Roemerman on Record

Reaction

2009-11-11T06:49:00.001-06:00

Overall I'm pleased with the results of last night's election.

Mayor Elect Bartlett has my prayers. I'm hopeful that he will do a good job for all of Tulsa. I'll be watching intently.

I'm excited about Preston Doerflinger's win of the auditor's office. We desperately need the approach that he promised during the campaign.

The O.G Roscoe Turner is back! How awesome is that? He is joined by Mautino, the East Side O.G! I'm very very excited about this.

I'm glad to see G.T Bynum has won. I haven't always agreed with the votes he made during his freshman term, but I've found him to be thoughtful and fair.

I'm very upset that prop 2. I place the blame squarely on the Council who made the decision to put this on the ballot. I spoke with one of the councilors who passed this on to the voters and this is what he said to me, "I don’t really think this is a good idea. But, I got enough comments about it that I thought it should be on the ballot so that folks could vote on it." I can't say how much that frustrates me.

With this one exception, it was a good night.

Vote Tommorw

2009-11-09T20:56:00.001-06:00

Don't forget to vote tomorrow.

Here are my endorsements and recommendations.

Mayor: No endorsement. (I'm going to vote for Bartlett...begrudgingly. However, I can't say what will actually happen when I step into that "booth")

City Auditor: Preston Doerflinger

Council District 3: Roscoe Turner
Council District 4: No endorsement
Council District 6: Jim Mautino
Council District 9: G.T Bynum

Proposition No. 1: No
“Shall the existing charter of the City of Tulsa, as heretofore amended, be further amended to require that any person filing for and holding the office of City Auditor must be a certified public account or certified internal auditor?” (Yes or No)

Proposition No. 2: NO!!!!!! PLEASE VOTE NO!!!
“Shall the charter of the City of Tulsa be amended to provide that City Councilors will serve for three-year terms, which shall be staggered so that no more than 3 council districts will have an election in any one year?” (Yes or No)

Proposition No. 3: Yes
”Shall the charter of the City of Tulsa be amended to require that before any claim or lawsuit where the demand is equal to or greater than $1 million ($1,000,000) may be settled both the Mayor and the City Council must agree to the settlement?” (Yes or No)

RIP Trusty Laptop

2009-11-05T16:21:00.000-06:00

My laptop has finally died. You may remember the lengths at which I went to keep it alive some months ago. Based on the experience in our office, these ThinkPad T42p(s) all eventually succumb to motherboard failure. Our hypothesis is that repeated heat stress causes the ball grid array that connects the graphics chip to the motherboard to fail, not unlike what causes the XBOX 360 Red Ring of Death.

And so I bid you fair laptop adieu, you have been a trusted companion and friend.

For Bartlett?

2009-11-05T15:57:00.001-06:00

Before we go any further let me get this out of the way, I do not endorse Dewey Bartlett Jr. With that said, I think I'm probably going to vote for him despite my overwhelming urge to sit this one out. I have several problems with Dewey, not the least of which is support and love for Kathy Taylor. Also, I'm convinced that he will be the same elite mid-town mindset mayor we have always had, and despite his claims, I do not believe he is a conservative.

I heard Chris Medlock, a man who I deeply admire, give a completely unconvincing argument, as to why we should get behind Dewey. He essentially said that if conservatives don't get behind Dewey then he will have no reason to give us conservatives a place at the table if he is elected. I'm not sure if he meant to say it or not but what I heard him say is that Dewey is not a real conservative. If he was, what difference would it make whether or not we got behind him? Real conservatives are conservatives no matter where the winds are blowing, and a real conservative mayor would have strong conservatives in his cabinet no mater what. Chris cemented my belief that Bartlett is a moderate.

That being said, I've heard Dewey say some things that do give me some hope. He told me he was against at-large councilors, he pledged not to raise taxes, and I've become convinced that he might actually do a better job of getting us through this economic storm than the other candidates.

But truth be told, Tom Adelson scares the crap out of me. I have an interesting theory that Adelson might actually be good for Tulsa, creating the Obama affect that we are seeing on the national scale. It may be that an Adelson administration might finally push us toward the kind of mayoral candidate that I've been hoping for all along. Or at the very least I think that he might be so polarizing with the council that he will accomplish nothing. While it is an interesting theory, it didn't work with Kathy Taylor, and I quite frankly don't want to risk it. This guy thinks Obama is great, and I simply can't stand the possibility that he might become our next mayor.

Dewey Bartlet's wife Victoria cornered me at the KRMG Mayoral Smashup and asked me to get behind Dewey (I'm kind of scared of her by the way). I've thought about it, and I've been thinking about it for several weeks. This might not be the glowing endorsement she was hoping for, but like I said, this isn't really an endorsement so much as it is a blog post for my readers who are interested in how I'm going to vote and what my thought process has been.

It has been along road for me, starting out as the guy who categorically rejected the idea that he would ever vote for Bartlett, to the the guy who has finally decided that he would. Alas, I don't think the road is long enough to take me to the place where I could actually endorse him. Charlie Biggs sums up my thoughts on the subject best.

Dewey Bartlett might wind up being the best mayor we’ve ever had. But I have serious doubts. He was cozy with Taylor. Bartlett, who was endorsed in the primary by the liberal Tulsa World, has a history of entertaining tax increases and the expansion of government. Bartlett has pledged that he will not raise taxes as mayor or grow government.

