I've not seen a thread here yet so I'll start one. First, read Steve Lackmeyer's April 8 article (http://www.newsok.com/article/3556579) on this matter which will be put to city council on Tuesday, April 12.

I've just started to think about the matter and, aside from the quickness, if not haste, that this proposal has come to the fore and will come up for vote (which I'm not fond of) I have no particular conclusions or opinions yet. But, considerable thought behind the scenes has obviously been given to the proposal ... not only would a new organization be created, it would come complete with named leaders and members (which strikes me as putting the cart before the horse).

Excerpts from Steve's article:


New nonprofit is established to spearhead economic development in OKC

A new nonprofit organization to be led by current Assistant City Manager Cathy O'Connor is asking for $424,000 in public funding to start a “one-stop shop” for economic development.

The proposal to fund and create “The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City” will be submitted to the Oklahoma City Council on Tuesday.

The funding includes $56,000 for the last two months of the current fiscal year ending June 30, and another $368,000 for the 2012 fiscal year.

Sources will include tax increment funding overseen by the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust, the MAPS 3 use tax and the city's general fund. More appropriations would be sought annually under the proposed five-year contract.

Need for ‘fast track'

The proposal calls for additional, unspecified amounts to be provided by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, which is largely supported with federal funds and land sale proceeds. Devon Energy Corp. Executive Chairman Larry Nichols, who will chair the new organization, said it is needed to “fast track” development projects.
* * *
Nichols and O'Connor couldn't detail specific projects to be handled by The Alliance other than a convention hotel the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber hopes to attract to downtown in conjunction with construction of a new convention center.

O'Connor said proceedings of the existing public trusts will still be subject to the Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open Records laws. She was unsure whether the expenditures of The Alliance, which will operate with public funding, will be subject to open records laws.

A sidebar to the article identifies others who would be on the committee as well as other matters:


Larry Nichols to be chair

Larry Nichols, executive chairman of Devon Energy, will serve as chairman of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City with a board consisting of Roy Williams, president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber; businessman Clayton I. Bennett; former Mayor Ron Norick; city council members Pat Ryan and Meg Salyer; City Manager Jim Couch; and representatives of the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust, the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, the Oklahoma City Industrial and Cultural Facilities Trust and the Oklahoma Industries Authority.

Duties

Duties of “The Alliance” will include coordination, management, planning and implementation of the following tasks:

• The city's economic development incentives.
• The city's retail incentives.
• Redevelopment traditionally handled by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority.
• Identification and development of job creation sites.
• Public/private redevelopment opportunities generated by MAPS 3, specifically a new convention center hotel.
• Implementation of required financing associated with projects.
New council member Ed Shadid will be voting on this proposal on the same day he takes office, so he'll need to be a fast learner.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

O'Connor said proceedings of the existing public trusts will still be subject to the Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open Records laws. She was unsure whether the expenditures of The Alliance, which will operate with public funding, will be subject to open records laws.

If you're looking for the devil in the details, there it is.

I've just taken a look at the City Council agenda. This is item VI. AD.


AD. Agreement for Professional Economic Development Services with the Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc. and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust, to institutionalize existing economic development practices, and consolidate and coordinate existing economic development functions, May 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016.

Two PDF documents are shown although the associated text also reads,


One or more files are marked confidential and are hidden

The 1st PDF file is only 2 pages and is a memo which I've copied below:

Page 1
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/alliance_doc1_1.jpg

Page 2
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/misc/alliance_doc1_2.jpg

The 2nd PDF file is a 35 page PDF file titled, "Agreement For Professional Economic Development Services With the Alliance For Economic Development of Oklahoma City" is presently at this location (http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=1195997). I say, "presently," since OKC PDF files seem to habit of not having persistent links. Today, it works.

I've not read this lengthy document yet, but it is obvious from a quick look that this proposal has been in the works for quite some time ... otherwise, it would not contain the precise detail that it does.

this is very disturbing...

Not arguing at all (I'm still trying to hash this out), but what do you find to be disturbing? Your greater detail will help me (and others) think this through.

This is what big money will buy you......votes on the council.

Only one newly elected who isn't beholding to this. Wonder when someone on the shoe will ask exactly how much money has been diverted from the GF to the Economic Development over the past several years?

