling that person that you will sell them and only them the car if you can come to an agreement in the next 30days and then your wife signs an agreement to give the car to your brother.  Then you have to tell the person, that you are negotiating with, that you will have to end negotiations even though you set forth an agreement to negotiate for 30 days... without the proper provisions for early termination of the agreement.