My practice has been to take politicians for their word until I find out different. I am not as trusting as I used to be. Too many politicians say one thing during the heat of the campaign and then govern in the opposite direction.

I will not endorse someone that I am not sure about. Even though I am a registered Republican, I am a Christian, an American and a conservative first.

The people who read this newspaper are smart enough (and spiritual enough) to make their own decisions.

I've gone a step further than Biggs to tell you how I'm actually going to vote, however I suspect that the people who read this blog are smart enough (and spiritual enough) to make their own decisions.

KRMG’s Mayoral Smashup

2009-11-04T13:25:00.001-06:00

If you missed last night’s Mayoral Smashup, then you really missed out. While you can listen to the event online, I suspect that it will be nowhere near what it was like in person. This was by far the best candidate forum/debate I have ever attended or witnessed.

There were not really any rules with regard to time allotted for responses, order of candidates, or allowances for retorts/responses. This is something I think the candidates did not take full advantage of. The debate, by design, was loose on structure, rules, and formality. Only Independent Mark Perkins figured out, about 3/4ths of the way in, that he could pipe up and challenge the response of his opponents, and in part lead the direction of the conversation.

There were not any rules for the folks in the gallery either; but unlike the candidates, we took full advantage of the freedom we were provided. There where cheers, jeers, and tears from the crowd. Not being a supporter of any candidate provided me the freedom to clap and cheer when a candidate said something I liked, as well as the freedom no shout and boo when they said something that made me mad. It was awesome; I had a great time.

Things that made me shout and boo:
During a true/false question, Democrat Tom Adelson said agreed that Obama was a great president. BOOOO!!!

During a true/false question, Perkins would not answer whether Tulsa needed more gun control laws. BOOOOO!!! Someone behind me shouted, “Come on man! This is Oklahoma!”

Again during a true/false question Republican Dewey Bartlett Jr agreed that Taylor had been an exceptional Mayor. BOOO!!!!!!

All three of them when asked if people from mid-town were more Tulsans that Tulsans outside of mid-town they all said no, I shouted, “Tell us what you really think!”

All three said that moving City hall was a good idea, BOOOO!

While it did not make me boo so much as roll my eyes, Bartlett had to bring up is pecan farm AGAIN, UGHHH!! (He is starting to make me not like pecans!)

Things that made me cheer:
The next day, I am having trouble remembering what Adelson said that made me cheer. I know I did once or twice but I did not do it very often. Sorry Tom.

Perkins made me cheer several times, although again, I can’t remember too many instances where I did. When asked to say something nice about the other two candidates he said, I appreciate their PAST service. I cheered at that.

Bartlett, despite saying many things that made me boo, said were several things that I cheered for. I really liked what he had to say about the Mayor’s pay. He said “Why would someone want to take an extremely serious job that's going to consume my entire four years and my family's and not get paid for it?” I have to agree with that. Cheers!

I liked what he had to say about not raising taxes, and what he had to say about finding savings in the budget through the use of performance and energy audits. Cheers!

When asked whether or not he supported diversifying our revenue stream away from sales tax he said no. His made a point that if we could find away, through the aforementioned audits, to live with in our means and find millions of dollars of savings, why would we want to? Cheers!

While I don’t like the volatility of our sales tax stream, I have to say that I’m extremely worried that if Tulsa was ever provided the means to levy both sales tax and property tax, they would use both to their full advantage and our at our expense. As such I am extremely wary of any change to our tax structure so I really liked Dewey Jr’s answer. Cheers!

I also really liked what he had to say about Tulsa cops. He suggested that we could replace fully sworn cops that sit behind a desk with civilians. This would allow those formally desk bound cops to get on the street. He also suggested that we should make greater use of our reserve force. He proposed that we expand the reserve force my making it easier to become a reserve officer. As long as we do not let the riff raff in, I think that is a great idea. Cheers!

Who won?:
While I booed them all frequently and equally, I do think I found myself cheering for Bartlett more than the others, so if I had to call a winner for the Smashup, I think I’d give it to Dewey.

If I were to judge the winner based on the crowd’s reaction I think the prize would have to go to Perkins. The crowd really liked Mark, giving him more cheers that jeers, and certainly more cheers than were given to the other candidates.

I had a really great time, I am glad I decided to head down there to experience it live. Kudos to KRMG and everyone involved in setting this up, I really really enjoyed it.

Worst Bill Ever

2009-11-03T10:56:00.003-06:00

I recently read a Wall Street Journal opinion piece calling Nancy Pelosi's Heath Care bill the Worst Bill Ever.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Thanks to Congressman John Sullivan who lugged a copy back from DC, I was able to visit the Hardesty Library and see the bill for myself. (you can also view it at the Downtown Library). Just incase you won't be able to go and see the bill for your self, I made a video.

Thanks again to Congressman Sullivan for letting us see this "Worst bill ever" for ourselves.

Staggered Three-Year Terms #2: Who Benefits?

2009-11-02T08:22:00.000-06:00

On November 10th Tulsa citizens will be asked to vote on a charter change proposal that would modify council terms from two to three years and would stagger those terms so that every year three of the nine councilors would be up for election. Further, for the first three years, the terms for the three sets of three would be 1 year for the first three districts, 2 for the second and 3 for the third.

