Karchmer Garage

[Rover]

^

In the article I posted I mentioned David Prater's opinion and there are many others in the same vein from Jan-Eric Cartwright and Scott Pruitt from the time they served as state DA.

I'm not disparging anyone and never used the words 'shady' or 'corrupt'. If others regard the information presented that way, they are entitled to their opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

And I would strongly argue that getting these issues out into the public where they belong is the exact opposite of "potentially damaging to our community".

Yes, we know Pruit holds high ethical standards to judge others by. And, let’s see... how many cases did he lose tilting windmills on the tea party’s behalf? Not sure I would use him to cite anything about openness and ethics, let alone law.

[Pete]

I re-posting this because it was cut-off by pagination of the thread.

**************

This is from a court case; Cartwright is Jan-Eric Cartwright the former state District Attorney:

Cartwright said legislators clearly intended for the “discussion stage” to be covered by the Open Meeting Act. “[I]t is clear that, when members of a public body meet informally and begin discussing matters affecting the public body, regardless of whether or not there is any motive to evade the Open Meeting Act, the discussion falls under the auspices of the Open Meeting Act,” he concluded.

This means public bodies may not meet secretly with experts in an attempt to gain more knowledge about a subject, Cartwright said. Such a meeting “must be open to the public and satisfy other requirements of the Open Meeting Act.” He explained:

An open deliberative process reveals rejected alternatives about which the public might not know if access to study sessions and deliberative meetings were denied. The public’s right to know would be defeated if a public body could hold a nonpublic “investigatory meeting” to gain insight into a matter and then reform into a public meeting for the actual vote.

Cartwright said previous state Supreme Court decisions had made clear “that when a public body’s decision making or deliberation process is influenced by outside sources the requirements of the Open Meeting Act must be satisfied.” He concluded:

When a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, they are involved in the deliberation process. The public is interested in how and why officials decide to act or not to act. Therefore, when a public body meets with experts in order to gain insight into a matter, the Open Meeting Act requirements must be satisfied.

[Rover]

Never mind, I’ll do it.

I’ve found no online references to such case law, despite considerable individual research. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps I don’t know where to look. But I would encourage you to post a link to at least SOMETHING which clearly and inarguably corroborates this, in which case I will no longer defend the tactic here.

As for me, I have now in this forum repeatedly linked to the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, which is guiding my own perspective on this issue. I will link it again, and urge readers here to read it and judge for themselves: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

If anyone here finds anything in that law which contradicts my position or can cite case law which does, I’m open minded and interested in seeing it.

[Urbanized]

False.

More properly, it is not a “meeting” under the terms of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act unless it includes a quorum. It’s right here in the definitions: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

[Pete]

More properly, it is not a “meeting” under the terms of the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act unless it includes a quorum. It’s right here in the definitions: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Not according to state DA court rulings, one of which I posted above.

[baralheia]

BTW, I now understand the council will be asked to approve an agreement to sell to Karchmer all the city's approximately 12 acres that is currently used as surface parking along the northern edge of Bricktown.

Will the sale agreement contain an easement for the rail corridor that was originally expected to cross this parcel? Specifically, this is for the connection directly from the platforms at Santa Fe Station, curving to the east to join the existing rail alignment through the northern edge of Bricktown, that is necessary for a passenger rail connection to Tulsa.

[Pete]

Read the full MOU's for both the SF Garage and the Karchmer deal here:

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r...parking-garage

[BoulderSooner]

Not according to state DA court rulings, one of which I posted above.

DA’s don’t make court rulings. They argue a their side. A judge makes the ruling. What case is that from. Ie what is the context. Because what you quoted doesn’t seem to apply to this issue at all

[d-usa]

There have been quite a few cases in Oklahoma where public bodies have held breakfast with A,B,C; then brunch with C, D, E; and then a cocktail with E, F, G; and some calls and 1:1 meetings in between. They would use this to hold secret meetings because in the letter of the law they never had a 4-person quorum. I think that they have been busted for that practice every time it’s been investigated.

[Pete]

DA’s don’t make court rulings. They argue a their side. A judge makes the ruling. What case is that from. Ie what is the context. Because what you quoted doesn’t seem to apply to this issue at all

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.

[baralheia]

With the way he's handled his other lots, I sure as hell don't want to see him wind up with that much land.

After reading through the MOU that Pete posted, it looks like there's a claw-back provision... If Karchmer doesn't build the garage within 7½ years then the City can repurchase the land by force. That's quite a long timeline, but at least the option's there.

[BoulderSooner]

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.

You didn’t post a ruling. You posted a da’s opinion (they dont make rulings ) With no context at all.

[Pete]

Misspoke, should have said DA opinion, not ruling.

