Bartlett and Tulsans for Better Government

[Wrinkle]

Steve Roemerman has an entry on his blog today regarding Bartlett and his association with Tulsans for Better Government.

Interesting read.

http://www.roemermanonrecord.com/2009/10/was-bartlett-member-of-tulsans-for.html

[Conan71]

Hmmm, a clueless mayor.  Sounds like LaFortune all over again.

[sroemerman]

Thanks Wrinkle, I'm glad someone found it interesting.

[shadows]

If one attended the council meeting when DB was a member one could get the idea that he possessed the crown of a King and the citizens were his subjects. If one liked the present mayor way of handling the city as a business then you got the man available.  Thirty more years of indebting the city without a vote.

[sgrizzle]

I try to keep track of what I sign up for.

[waterboy]

Talk about a guy with not enough going on at work. Hope he makes better use of his next three years here.

Were these Tulsans for Better Government some sort of nefarious gangsters or mortgage brokers or something? Or is their only crime that they hailed from midtown and supported downtown development? I was around when the city changed its charter. They needed to. At least one at large councilor does not seem too outrageous to me. Maybe an independent could actually be elected.

And, I live in midtown and support downtown development. If that puts me in a crowd that republicans can't stomach, please let me know.

[sroemerman]

waterboy, so you think that midtown does not have enough representation, and that they need at least one more councilor? Interesting.

If you will permit me to quote Greg Bledsoe, "This council-packing scheme must be called for what it is,-an undemocratic, ill-advised plan to return power to the traditional elite who fear an active and energized electorate."

The end game for this idea was to have lopsided mid town representation; this is why the opposition to at-large councilors hailed people from all over Tulsa, not just Republicans.

[Townsend]

"active and energized electorate."

I don't have alot to add to this but I will point out "active and energized electorate"... in Tulsa?

Good luck finding 1 in 20 people around Tulsa that have any idea what is happening around them.  Even if you do, they'll think the river projects are about building islands or some sort of flying monkey god or elephant Satan is taking over at the zoo.

Dammit, I'm tired of paying my hard earned tax money on the dog parks and I better see the roads getting fixed before anything else is being done around here.

We might need to find an educated electorate before we can count on having an active and energized one.

[Conan71]

I just want to know where FOTD was today.  I was counting on him to call the Tulsans For Bitter Government a bunch of "C-Streeters".

[FOTD]

I just want to know where FOTD was today.  I was counting on him to call the Tulsans For Bitter Government a bunch of "C-Streeters".

bump

[Wrinkle]

Thanks Wrinkle, I'm glad someone found it interesting.

You're welcome. I read your blog often, even used to post once in awhile anonymously, but....you know.

btw, wasn't Tulsan's for Better Government also behind the councilor recall effort, and comprised of many not-so-Tulsa 'Tulsans'?

[rwarn17588]

With Republicans like Bates and Roemerman, Bartlett doesn't need enemies. 

[waterboy]

waterboy, so you think that midtown does not have enough representation, and that they need at least one more councilor? Interesting.

If you will permit me to quote Greg Bledsoe, "This council-packing scheme must be called for what it is,-an undemocratic, ill-advised plan to return power to the traditional elite who fear an active and energized electorate."

The end game for this idea was to have lopsided mid town representation; this is why the opposition to at-large councilors hailed people from all over Tulsa, not just Republicans.

So you say.

Why do you assume that midtown would benefit most from an at large councilman? Especially when midtown is outnumbered by suburban voters? Its a great opportunity for an unknown, non party affiliated visionary to take a seat at the table. I could see some possibility for interesting alliances as well. You see conspiracy by unknown elitists. Sad.

I don't know Greg Bledsoe, and pardon my impudence, but why should I? He has his opinion, I have mine. I truly don't understand why there is so much hatred from you folks about midtown, downtown and the river. We pay for your dang expressways, turnpikes and miserably designed neighborhoods and rarely complain about them because we seldom visit them. Can't you indulge us our walkable neighborhood fantasies without calling us all fearful, undemocratic, traditional, elites? Geez, most of us aren't even sure if we're in midtown, uptown, downtown or what.

You make this seem like a real issue. It confirms my suspicion of Bartlett's weakness that he would take you seriously.

[pmcalk]

The real issue here is not whether you agree or disagree with Tulsans for Better Government.  If you believe the blog (definitely a legitimate if--it is just a blog), Bartlett appears to be completely ill-informed about issues facing the city.  You could be for or against the group, but to not even recall the push for the at-large council shows a incredible lack of engagement in the city's affairs.  I would expect the average citizen to not recall the at-large push, but not someone who hopes to be in charge of the city.  That's like the POTUS not knowing that he was listed as a member of Moveon, nor knowing what Moveon represented when questioned.  At a local level, I would say that Tulsans for Better Government is at least as controversial as Moveon.  Like LaFortune, Bartlett seems be stradling the fence, hoping to remain above the fray, when ultimately he only appears indecisive and uninvolved.  I would much rather have a mayor who voted his convictions--even when I disagree with those convictions--than a mayor who simply votes based upon whomever spoke to him last.

[Conan71]

The real issue here is not whether you agree or disagree with Tulsans for Better Government.  If you believe the blog (definitely a legitimate if--it is just a blog), Bartlett appears to be completely ill-informed about issues facing the city.  You could be for or against the group, but to not even recall the push for the at-large council shows a incredible lack of engagement in the city's affairs.  I would expect the average citizen to not recall the at-large push, but not someone who hopes to be in charge of the city.  That's like the POTUS not knowing that he was listed as a member of Moveon, nor knowing what Moveon represented when questioned.  At a local level, I would say that Tulsans for Better Government is at least as controversial as Moveon.  Like LaFortune, Bartlett seems be stradling the fence, hoping to remain above the fray, when ultimately he only appears indecisive and uninvolved.  I would much rather have a mayor who voted his convictions--even when I disagree with those convictions--than a mayor who simply votes based upon whomever spoke to him last.

He's either clueless or careless.

Good points.  Take it a little further:  It's not like he's been politically inactive.  He ran against Adelson in 2004 for State Senate and he's been a frequent go-to guy in the media when they've wanted opinions on civic matters.  You'd think a guy who was an original councilor and ostensibly was behind the movement to end the commisioner form of government would still kep tabs on what they are trying to do with the council form of government.  He's served on various boards in the community as well.  How could you be so clueless if you are a part of the local poltical goings-on or careless enough to loan your good and visible name to a group that you don't fully understand what it is they do?  

"Son, fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life"