In my first post we talked about the faulty assertion that this change will protect the continuity of the council. In review, aside from the first council, there has never been a council will all freshmen members. This current council has decades of experience and only 2 freshman councilors. I've yet to see a council with out continuity.

So if the benefit is not the continuity of the council, what is the benefit? Or more precisely who will be the beneficiary of this change? The most important beneficiary of any change in government should be the people. Unfortunately this charger change doesn't benefit you, it benefits professional campaign managers, and it benefits crummy councilors that need to be voted out of office.

We have already established that the supposed benefit to the electorate of a council with continuity is bunk. But even it it wasn't, this charter change presupposes that it is in your best interest to have continuity in the council. What if it was the will of all nine districts to get rid of a particularly crummy council? Under this change it would take Tulsans up to 3 years to get rid of them all. But again, this has never happened so what is the point of the change?

With two-year-terms there is a 50/50 chance that controversial issues decided by the council will fall on an election year. Should they want to get re-elected, the council must keep their constituency in mind when deciding issues that might anger them. Under this proposed change, there would be only a 1 in 3 chance that any one councilor would be in danger of feeling the wrath of an enraged electorate. This change could emboldened the council to act on issues that run contrary to the wishes their district. Councilors that anger their district have everything to gain from this change. If they happen to upset constituents the first year of their term, they will now have 2 long years to hope their actions are forgotten. All the councilors, crummy or not, will benefit as they will no longer have to run for re-election every other year. This benefit should not be understated; having two whole years to prepare for re-election is an amazing gift.

Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of this change are the few professional campaign managers who focus on local elections. These guys will now have the certainty of a job every year. There is a certain kind of candidate that pairs particularity well with some of Tulsa's "finest" campaign managers. (The kind with deep pockets and mid-town way of thinking) This change make it easier for these parings to happen, and provide these managers not only the chance of more business, but a council election job every year, instead of every other year.

Do you really want every year to be an city council election year? Do you really want to provide the council cover and protection from re-election? Do you really want give the guys behind some of the more negative ads you've seen this election year more busness?

I didn't think so. Don't forget to vote against this charter change. On November 10th, vote NO on staggered three-year council terms

Undercurrent Against Taylor?

2009-10-31T11:27:00.001-05:00

This morning, my wife and daughter ran the 2K Tulsa Fun run. Just before the race, my wife reported to me that Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor spoke to the crowd. Surrounded by other parents, teachers, and fun run participants, my wife heard several people say some negative things about the Mayor. One person lamented the layoff of 21 police officers, another person was upset about the mounted police, there was a complaint that Taylor would now be in a position of power over the State's education, there was even a boo. Finally another person in the crowd said, we don't have to agree with her or even like her to be polite...

What I find interesting about this report, is this the undercurrent of animosity toward Mayor Taylor in such a diverse crowd. I've heard several apologists for Taylor trying to spin her into the responsible mayor who is doing everything possible to fix this horrible budget problem in Tulsa, but it appears that most people aren't buying it.

The real question is how long will this animosity last? If and when Taylor makes a move for another elected office, how will that lingering animosity affect her chances of a win? My bet is that she won't win another election if Tulsans have anything to do with the outcome.

Friday Happenings

2009-10-30T18:05:00.001-05:00

Two things of note today.

1. A few people gathered in front of Kathy Taylor's mansion to protest the layoff of 21 Tulsa Police Officers. I was there to take some pictures.

2. Tulsa County Commissioner Karen Keith is attempting to remove District 2 Appointee Elizabeth Wright from the TMAPC. (full agenda here.)

AGENDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tulsa County Administration Building
500 S. Denver, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Room 119, 9:30 A.M.

...

VI. NEW BUSINESS

...

D. Request for Public Hearing - (Board of County Commissioners) - to Consider the Removal of Elizabeth Wright as the District 2 Appointee, from the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, to be held

11/23/09 at 9:30 a.m.

Over at the Tulsa Now Forum Michael Bates had this to say.

Karen Keith has been lobbying Wright to resign, claiming that she wants to appoint someone for geographic balance. Wright has refused; her term expires in January 2011. Now, evidently, Keith is going to try to remove Wright for cause.

I have heard that developers don't like Wright because she asks questions they'd rather not answer.

Geographic balance is important, but I would hate to lose a planning commissioner who brings a neighborhood perspective to the table, understands zoning, and is able to stand up under pressure.

For Kent

2009-10-27T18:21:00.002-05:00

Was Bartlett a Member of Tulsans for Better Government?

2009-10-25T23:36:00.003-05:00

The short answer, technically he was not actually an active member of the group. The long answer is much more complicated.

One of the primary reasons I have been so opposed to Dewey Bartlett Jr. was my belief that he was a member of the Tulsans for Better Government. This is the group that pushed for at-large councilors, and for non-partisan local elections.

I had good reason to think he was a member:
A Tulsa World article (from 2005)
Their website (now archived) (from 2006)
A Batesline article (2005)

Last Sunday, I was a part of a small group who met with Mr. Bartlett to ask him questions (This will be another post). I told Mr. Bartlett that one of my primary concerns regarding his candidacy was his involvement with the Tulsans for Better Government. I told him that I found the idea for at-large councilors extremely concerning. The implication in my statement was that I could not support anyone who wanted to take control of the City Council in a way that would focus power in downtown and midtown, and disenfranchise the other parts of the city.

