I have a few questions for everyone about public participation in OKC. I figure this is a forum of people who are more than typically interested in these things, so I am interested to see what you all think.

So here is my question. How do you all typically find out about meetings that contain agenda items you care about? I mean, what if they were going to meet to decide the fate of your favorite building, but the story didn't run in the paper...how would you know until it was too late?

I have some thoughts that I discussed in a recent post:

imagiNATIVEamerica Improving Public Participation in OKC (http://imaginativeamerica.com/2009/01/improving_public_participation/)

...but I know where to come when I want to get a lively discussion.

I voted "other" since what I might do would depend upon the context and what I concluded might be the most useful thing or things to do in that context. Anyway, that was a terrific blog post, Blair, outstanding suggestions! I certainly recommend that it be read by all here.

If it was my FAVORITE building, I would definitely be there in person.

I, like Doug, voted "other," because it would depend. In most cases, I think these decisions are negotiated in backroom deals between interested parties with financial stakes in the matters and then presented to the public in a meeting where there's almost always an unanimous vote.

In most cases, I think a formal letter is best because it does create something of a paper trail and something of a record of public dissent.

The trouble with any of these avenues is that I don't think any are very effective.

As for public comment, I can't really think of anything less effective.

Yeh, I too feel like the public meetings are more formality than an actual open forum in which arguments can be presented, minds swayed, and decisions made based on the input of all parties.

Unfortunately, I think you are right that currently the best way to get things done is behind the scenes, but we definitely don't all have "place at the table" so to speak.

I do think if some people who really cared about the city worked together to disseminate information and organize a response on topics of interest...it would be effective. My post is really about trying to create some tools that make this possible.

I think discussions, be them in person or online are terrific, but to what aim? Eventually we should all look to be physically involved in improving the city and shaping its future!

I agree that it depends. If it was my favorite building, I would go to the meeting. If I have objections, I already fire e-mails off to city councilmen and the mayor. And, of course, complain about it here too:)

How about chaining one's self to the building, or has that been tried, already?:irule:

It wasn't my favorite building, but I didn't want to see it go. The Gold Dome brought people out of all nooks and crannies to keep it from getting torn down. MANY things had to be done to keep it from going away. First and foremost is to get the word out about it.

I vote for private property rights. I would hate to think that I couldn't tear down the old shed behind my house that endangers my children just because my neighbor thinks the shack adds character to the neighborhood.

But if that old shed was part of a historic landmark, that'd be a different case.

I vote for private property rights. I would hate to think that I couldn't tear down the old shed behind my house that endangers my children just because my neighbor thinks the shack adds character to the neighborhood.

I think the lot next to yours would make a great place for a mission shelter and a liquor store.

I, like Doug, voted "other," because it would depend. In most cases, I think these decisions are negotiated in backroom deals between interested parties with financial stakes in the matters and then presented to the public in a meeting where there's almost always an unanimous vote.

In most cases, I think a formal letter is best because it does create something of a paper trail and something of a record of public dissent.

The trouble with any of these avenues is that I don't think any are very effective.

As for public comment, I can't really think of anything less effective.

I think you are way off base Midtowner. Most, if not all, of these commissions are semi-legal in nature and discussing an item with a commission member prior to the hearing is exparte communication and not permitted. This may not apply to the Urban Renewal Authority . . . not sure, but I do know it applies to the Board of Adjustment and the Urban Design Commission, and I suspect the other City commissions and boards as well.

I voted "Other" as well. I would do and have done all the above and also picketed, filed law suits, threatened to open up a can of whoopass and other strategies to sensitive to post here.

My experience is that building relationships over time with elected and appointed government officials is the key to being effective in community issues.

I think the lot next to yours would make a great place for a mission shelter and a liquor store.

It might, but it would be a big waste of real estate and probably wouldn't be the highest and best use. However, if the person that owns the home next to me wants to go down that path then that would just have to be the price I pay for freedom. I don't need worry though, the staff at Jacksonville City Hall know better than me or my neighbor what he should be allowed to do with his own property.

I don't need worry though, the staff at Jacksonville City Hall know better than me or my neighbor what he should be allowed to do with his own property.

Kerry -

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic: what if the building was owned by the city? The provided example was merely an attempt to kickstart a conversation about public participation. Whether or not you believe in the legitimacy of the authority granted to municipalities to regulate development, you can still surely see the importance of citizens actively participating in the process.

A decision is going to be made one way or another. We are far better off if the process of making the decision includes the input of the citizens that care.

I think you are way off base Midtowner. Most, if not all, of these commissions are semi-legal in nature and discussing an item with a commission member prior to the hearing is exparte communication and not permitted.

I guess you're referring to the Open Meetings Act? So long as you're not conducting business, and you don't have a quorum, what's the issue? My reading of the Open Meetings Act tells me I'd be in the clear with an ex parte contact because meetings are defined as:


Meeting" means the conduct of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or, as authorized by Section 307.1 of this title, together pursuant to a videoconference. Meeting shall not include informal gatherings of a majority of the members of the public body when no business of the public body is discussed;

Me meeting individually, ex parte with various officials doesn't really seem to follow under the Act.

I'm very familiar with the way business is conducted with federal decision makers (pursuant to the APA), and I know Oklahoma doesn't really have an analog to that. I know that at least with informal rulemakings, ex parte contacts are hunky dory, especially if the official keeps a log of who he talked to and what they talked about and puts it on the record.


This may not apply to the Urban Renewal Authority . . . not sure, but I do know it applies to the Board of Adjustment and the Urban Design Commission, and I suspect the other City commissions and boards as well.

The Open Meetings Act applies to all public trusts.
OSCN Found Document:Question Submitted by: The Honorable Paul Taliaferro, Oklahoma State Senate (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=49110)


I voted "Other" as well. I would do and have done all the above and also picketed, filed law suits, threatened to open up a can of whoopass and other strategies to sensitive to post here.

My experience is that building relationships over time with elected and appointed government officials is the key to being effective in community issues.

I understand how ex parte communications are mostly verboten when we're talking about judges. That's not the case in most of these circumstances though. We're talking about run of the mill public officials like county commissioners, trustees, etc. I don't see the problem with ex parte communications and I'd have to imagine that such contacts constitute business as usual.

You might be thinking of a situation where the entity has already commenced a taking and they're in court fighting over whether the taking is for a public use or whether the property is "blighted," you'd be right there (if the ex parte communication was with the judge). But ex parte contacts with members of OCURA where I'm sharing my concerns of their proposed taking (and tearing down) of a "blighted" property? What's the issue there?

This doesn't stop an entity from having its own internal policies regarding ex parte communication, nor does it stop them from ignoring your impassioned pleas for their attention. I just don't think they'd be supported by any state law in doing so.

I don't trust the good ole boys meetings.
Too muchbackdoor dealings and promises of bribes and gifts.
All city business as should state business should be open meetings only.
Only a jury trial should be confidential.

I don't trust the good ole boys meetings.
Too muchbackdoor dealings and promises of bribes and gifts.
All city business as should state business should be open meetings only.
Only a jury trial should be confidential.

You want to prevent concerned citizens from conferring with their elected officials except in open chambers and on the record? Good luck with that.

Jury trials aren't confidential. They're open to the public and you can read through the transcripts if you want to. While there's no record of what goes on in the jury room, jurors are free to talk about their deliberations after they are dismissed from service.

Grand juries are confidential though.

Mid, I was referring to jury deliberations being held behind in closed doors.
BUT City and State business should be conducted in the light of day.
We don't need anymore city or state "leaders" (and I say this loosely and with mistrust)" ot be lured by the temptations of bribes and gifts.