I think we need to get a rest from "outside entities" giving their economic development assistance. Frankly, as much as I love the guy, Larry Nichols can go screw himself right now for falsely injecting himself into this disturbing city council smear campaign against Ed Shadid, a good man.

"Build yer freakin' skyscraper and shut the hell up" is my generic viewpoint right now. No, I'm not a big populist, but I think Sir Larry has acted like a huge richard and should take a timeout before he uses our tax dollars to prop up his divisive agenda. He's turning into a huge political operative. Fine. Just don't use our tax dollars to do it.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface. But I am uncertain on this. Some obvious questions come to mind.

1) Why does the City need a 3rd party to co-ordinate City incentives (wouldn't that be one of the job functions of the City Manager/Staff?
2) If they are just "out sourcing" the job currently being done by City employees, will there be a reduction in City Staff as a result?
3) Why the further co-mingling of Chamber and City personnel?
4) According to Steve's article the City is already paying the Chamber an unspecified amount for economic development, why aren't we using that money?
5) Seems like duplication of efforts (existing trusts etc will continue to exist). To the "consumer", this may be streamlined, but looks like just another level.
6) Good, bad or indifferent, it seems the thing behind this is to secure the funding for the Convention Center hotel (mentioned in the article and the memo).

Again, just don't know. Without more info would be inclined to decline it or at least postpone it until more details come forth.

Sounds like the Oklahoma Industry Authority reincarnated. Some may remember that. Things didn't go well.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface. But I am uncertain on this. Some obvious questions come to mind.

1) Why does the City need a 3rd party to co-ordinate City incentives (wouldn't that be one of the job functions of the City Manager/Staff?
2) If they are just "out sourcing" the job currently being done by City employees, will there be a reduction in City Staff as a result?
3) Why the further co-mingling of Chamber and City personnel?
4) According to Steve's article the City is already paying the Chamber an unspecified amount for economic development, why aren't we using that money?
5) Seems like duplication of efforts (existing trusts etc will continue to exist). To the "consumer", this may be streamlined, but looks like just another level.
6) Good, bad or indifferent, it seems the thing behind this is to secure the funding for the Convention Center hotel (mentioned in the article and the memo).

Again, just don't know. Without more info would be inclined to decline it or at least postpone it until more details come forth.

Agreed.

Also, the whole line about not knowing if the financial records would be open to public disclosure is a litte weird IMO. I am not a financial guy by any means, however, I do work for a nonprofit. I know that our 990 Tax Form is open to the public (as should any 501(c) organization) and it in the last year the IRS has changed the form and made it much more detailed. So, to a certain extent their records would be open to the public.

This whole thing sounds like a giant waste of money.

No, if you want "devil is in the details" or the "ah-ha! holy crop" point, it's that they want tap into M3 use tax. They need a new clubhouse I guess.

This has creepy overtones, and yes, it does smack of the Oklahoma Industries Authority shell group that ultimately empowered the nitwits at Urban Renewal. We need to get someone less politically charged to work on professional economic development than Larry Nichols.

This item has been continued from today's council agenda for two weeks.

You guys are going to soil yourselves if Shadid votes Yes. In my opinon anything that takes OCURA out of the redevelopment loop I am for.

This has creepy overtones, and yes, it does smack of the Oklahoma Industries Authority shell group that ultimately empowered the nitwits at Urban Renewal. We need to get someone less politically charged to work on professional economic development than Larry Nichols.

The group would very arguably be unconstitutional (as the OIA was held to be).

"A. Except as provided by this section, the credit of the State shall not be given, pledged, or loaned to any individual, company, corporation, or association, municipality, or political subdivision of the State, nor shall the State become an owner or stockholder in, nor make donation by gift, subscription to stock, by tax, or otherwise, to any company, association, or corporation." Oklahoma Constitution, Art. X, section 15.

(and there's not an "otherwise provided" which is applicable).

And further, "The Legislature shall not authorize any county or subdivision thereof, city, town, or incorporated district, to become a stockholder in any company, association, or corporation, or to obtain or appropriate money for, or levy any tax for, or to loan its credit to any corporation, association, or individual." Art. X, section 17.