What he said, shocked and confused me. With regard to his involvement with Tulsans for Better Government, he said that he did not know about the at-large councilor push, that it was tendered without his knowledge. He suggested that he was asked to joined the group years ago but never really had anything to do with them, and certainly had nothing to do with the idea of at-large councilors. I asked him what he thought of at-large councilors and he said the he did not think it was a good idea, and that our form of government should not be changed.

I found that extremely hard to believe. Later I told his campaign manager that I would need a lot more information. A few days later he claimed that Dewey Bartlett was never a member of the Tulsans for Better Government. With seemingly conflicting information out of the Bartlett campaign I had to do some investigative work.

I reached out to some known members of the Tulsans for Better Government. I contacted Steve Schuller and Ted Sherwood directly, and I had indirect information from John Brock.

The story that I've been able to piece together is that Bartlett was contacted by some unknown person within the group asking that he lend his name to their cause, presumably to lend credence to their petition for at-large councilors. Schuller and Sherwood told me that he never had any other interaction with the group, that he was not an active member.

Bartlett claims that he really had no knowledge of the at-large councilor idea, that he thought he was signing up for "one of these kind of good government uhh, let's help somebody get elected" groups.

While it is good that Bartlett is seemingly on the right side of the at-large councilor issue, and while it is good to find out that Bartlett was not really a part of this Tulsans for Better Government group, I'm still rather disturbed my two nagging problems I have with this entire ordeal.

1. Remember that Bartlett was on that very first city council back in 1990. While I wasn't living in Tulsa at the time, I'm told that the push away from the city commissioner form of government toward the form of government we have now was a rather contentious issue. Bartlett was a part of this change, he was there on day one and should be sensitive toward any change to the form of government. Tulsans for Better Government was formed in 2005 for the express purpose of pushing for at-large councilors, so if we assume that since Bartlett claims he didn't know anything about the at-large councilor idea, it means that he let his name be used with out knowing what it was for. I would like to know what he was told, but if it was anything like what Randi Miller was told when she let her name get used, red flags should have gone off in his mind and he should have gotten more information before he let his mid-town buddies use his name.

2. In 2005, when the story about the Tulsans for Better Government and their push for at-large councilors broke, it was a huge deal. Anyone who was paying even just a little bit of attention to local politics knew about this. Bartlett's name was in the paper associated with this change. A huge stink was made, and a rather large group of people from all over the city, from all political ideologies, and from all walks of life rose up and fought this. If he didn't understand what he had lent his name to in the beginning, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that he didn't figure it out afterward. Why didn't he call for a retraction? Why didn't he ask to have is name removed from the Tulsans for Better Government's website? Dewey Bartlett Jr should have known better but instead he was silent.

Again, this became a major campaign issue in this year's primary, yet as far as I know, Bartlett did nothing to correct the record. His involvement may have at first just been incredibly naive, however, by doing nothing to distance himself from this group in 2005 or earlier this year makes him complicit in my mind. So I'm right back to where I started before I knew that Bartlett really wasn't a part of the Tulsans for Better Government.

I see a man who unwittingly let his name be used in an effort to disenfranchise most of the city, presumably because one of his mid-town buddies suckered him into doing so. I'm not sure if that is not worse than being an unapologetic member of the group.

Did Dewey Bartlett Jr. Support Taylor in 2006?

2009-10-22T12:28:00.002-05:00

There is no doubt that Bartlett backed Taylor in 2009 before she dropped out of the Mayor's race. But did he support her back in 2006? Based on what I thought I remembered, what others were saying, and a 2009 Tulsa World article, I had reported that he did, but after digging a little more, I'm not so sure.

One of my fiends received a communication from the Bartlett campaign categorically denying that he supported her in 2006. Finding that rather shocking, I decided to dig a little deeper.

I looked through the Tulsa World Archives, and I could find no 2006 reference of Bartlet's support of Taylor.

I checked the web archive of Taylor's website from the 2006 election and did not find his name on her site. (http://web.archive.org/web/20060507224121/www.taylorfortulsa.com/supporters.php) (by the way web.archive.org is a great resource for this kind of thing)

I checked several blogs, including my own, for any reference to Bartlett's suport of Taylor, and came up empty.

I thought perhaps he supported her with his money. So I went to the City Clerk's office and asked for all the C1 forms from 2006, but could find no donation to her campaign in his name or from any PAC that he might have been associated with. It allso doesn't look like he donated to LaFortune either.

The only reference I can find, in print, that Bartlett Supported Taylor in 2006 is a 2009 Tulsa Wolrd article about his entrance into the Mayoral Race. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090626_11_A14_DeweyB599762&archive=yes)

Even though Taylor — who has decided not to seek re-election — is a Democrat, Bartlett backed her 2006 mayoral campaign, and she asked him to co-lead an analysis and gather public input before last fall's Fix the Streets package was assembled. He said he would not have run if she had campaigned for a second term.

If Bartlett supported Taylor in 2006, I can find no hard evidence for it. My guess is that Bartlett must have said something about the race, off the record, to enough people that it must have resonated into the belief that he publicly supported her, or perhaps we are all just wrong.