[HangryHippo]

After reading through the MOU that Pete posted, it looks like there's a claw-back provision... If Karchmer doesn't build the garage within 7½ years then the City can repurchase the land by force. That's quite a long timeline, but at least the option's there.

That's good to know. Haven't had a chance to finish reading the documents Pete posted yet.

[Rover]

FOI experts gave me that information and said it was their opinion that such rulings directly applied.

Rulings or a DA or “experts” OPINION?

[Pete]

Rulings or a DA or “experts” OPINION?

All the above.

[Rover]

Sorry... haven’t seen the rulings you keep referring to.

[d-usa]

Regarding DA Opinions:

I know they aren't court rulings. But isn't the whole reason we have them because agencies and/or legislators want to know what the law says and how likely legal challenges would play out, but they don't want the money/time/stress of actually forcing a court case "just" to get a ruling? So while they may be "just an opinion", agencies and our legislatures tends to treat them as case law rather than just something a random person said?

[Pete]

Sorry... haven’t seen the rulings you keep referring to.

And if I post them they will just be dismissed as 'not applicable', which is why I didn't want to go down this rabbit hole in the first place.

It's completely fine if people think that these small group meetings are not problematic. What I'm saying is that I've been following this matter for several years and have consulted attorneys and FOI experts who all agree that if this matter was pressed in court, at the very least the city would almost certainly be forced to stop the practice. And they base that on previous rulings and opinions.

I also have a great deal info that I am not going to post at this point.

[Urbanized]

Is it fair to say you are in favor of the status quo? What is your position on the apparent lie that Pete reported on coming from Holt's twitter?

Sorry Jersey Boss I wasn't ignoring this post; I was rushing off to get my ears lowered and didn't have time to give it a worthwhile response.

I think I would need to answer your first question conditionally. That is, do I think the City is perfect and does everything in a way that I agree with? If that is they question I would say absolutely not. I am very much on record and outspoken here, on social media, in meetings both public and private, via communications with City Staff, Council representatives and even the Mayor taking issue with the City's approach to issues such as our land use, automobile prioritization, accessibility issues, streetlights, and sidewalk closures, willingness to require historic preservation and adaptive reuse of certain buildings, among many other things. I think at this point plenty of people probably think I'm half a crackpot (or maybe even full-crackpot) and dread hearing from me on some of these topics.

I stay very involved with these and other issues, and I won't lie; I routinely get frustrated by inertia, silo effect, turf battles and bureaucracy. I think this probably exists to some extent in every major city's government, so I just grit my teeth and try to remain dogged. This has resulted in plenty of successes, but of course also continual frustration.

If your question is, do I think that OKC's level of transparency, openness and respect for the interests of taxpayers is a rough approximation or better than most cities of its size or larger? In this case my answer is a definite yes. I believe the way things are handled here is very typical of most cities, and this applies to respect for and overall compliance with meeting laws in both letter and spirit, the creation of and application of incentives, and a litany of other areas of governance. I've also sat through many, many meetings where City Legal was in attendance, and I believe them to be VERY conservative and quick to speak up and advise staff or elected officials if they are treading in an area that is questionable from a legal or procedural standpoint. I don't believe for a second that the people I have seen would be complicit in demonstrably corrupt behavior.

I think if there is an area where our city is perhaps unusual it is that there is generally a very close alliance in purpose between the business community and city officials, which leads to very little public squabbling and/or dissent. This can be very powerful and accomplish great things, and you only have to take in the overall successes of MAPS and many other public/private efforts over the past 25 years to see this. I think much of this is cultural and can be traced back to bootstraps-based bust recoveries and even the bombing recovery, which serve to remind us that we are only one bad turn away from disaster and at the same time that we can accomplish most anything here by pulling together. At the same time it can leave dissenters feeling steamrolled. So I do believe that we need to always pay attention to the needs and desires of the entire community and make sure every voice is being heard and considered. I also think it is valuable to have cranky contrarians sifting through our business with a watchful eye.

Finally, if you are asking if I believe that overall our public officials are acting in what they believe is the best interest of the community they serve rather than in self interest or the interest of the few, I believe wholeheartedly the answer is yes. I've sat through way too many meetings, had way too many private conversations with the people involved in the running of our community to believe anything different. I think we are pretty blessed with a lot of highly qualified people who deeply believe in OKC and its potential, and the gravity of the roles they themselves play. I think bad actors, when they occur, are very much outliers.

Regarding your question addressing Mayor Holt's tweet, I must have missed that. Where can I find it?

[Rover]

And if I post them they will just be dismissed as 'not applicable', which is why I didn't want to go down this rabbit hole in the first place.

It's completely fine if people think that these small group meetings are not problematic. What I'm saying is that I've been following this matter for several years and have consulted attorneys and FOI experts who all agree that if this matter was pressed in court, at the very least the city would almost certainly be forced to stop the practice. And they base that on previous rulings and opinions.