At any rate, if no one recalls, the OIA was a Public Trust. The beginning of their end was State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Industries Authority, 1981 OK 47, 629 P.2d 1244. The OIA consisted of the Gaylords, the Kerrs, etc., basically, the same old money crowd that'd probably be in charge of this non-profit. At that time, they were a public trust and had refused to hold their records open to inspection, and to further hid them from the Attorney General, they kept them in 13 different offices, none of which kept regular hours, and had basically ignored the AG's request for copying. They also claimed that certain bank accounts of the OIA were off limits because they were just used to "funnel money" (no discussion was given regarding the to and from ends of said funnel).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=4995

This case essentially unraveled the OIA and held its records open to the public. The AG's next move would have been to criminally charge all of the conspirators, and he would have succeeded, but for a despicable campaign by the Daily Oklahoman, consisting of many first page editorials filled with absolute falsehoods and mischaracterizations, calling the AG "anti-business" (and worse). Mike Turpin beat Cartwright in the primary and promptly shut down the investigation. Had it continued, the political makeup of Oklahoma would probably look a lot different today as some of the power brokers would have emerged from this thing with felony records and prison stays.

So now, we're looking at replacing the OIA with a non-profit, which unlike the OIA, wouldn't be subject to the sunshine laws which govern public trusts. And we're wanting to allow them to give away the public's money (which is clearly unconstitutional) for the nebulous purpose of "economic development." This does not sound like a good idea at all.

Perhaps the powers that be suspect that they'll have a complicit Attorney General, and that no citizen will have the knowledge or chutzpa to challenge their little arrangement. Two words come to mind... two potentially very profitable words to an attorney in private practice if this sort of arrangement was to be realized: "qui tam."

This is going to get fun. Glad people are waking up a little 'round here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVC53VPKfc

Thanks to Steve for the article, and Doug for all the information. Proof we need serious media reform in this town. If we had stuff like this on the radio and tv on a regular basis, they couldn't get away with this stuff. Have a look at this thread, it's never too late to think about these issues... http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=8704&highlight=shunt

To be clear, Steve, there's nothing obviously inappropriate about that contract. They are going to pay a private not-for-profit company to do administrative tasks previously delegated to public trusts. That's totally legal and above board. Further, consolidating economic development entities under one umbrella is probably a smart move from an administrative point of view. It might help for the functions of OCURA and OCEDT to be performed under one roof to set up packages to lure in out-of-state entities.

At any rate, there is adequate whistleblower protection, if someone will just pay attention. Two AG opinions seem to indicate that all will be alright with the world:

1) http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=413183
2002 OK AG 37; and
2) http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=49110&hits=
1981 OK AG 109.

I think the tinfoil hat business is a little premature. Sorry to come off that way earlier. This does smack of something in our recent history which was highly corrupt, and certain power brokers should have gone to prison. We should wait and see (and I believe there are adequate remedies at law to make sure we can see what these guys are doing with our money) whether this entity serves the public or serves special interests. I'd revise my above statement that I didn't think the Open Meetings/Open Records Act could apply to these guys, because it looks like there's a colorable argument that they do.

That said, we have an Attorney General who rather than prosecuting anything illegal here, would probably be more likely to be complicit in it.

This is going to get fun. Glad people are waking up a little 'round here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVC53VPKfc

Moth balled for months, and still clueless.

By the way, Steve Hunt, the Chamber and CVB certainly work together a lot, but the money that the CVB gets from the city is spent managing the convention center and advertising OKC as a destination for conventions, horse shows, and tourism. That's what that money goes toward.

Here is the full contract 27 pages laying it all out.

Why not just hire a person or 2 in the city manager's office to do just this and save $500,000+ a year? Seems like it is about doing an end run on accountability. If the deal is worth it for all parties, it will happen.

http://www.okc.gov/agendapub/cache/2/kekqjj45njkzhpuyrn2pwavl/119629704112011100635903.PDF

I haven't studied this in depth, but I do understand the need for secrecy when dealing with corporate relocations. We also need to act swiftly when it comes to offering incentives. Apparently, this has been kicked down the road a while, which will allow for more time to study the proposal.

I haven't studied this in depth, but I do understand the need for secrecy when dealing with corporate relocations. We also need to act swiftly when it comes to offering incentives. Apparently, this has been kicked down the road a while, which will allow for more time to study the proposal.