For some voters it is a moot point as there is no denying that he backed her in 2009. The obvious concern to people that find this upsetting is the concern that a Bartlett administration might mirror the Taylor Administration.

Cash for Appliances?

2009-10-21T11:10:00.000-05:00

From The Oklahoma Department of Commerce:

The Oklahoma Department of Commerce recently submitted a comprehensive plan to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the state’s Energy Star Appliance Rebate program that is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Oklahoma was approved for a $3.5 million federal grant for the ARRA appliance rebate program.

The DOE is expected to notify Commerce if the state's plan has been approved by November 30. The program will likely begin in early spring of 2010.

"This plan is designed to assist Oklahomans in reducing their energy costs," said Natalie Shirley, Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce. "The program will be managed by a third party administrator, which will be selected through the state’s procurement process."

A working group comprised of members from Commerce, Oklahoma Community Action Agencies, and members of state utility companies developed the recommended rebates for Oklahoma. The working group estimated approximately 23,000 rebates for Energy Star appliances could be awarded from the proposed state plan. The proposed appliances and rebates levels are:

Clothes Washers $200
Refrigerators $200
Room Air Conditioners $50
Water Heaters $100
Central Air Conditioners $100
Gas Furnaces $100
Ground Source Heat Pumps $250

Shirley said more details on qualified appliances will be determined following the selection of a third party administrator and that all information is pending DOE approval.

Vaughn Clark, Commerce Director of Community Development, said each state created its own appliance rebate plan. He said the criteria used in writing the plan were energy savings potential and usage in Oklahoma.

"This is an opportunity for Oklahoma families to benefit from the national stimulus funding. Investing in new, energy-saving appliance replacements will help families save money in the long run," Clark said.

Clark said old appliances must be recycled and removed from the property in order to qualify, and rebates will not be available for appliances purchased prior to the program’s spring 2010 start date. He said only Oklahoma residential consumers will be eligible for rebates in Oklahoma, and there is a maximum of one rebate per appliance and two rebates per household.

The estimated annual savings in Oklahoma from the Energy Star appliance program is: 7,665,683 kWh of energy; 34,230,000 gallons of water and 9,985,150 lbs. of CO2

Hold off on your appliance purchases people, Oklahoma has a handout a commin.

You're Invited to the Mayor Hotel

2009-10-20T15:19:00.000-05:00

I was just forwarded an email from The City of Tulsa Communications Department to City Employees. The subject, "You're Invited to the Mayor Hotel to Welcome the WNBA to Tulsa!"

Is Mayor Taylor considering moving City Hall again!?

Pomegranate Season 2009

2009-10-20T13:14:00.003-05:00

I'm very excited to announce that pomegranate season 2009 has started in Tulsa! Keep an eye out for these amazing fruits at your grocer's produce section. If your grocery does not carry pomegranates, I know you can find the Pom Wonderful variety at the 71st and 169 Super Target.

Last year I reported that the season typically started in September and ran until January. I spoke with Pom Wonderful today and was told that if I was seeing pomegranates in September they weren't Pom Wonderful. The season for the Pom variety runs from mid October until January. However, I was told that this year is going to be one of the better harvests in recent memory. Pom Wonderful is forecasting that we might even go into the first part of February this year! (no promises)

If you've never tired a pomegranate, this is the year to start. Go down to the store and pick one up! For more information about how to choose a pomegranate, how to open one, and more, check out this handy Pomegranate 101 guide.

Bates maps the primary

2009-10-13T01:52:00.000-05:00

Michael Bates has created a map showing how Tulsa Republicans voted in the last mayoral primary.

I have put together a very crude map showing the variation by precinct in the results in last month's Republican primary for Mayor of Tulsa. The base map is from the University of Oklahoma Center for Spatial Analysis. I added dots, using colors to indicate Dewey Bartlett Jr's share of the vote in each precinct: Under 40%, 40%-49%, 50-59%, 60-69%, 70% and over.

Check it out, I found the results to be fascinating, expected...but fascinating.

High-Speed Rail Answers from Mautino

2009-10-11T16:46:00.001-05:00

Would you favor subsidizing the operational costs of the high-speed rail line?
Would this money come from Tulsa’s operational budget which is funded by the first 2 pennies of sales tax?
Would you favor a new sales tax?
Would you favor some other funding mechanism? Might we require some help from the state legislature in order to provide us with the tools necessary to exploit some other untapped funding source?
Could refusal from Tulsa or Oklahoma City to help fund the operational costs of the proposed high-speed train de-rail the project?

Hi Steve,

Jim Inhofe, when Mayor of Tulsa, proposed a monorail loop for Tulsa. Looking back this would have been a boon
for our fair city.

In 2004 during the campaign for City Council, Light Rail (not to be confused with High Speed Trains) was a big issue. At that time research showed that Light Rail would cost four million a mile and Mono Rail one million a mile.

The cost comparison can also be applied to High Speed Trains versus High Speed Monorail Trains, with figures in the billions. Successful rail systems rely on connections to high density population areas with strong urban Public Transportation Systems.

At this time Tulsans are ready to have streets fixed, more police protection, more fire stations, and improved school system.

After these issues are resolved I would be in favor of an urban Monorail loop around Tulsa and high speed Monorail to OKC.
So my answer to your first question is no. I am opposed to more or any new taxes. The remaining questions would be moot.

