I don't think Steve will mind me reposting one of his recent blog entries, I think it is of utmost importance to shine more light upon.


City Legal - Here to Help
The resignations continue following a …

Wait a minute. What is it exactly that the City Attorney’s office did anyway? They don’t issue rulings, do they? They’re not law makers. They … provide advice to the city manager and city council and represent them in court matters.

Hmmm …. think about that for a second.

OK, let’s continue. Anyway, the Oklahoma City attorney’s office came to the conclusion that a law not enforced in years, if not decades, suddenly demanded strict adherence. The gist was this: people who sit on city boards, commissions and committees could not have contracts with the city. Why? Well, I’m still not clear about this because I don’t know how architect Anthony McDermid and his firm designing a fire station presents any conflict of interest with him sitting on the Downtown Design Review Committee. But he was contacted by the city and told he had to choose one or the other. McDermid resigned.

Interestingly enough, the city attorney’s office had no qualms with another committee member voting on designs for a project that came from an organization on which he sits on its board.

Weird, huh?

Anyway, the resignations stemming from this legal advice continues. Veteran Bricktown architect Tom Wilson resigned from the Bricktown Urban Design Committee due to the same issue. And I hear more resignations are to follow.

One has to wonder if all of the strides made by the urban design committees this past year are at risk if this goes on much longer.

That is ridiculous. So, who that's knowlegeable and has a opinion we can trust will replace those who have resigned?

The law is a little dumb, IMHO. There's no really good way to keep board members from being influenced by outsiders and private interests. There's no really good way to ensure that every meeting is on the record.

I'd be fine with governing municipalities on the same basis that corporate boards work on -- that interested parties simply have a duty of disclosure and possibly abstention from any discussion and participation on topics with which they have a personal interest.

I think what the City Attorney's Office did was wise. While they aren't the decision makers, they can supply the decision makers with the facts. In this case, apparently, the risk of getting deals unwound and potential criminal charges didn't set well with city officials (no matter how remote the possibility of that happening was) and they decided to opt for the current policy.

The option here is not to ignore the law, it's to lobby the legislature to change the law. I don't think it'd be a very hard sale.

It seems McDermid is on the s-list of the city after criticizing the Chamber of Commerce HQ design.


We need more people like McDermid who not only walks the new urbanism walk with his multitude of slick developments, but also speaks out against the establishment when necessary. He also generously volunteers his time for committees such as the one he was asked to leave.

But OKC is still very small in some ways and that sort of candor can put you on the outside looking in more often than not. And the selective enforcement in this particular case seems very suspicious.

I agree the city attorney did exactly what he was supposed to do. And the city manager and staff did what they were supposed to do, which is to follow the advice of the person city council hired to provide legal counsel.

And the selective enforcement in this particular case seems very suspicious.

Yes, that's the scary part.

people who sit on city boards, commissions and committees could not have contracts with the city. Why?

Sorry, but isn't it pretty obvious? There is no way that any committee can even have a claim of objectivity if it is comprised in any way of people holding the contracts. It's kind of a basic rule of ethics.

Granted, we have limited resources here and the most qualified to have contracts may be the most qualified to rule on other projects, but, even then, those projects are in direct competition with their own, so how can they even be objective in that situation.

I'm not nearly as confused with the intent of the statute as I am with someone who covers city development not understanding the concept of conflict of interest. It's exactly what people talk about when they allude to the mysterious "good ole boy" network. It results in group think and collusion.

However, I think there should be more transparency overall and an open forum in which all experts and interest holders, whether they be competing or not, can voice their position and concerns to those who have the votes, but they should not be allowed to vote themselves.


And the selective enforcement in this particular case seems very suspicious.

Definitely. Which is always a symptom of apathy towards conflicts of interest in the community. It should be more universally enforced.


interested parties simply have a duty of disclosure and possibly abstention from any discussion and participation on topics with which they have a personal interest.

Right, but any active developer, whether they have public contracts or not, is an "interested" party if for no other reason than that all developments compete with theirs in some way.


We need more people like McDermid who not only walks the new urbanism walk with his multitude of slick developments, but also speaks out against the establishment when necessary.

I agree, but doesn't it make more sense to have him in an advisory role, rather than as part of the de facto establishment? Give him a voice, just not a vote. Same should go for any current developer.

Who is the other person unnamed person mentioned in the blog post? Tanenbaum?

I was wondering when this would show up here. Trust me, I've talked to several folks in the know and this "law" was on the books but never enforced. These are heavy-handed tactics by Bennett and Co. Plain and simple. The Chamber is somewhat culpable, but their hands are probably tied considering Clay gave them the land for the building. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Apparently, Anne Simank was asked to leave the board because her son is a fireman. Ridiculous. That's why I suggested that assistant city planner may be job hunting soon. There are certain people in this town you don't want to cross if you can avoid it.