I also have a great deal info that I am not going to post at this point.

So, are you going to turn your findings over to the DA?

[Rover]

I will add that I count among my friends a previous OKC city attorney. I personally know him to be a man of great, great integrety. I would be shocked beyond belief if during his tenure he would have allowed shady inside dealing and circumventing of public interests to go on. I can't speak personally of others, but I would be careful of a broad brush accusation of involved individuals and implications of their ethics. I read Urbanized's post just preceding this and agree wholeheartedly.

That said, if there are bad actors, let's root them out.... not with inuendos but with real accusations and identifications of persons and actions, and get them charged with a crime. If it is as bad as Pete implies, then let's do a housecleaning. Let's just be sure we sweep out the dirt and not the collateral.

[HOT ROD]

There is nothing shady/unethical and certianly not illegal about the alliance in general or this action in particular

And of course most of what the alliance proposes is as adopted. The reason is people are informed as the process goes along

Meeting between the city manager and his staff and members of the council of course take place and they take place often. As the council stays informed of what the city is doing on any number of projects. From. A individual street in their ward. To a massive economic development issue

That is how government works. From a HOA. All the way to the largest body’s.

The argument on here is the PUBLIC of Oklahoma City is not informed; be it along the way, in the beginning, or at the end. We're not informed until it's a done deal, meaning just before the council meeting to adopt said initiative(s). This wreaks of corruption, even if the Alliance is well meaning (and I do believe they mean well).

The public has a right to know how its dollars are spent AND PLANNED to be spent well ahead of the actual votes - this is what people are arguing for and is why some of us are likely critical of Couch, Cathy, and this whole setup.

[HOT ROD]

Look, I think everyone understands there's proposals that are discussed with city officials and agencies without release to the public. This is fair and happens in every major city.

That's not the issue. The issue I'm talking about is AFTER the proposal begins to receive consideration from the city or the Alliance, it should be adopted as a Development Proposal which is subject to public record. This is EXACTLY how it's done in Vancouver BC, BTW. The official development proposal is detailed out, line by line, and there's usually also a large development poster that is placed at said property. Time-frames are in place to allow the public to be informed of the development, know of public meetings where thoughts can be voiced, and then the timeline for adoption and vote by the city. Again, this is more or less paraphrasing Vancouver BC's development process - which is widely regarded and similar is used by other cities.

OKC is the exact opposite. Development proposals are discussed (fine), but then everything disappears into a black hole until "things are worked out". Then, there is a tease from the daily newspaper. Then very soon after publish, there's the rush from the Alliance to have council approve it the following week, which typically IS approved without voice or opinion. Then the daily newspaper "reports" the development as breaking news and the article often has praise for the backroom players who if interviewed continually highlight the transparency of the process and that they acted for the better of OKC.

I think this is what needs to change. There needs to be a formal process by which the public can have SOME notice aside from the late breaking newspaper and some TIME to voice an opinion. I also think there needs to be an initial hearing if you will from city council for every single development proposal so the public can see where council members stand or constituents can lend voice to help. If the Alliance wants to be backdoor, fine. But after the 'deal', there needs to be a formal adoption into city record and there needs to be a series of public meetings some length of time prior to council vote.

You can't have a Backroom Alliance that pushes development to the Council for immediate and unilateral adoption. Let's do better, OKC!

[Pete]

Remember, in the case of these two significant transactions involving multiple public bodies and with far-reaching and long-term implications, approval will be sought on Tuesday for something that -- without our reporting -- would still be completely unknown to the public.

I will also say that one of the council members I talked to did not remember most of the key details from the small group meetings because they never are left with documents; it's all verbal.

Yet, this will be on their agenda on Friday with dozens of other items and they are expected to take a binding vote on Tuesday morning. Even if the press is all over these agenda postings, about the best you can hope for is an report on Saturday or Sunday about a public meeting that is to take place at 8:30AM Tuesday morning. But of course, many things slip completely past without any public knowledge whatsoever.

I will also add that these agendas come out Friday but that is the very last day that satisfies public notice laws. Other agencies put out their agendas well in advance. But OCURA and the Economic Development Trust (and City Council) almost always wait to the very last hour and there has been more than once that the 2-day period was not met and I had to call their offices to prompt them to post. And importantly, these are the public bodies involved in advance 'small meetings'.


This happens all the time. There are two more important examples in just the last few weeks regarding millions allocated to the Boathouse Foundation and Scissortail Park even though the need for both were well-known to the city while the budgeting process for the next fiscal year was in full swing.

As it happened, the budget was approved with no mention of either item, then they were introduced separately with almost no prior public notice.


I will not pass judgment on why this happens many times during the year, but it does on matters of great importance to the public.