High-Speed Rail Answers from District 6

2009-10-10T11:22:00.003-05:00

A few weeks ago I sent an email to each member of the Tulsa City Council asking them some questions regarding possible subsidies paid by Tulsa tax payers to fund the operation of a high-speed rail line between OKC and Tulsa. Councilor Westcott was the first to respond, Councilor Bynum the second, and now Councilor Troyer has responded

Before we get to his reply I'd like to provide a disclaimer. Troyer sent me a very rough, down and dirty response. I think it was his intention to send me an email as fast has he could with out spending to much time on in. As such it is full of errors and incomplete sentences. He has since told me that he did not know it was my intention to post his reply on my blog or he would have spent more time on it, "I had no idea you have a blog...had you said that you were posting it on a blog, i would have spent more time with and corrected some of my errors."

As any reader of my blog must know by now, Roemerman On Record is FULL OF ERRORS. So rather than just post his reply, I felt impressed to ask for a response from the councilor that did not have so many errors. My intention was to not embarrass him, but to follow Mat 7:12, "...in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you".

I think the tone in my note to him must have been wrong, because he replied with a note that must have taken about as much effort as it would have to correct his first email. He told me that he was not going to fix his first email. In one of our exchanges I said, " I appreciate the courtesy of your response and I did not want to repay that courtesy with disregard, However, it is my intention to post your response, and I'd prefer not to post the one you sent me if there is a chance that you could send me a another one." His response, "I no intention right now to respond to your ?'s as much as and deeply as i would want to."

So I made a good faith effort to let the councilor go on record in a manner that would not embarrass him. I truly wanted to do the right thing, but I did promise to post the responses I received from every councilor.In lieu of a better response from Troyer, here is what I have to work with.

Would you favor subsidizing the operational costs of the high-speed rail line?
Would this money come from Tulsa’s operational budget which is funded by the first 2 pennies of sales tax?
Would you favor a new sales tax?
Would you favor some other funding mechanism? Might we require some help from the state legislature in order to provide us with the tools necessary to exploit some other untapped funding source?
Could refusal from Tulsa or Oklahoma City to help fund the operational costs of the proposed high-speed train de-rail the project?

Steve
Thanks for your ?'s.....light rail is great idea, should already have it. With it we can devel the river as we have been talking for years. Seems like that's what we do best talk and is is not just today. We have been doing it for years. We would for sure need help from feds/state and they have agreed to do that. BUT we need to come up w/$$$ too. Get rid of 3rd penny or come up w/new tx for streets/sewer/safety. I am in middle of getting reelected and would spend more time on this I make it and would like to talk to anyone about it.Mr Westcott has a pretty good grip on it for now and like amtrack it is a long process.
Ask again after the nov 10 vote where I can spend more time w/it.
Thanks;
Dennis...sorry to be short w/you..just not nuff time now...and sorry it took this long to reply

NewsFifty

2009-10-07T14:06:00.000-05:00

I have recently discovered a great website called NewsFifty.com. NewsFifty is like 50 Drudge Reports, one for each state. Oklahoma’s own Sid Burgess, the National Director of NewsFifty, spent sometime giving me some more information about the site via IM and e-mail.

It is important to us that you know that we are not a news aggregator like so many other websites you might visit. In other words, we are not a “programmed” website that automatically updates itself every 5-10 minutes using RSS feeds from thousands of news sources.

NewsFifty is comprised of a team of people spread out across the United States, each of us having a region with a number of states we are responsible for. In most cases, we are up way before you get out of bed, scouring the internet state by state searching for what we believe to be will be or should be the driving force of today’s talking points and questions. From breaking stories, buried stories, political stories and current affairs, we bring all of these stories to 1 website making it super easy for anyone to find out the truth and get caught up with what is going on.

I have added NewsFifty: Oklahoma to my favorites, and have been checking it out a few times a day. I like it because I am already familiar with the clean, no-nonsense layout, and because it seems to always have stories relating to Tulsa and Oklahoma that I find interesting. Since I have roots in Texas, Iowa, and Missouri, I’ve also really enjoyed checking the NewsFifty pages for those states as well. NewsFifty is a worthy addition to your online news regimen; I highly recommend adding it to your list of favorites.

An Open Letter to All Republicans from Dewey Bartlett Jr.

2009-10-06T15:02:00.000-05:00

I received this letter from the Tulsa County Republican Party, I pass it on for informational purposes, not because I support Mr. Bartlett.

Dear Tulsa County Republican Party,

We have arrived once again at a crossroads. This election will decide the future of our city and the differences between my opponents and I could not be clearer. I am a conservative businessman who has survived in the good times and the bad. I served in the Air National Guard for six years, and I have a Masters Degree in Finance.

Unlike my opponents, I will keep government in its proper role; limited, but effective in the areas of service it should be, such as public safety and infrastructure. My support of other Republicans, including Senator Jim Inhofe, Dr. Tom Coburn, Congressman John Sullivan and our Republican Presidential ticket in '08, John McCain and Sarah Palin, is a point of pride for me and my family. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton see me as a foe and not a friend. My opponents cannot say that, they are right in line with the liberal politicians from Washington, D.C. who are trying every day to chip away at our liberty and our sovereignty.