Putting the word "law" in quotes doesn't make it any less of a law.

Ann Simank resigned from City Council because her son became a firefighter. The city's nepotism law is pretty loosely enforced, but that doesn't mean it ought to never be enforced at all.

I think everyone here knows I'm no fan of Clay Bennett, but I don't think you can blame this on him.

Who is the other person unnamed person mentioned in the blog post? Tanenbaum?

I believe that is correct if I heard right.

Tanenbaum is on the Chamber's board of directors, which isn't quite the same thing as being involved with a private corporation that does business with the city. Does he have some private business contracts with the city as well?

Sorry, but isn't it pretty obvious? There is no way that any committee can even have a claim of objectivity if it is comprised in any way of people holding the contracts. It's kind of a basic rule of ethics.

A basic rule of ethics where?

I understand that this is the law, so it should absolutely be filed, but what happens in the business world when a director or other officer has a personal interest in the outcome of a board decision? Ethically and legally, he's obligated to disclose the nature of his conflict of interest and in most cases, recuse himself and not participate in any of the deliberations and definitely not the final vote.

Now all that happens is that those who wield influence and power in the city, and have enough of both of those things to place shills on important boards will be in control. While the shills will not have a personal stake in city contracts, you can bet that they'll have a personal stake in the 'atta boys' which will follow their close compliance with the scheme of the powers that be.

For evidence of such a scenario, look no further than the city's choice of "The Hill" development for the Deep Deuce district, a plan which was clearly inferior in scope and in the fact that it didn't meet many of the city's own goals vis a vis urban planning. It was and still is widely speculated that The Hill was not chosen on its merit, but rather because of the connections maintained by its sponsor.


I'm not nearly as confused with the intent of the statute as I am with someone who covers city development not understanding the concept of conflict of interest. It's exactly what people talk about when they allude to the mysterious "good ole boy" network. It results in group think and collusion.

As I mentioned above, however, this just bolsters the good ol boy network, at least the good 'ol boys who are the most powerful.


However, I think there should be more transparency overall and an open forum in which all experts and interest holders, whether they be competing or not, can voice their position and concerns to those who have the votes, but they should not be allowed to vote themselves.

We all want transparency! Probably the most ironic part of this whole scenario is that we're now complying with the aforementioned law, to the letter. Do you think, however, for a moment that all of our city boards are complying with the Open Meetings Act? Do you really think that members aren't getting together unannounced and off the record to make decisions before they make them in public? Besides this Chamber of Commerce thing, when was the last 'no' vote from this Board? Are they all really that agreeable? How do these developers know exactly what these Boards are looking for every single time? Why not enforce that law?

The issue isn't the rule, it's the sudden and specific enforcement of it in this particular case.

And all rules deserve some sort of exception review for reasonableness. Someone should have responsibility for deciding the true intent and spirit of the rule, especially since this particular one has obviously not been enforced in the past.

It's just way too much of a coincidence that McDermid speaks forcefully and publicly about the C of C HQ in the last couple of weeks, then suddenly is targeted for selective enforcement of a rarely-enforced rule -- especially when the particular issue (designing a fire station) doesn't seem to have anything to do whatsoever about downtown design judgment.

The Gaylord family has, for years, staffed most of our city's major committees with their cronies. I thought that since E.K. died, their power had subsided a bit. I guess I was wrong.

As for a "review for reasonableness," we do have that -- you supposedly get just that in the legislature and in the courts.

The law itself, I would speculate is ancient (does anyone know the particular statute?). Oklahoma was founded by a group of populists who had very little faith in government. Accordingly, our laws and our Constitution exhibit this distrust in a powerful way.

At any rate, I don't think there's a damn thing McDermid can do here unless he's interested in lobbying the relevant legislative body for a rule change.

My personal feeling is he ought to move somewhere like Dallas where his creativity and expertise will actually be appreciated. I see McDermid coming up short all too often when his projects are clearly head and shoulders above the rest. He shouldn't continue to allow himself to be disappointed like that.

My personal feeling is he ought to move somewhere like Dallas where his creativity and expertise will actually be appreciated. I see McDermid coming up short all too often when his projects are clearly head and shoulders above the rest. He shouldn't continue to allow himself to be disappointed like that.

Don't give him ideas!

Many architects in this city have at least one city project. It seems a shame to prevent the people with the most expertise with buildings and planning from participating in reviewing buildings and planning.

Not only a shame, but STUPID. It needs to be changed.

Don't give him ideas!

Don't worry, I don't think I've ever persuaded someone to do anything, ever on this forum and I'm not about to start. I'm simply observing the fact that being talented and unique isn't going to get you anywhere in this city unless you pay your dues and respect the folks whose families have historically dominated this city's government and business affairs.