I am the only candidate who has pledged not to raise our taxes. I am the only candidate who will fight to defend the Tenth Amendment so that our rights as a state are defended within our union. I am the only candidate who will defend the unborn from abortion. I am the only conservative in this race, plain and simple. Which way shall we take our city?

I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. It is important that you know my core values. I have listed those values below. I will be a job creating mayor who grows jobs, not government. I will prioritize public safety. I will improve our roads. These are my goals, and here are the principals I will follow to get there:

-          Public Safety: Strong public safety is my first priority. I will hire more police to combat crime with existing revenue streams. I will collaborate with Sheriff Stanley Glanz to be sure we are fighting crime with all means and resources necessary.   I believe in enforcement and punishment, not the latest social program to treat criminals. Any increases in the police and fire budgets will go to protecting Tulsans or fighting crime.

-          Taxes: I pledge not to raise our taxes. Taxes should always remain low, and now more than ever we simply cannot raise taxes.

-          Fiscal Restraint: I will manage the budget, making sure we cut unnecessary spending. I will utilize internal and external audits to find out where we can reduce the size and waste in our government.

-          Infrastructure: I will ensure our roads are improved. We will have transparency. I am currently pushing to have updates of infrastructure repairs and projects posted online by the Public Works Department. I will see that our streets package is completed on time and under budget in a manner that keeps your confidence.

-          "One Tulsa": We cannot ignore any part of town. We must improve our entire city and be sure that each part has proper investment and service. I will work with, not against, the city councilors to achieve this goal.

-          Pro-Life: I am 100 percent against abortion. We need to encourage our faith communities to continue to help pregnant women cope with the challenges of motherhood and eliminate this terrible practice. I also support the efforts of others, such as Catholic charities, in their fight to stop abortion.

-          Second Amendment: I personally keep and bear arms. This right is a city issue, contrary to what some liberals might say. I will not support limiting our Second Amendment right.

-          States Rights: I support the Tenth Amendment and I will fight against any overarching effort by the federal government to infringe upon those rights.

-          Property Rights: I support property rights of the individual from eminent domain abuse. People are allowed to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this county and I will stand behind individual property rights which are so essential to this principal.

-          Republican Party Platform: I support the Republican Party Platform. Like many of you, I may not always agree with the party, but I am a proud Republican and I support our party platform.

I want to ask you for your vote and for your support. We cannot afford to sit this election out, there is too much at stake. We have arrived at a crossroads, and the future of our city, liberal or conservative, depends on our decision. We can set the course of our city for years to come by standing together and fighting for our common conservative values.

Sincerely,
Dewey Bartlett Jr.

P.S. - Please consider going to my website at

www.deweybartlett.com and signing up to volunteer or request a yard sign.

High-Speed Rail Answers from District 9

2009-10-06T13:03:00.000-05:00

Would you favor subsidizing the operational costs of the high-speed rail line?
Would this money come from Tulsa’s operational budget which is funded by the first 2 pennies of sales tax?
Would you favor a new sales tax?
Would you favor some other funding mechanism? Might we require some help from the state legislature in order to provide us with the tools necessary to exploit some other untapped funding source?
Could refusal from Tulsa or Oklahoma City to help fund the operational costs of the proposed high-speed train de-rail the project?

I would not favor subsidizing a rail line between Tulsa and OKC, so I wouldn't want it coming from our General Fund and I wouldn't support a new tax for it. I'm not familiar with the other possible funding mechanisms out there to say if I would favor them or not. I imagine the City's refusal to subsidize part of the service may hurt grant application efforts, but that hasn't hurt airports from receiving federal subsidies all over the country.

Thank you very much for your reply Councilor, it is much appreciated. You are one of the three councilors from whom I had expected a response. I'm still waiting for at least one more, (feigning a cough) ughh-Eagleton!

Monty Python and The Holy Grail: Journey or Destination?

2009-10-06T11:52:00.002-05:00

GOD: Arthur, King of the Britons -- your Knights of the Round Table shall have a task to make them an example in these dark times.
ARTHUR: Good idea, oh Lord!
GOD: 'Course it's a good idea! Behold! Arthur, this is the Holy Grail. Look well, Arthur, for it is your sacred task to seek this Grail. That is your purpose, Arthur -- the Quest for the Holy Grail.
ARTHUR: A blessing!
LAUNCELOT: A blessing from the Lord!
GALAHAD: God be praised!

I've always found it interesting that God told Arthur that his task was to seek the Holy Grail. He was not actually charged with finding it. I generally hate the old adage "Its about the journey, not the destination."

I've always thought that people who say that either don't know where they are going, or have resigned themselves to the dark realization that their destination is unreachable. Under those circumstances, of course you'd want to convince yourself that the most important thing is the journey!

Listen, for me, it's all about the destination. Clearly the journey is of vital importance, without it you cannot reach the destination, but without the destination, the journey is pointless. It seems however, that in this case the journey was the most important thing. The task was the important thing, "...your Knights of the Round Table shall have a task to make them an example in these dark times."

The real goal was to set an example in dark times, not actually find the Grail. Unfortunately, as it turned out they failed at both tasks...

ROGER: Are you saying 'nee' to that old woman?
ARTHUR: Um, yes.
ROGER: Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say `nee' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

The Scapegoat

2009-10-04T16:36:00.002-05:00

In the first chapter of Leviticus Aaron is told to offer up two goats for the Day of Atonement. One was to be sacrificed to the Lord, and the other, the scapegoat, was to be released into the wilderness symbolically carrying the sins of the people on it.

Today the scapegoat refers to the innocent person who is blamed for the sins or the sufferings of others, even though they are probably not responsible.

Let it be known that Jessica Simpson shall forever be my scapegoat for the failings of the Dallas Cowboys. I understand that Romo and Simpson are no longer together, and Romo will not always be the Cowboy’s Quarterback, nevertheless, she is as good as a distraction from the real causes of their failures as any.

If Romo throws an interception, Jessica Simpson.

If Dallas loses a game, Jessica Simpson.

In 10 years, when some future Quarterback fumbles the ball, Jessica Simpson

In a 1000 years, after the rise and fall of the Lizard People and the NFL becomes the GRFL (Galactic Robot Football League) and the Space Cowboys lose to the Space Robot Broncos, Jessica Simpson.

She may not deserve it, but then again, she probably should not have worn this pink #9 jersey!

The Unintended Consequences of Lucky Lamons’ Legislation

2009-10-04T14:48:00.000-05:00

I fear that the unintended outcome of Lamons’ latest legislation to require a doctor’s prescription in order to get pseudoephedrine (PSE) will result in suffering of many Oklahomans who can find relief of their congestion no other way. While clearly his intention to limit the criminal’s ability to produce Methamphetamine is a laudable, I believe it to be entirely misguided.

As I pointed out in my last post, this is an illogical way to curb Meth abuse/production as it leads to the limited availability of good drugs that work, in favor of crummy drugs that don’t. We already see this today with the current law in Oklahoma that requires law abiding citizens to retrieve their needed PSE from behind the counter, albeit without a prescription. As more and more states restrict the sale of PSE, two things are occurring: 1. drug companies are replacing the PSE in their popular allergy and congestion drugs with Phenylephrine (PE) and 2. pharmacies are reducing their stock of drugs containing PSE because of reduced demand.

A week ago I went the pharmacy in search for a drug containing only PSE; there we two choices and both were completely out of stock. Today, I was searching for a children’s drug containing only PSE for my daughter. The children’s drugs containing PE are completely ineffective for her. There was only one name brand choice for a drug containing only PSE and they carried no generic version. Not only that, but I had to ask for it since they did not display the card for me take to the counter. To further complicate matters, I wanted to get some PSE for my wife who is also suffering from congestion. There was a real danger that I might not be able to purchase both drugs because of the limits placed on the sale of PSE. “I don’t think you will be able to purchase both of these,” said the Pharmacist. I almost had to choose between the comfort of my wife and the comfort of my daughter; fortunately I was under my PSE limit and was able to get both.

I fear that if Rep. Lamons has his way, it won’t be my family’s sinuses, but the market for PSE that will completely dry out. Even though I might be willing to drive to the Dr’s office in order to avail myself of the only drug that works for my family, I suspect that most Oklahomans will not. As result of pure market forces, the already difficult to get PSE will become virtually impossible to find. So while I will not question Rep Lamons’ intentions regarding the relief of our congestion, I am suggesting that his legislation, if enacted will have the very effect that I’ve described. I renew my call for sensible legislation that punishes criminals and not the citizens of Oklahoma.

Substitution of phenylephrine for pseudoephedrine as a nasal decongeststant. An illogical way to control methamphetamine abuse

2009-10-02T11:04:00.000-05:00

I read something in the Tulsa World today that made my head explode (probably because my head was already so congested), "State Rep. Lucky Lamons said Thursday that he will introduce legislation next session to require people seeking pseudoephedrine pills to have a prescription."

I've done a little research on the matter; after searching Google, reading a few study abstracts, reading anecdotal evidence tendered by pharmacists, and discussing the matter with a tenured professor of immunology at OU, I've determined that this is a really bad idea. So I sent the following letter to Lucky Lamons.

Representative Lamons,

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but I fear that your proposed legislation to force law abiding citizens to get a prescription for a safe and effective decongestant is not in the best interests of Oklahomans. I urge you to read this attached study published in 2006. It suggests that phenylephrine, which has been used to replace pseudoephedrine, is not effective as a decongestant. "The only study involving an oral dose of PE reported that 10 mg PE was no more effective than placebo as a nasal decongestant."

I believe your legislation will have the following effects:

1. Law abiding citizens who suffer from nasal allergies and congestion will be unable or unwilling to go through the hassle to get pseudoephedrine but will instead use the over the counter phenylephrine.
2. This will further demonstrate to pharmaceutical companies that pseudoephedrine is not viable for profits. They will cut back on production and may even stop producing it all together in favor of phenylephrine.
3. Meth cooks have already demonstrated the ability to change their methods to adapt to laws passed by well meaning legislators such as yourself (case in point the new, more dangerous cooking method), and they will do so again.
4. The people who will suffer the most will be law abiding citizens.

I urge you to re-consider your legislation. Instead of targeting pseudoephedrine, target the people who are breaking the law. Target the people who produce, sell, buy, and consume Meth.

Due to copyright concerns, I wont post the study I referenced in my letter to Lucky, however, if you are interested in seeing it, please email me and I'll forward it to you.