Documented perfectly in Greg LeRoy's fine book The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation (http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Jobs-Scam-Corporate/dp/1576753158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302631886&sr=1-1)

OKC.gov does have a problem with keeping the url for pdfs this should probably work to see both documents, Ed Shadid asked good questions, he is obviously independent of special interests and wants openness. http://www.okc.gov/agendapub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=49145

Jim Couch was dealing with Continental Resources for months and kept it quiet what is the need for extra secrecy? If it makes sense it will happen.

The need for extra secrecy, as has been clearly documented for years by people like Greg LeRoy, is that many times the corporations really don't have offers from other Cities, and don't want people like Lackmeyer or whoever finding this out. It truly is a scam.
Also, in that first pdf, the statement "...The City agrees to assign certain City employees to the Alliance to carry out the scope of work. " is funny.

I haven't studied this in depth, but I do understand the need for secrecy when dealing with corporate relocations. We also need to act swiftly when it comes to offering incentives. Apparently, this has been kicked down the road a while, which will allow for more time to study the proposal.

I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, in Oklahoma, for groups with these sorts of powers, we should have a sour taste in our mouth. In the past, these groups haven't been used for corporate relocations, but rather for lining the pockets of the city fathers. And as far as OIA goes, they weren't all bad, they did snooker GM into coming here by promising free taxes (which was beyond their power).

I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, in Oklahoma, for groups with these sorts of powers, we should have a sour taste in our mouth. In the past, these groups haven't been used for corporate relocations, but rather for lining the pockets of the city fathers. And as far as OIA goes, they weren't all bad, they did snooker GM into coming here by promising free taxes (which was beyond their power).

Didn't we end up lifting that? I thought GM paid property taxes.

A couple (or more) thoughts about the contract:

1) It looks like the Alliance wants to take over MAPS 3. It's right there on page 1 of the Contract. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but we've gone from management of MAPS by a Citizens' Oversight Board, the Mayor and the Council to a not-for-profit corporation. Not a good day for public input and sunshine.

2) It's also taking over the city's GOLT bond program, TIF districts, planning the city's retail strategy and incentives, OCURA, "job creation sites," and the financing of all of those things as well.

3) The Alliance, as conceptualized in the Contract seems to be taking over many of the core functions of the Chamber, and in the Alliance's case, it has city goodies to give out additionally. Do we need both entities?

4) The Contract gives the Alliance the sole discretion of which contractors it chooses to do things. Why not allow bidding on projects? This is a very troubling provision.

5) The basic idea here is to consolidate functions of several public trusts in a corporation. Why is this not a public trust? I'm worried that this has something to do with officers shirking their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty, etc. You know, the ordinary duties trustees have to beneficiaries that would exist within the confines of a public trust.

6) I find it troubling that the Contract obligates the city to make municipal employees available to the Alliance. Again, why do we need a corporation to do this?

7) The Alliance doesn't appear to believe that it would be subject to information requests from the public. Page 7, paragraph D states that "[t]he Alliance shall be responsive to any reasonable request for information and/or documentation made by the General Manager, the City Manager, the Program Coordinator . . . " (etc.) it limits the class of people it would respond to and even goes so far as to limit the information it would need to turn over to our public officials to things which are defined within the paragraph defining the "Scope of the Work" and for expanding and promoting assigned or delegated economic development and redevelopment programs in the City. That is not only troubling, but runs contrary to existing case law and AG opinions.

8) It would seem that the fact that professional resources and staff being made available by the City would allow them to claim that their documents related to their jobs are off-limits any time the public requests because they could claim to have been doing Alliance work.

9) It then has a section specifically limiting records production to the City Manager and other higher ups. These folks will be withholding information from the public about how the public's money is doled out to for-profit entities. That doesn't smell right.

10) There's even a provision which allows the Alliance to fight the production of what otherwise would be city records which should be public.

Just about none of this is legal under Attorney General's Opinion 81-184, which specifically covers using a non-profit private corporation to circumvent the Open Meetings Act. Of course, I'm sure AG Pruitt would be happy to fix that in the name of progress. And a disclaimer here, I don't want to come off as some tinfoil hat wearing nutter. I'm not assuming that bad behavior is intended under this Agreement. I am merely pointing out that it creates a framework where public funds can be disbursed to private entities without the public having a clue as to what is going on, which creates an environment where corruption is very possible.

Didn't we end up lifting that? I thought GM paid property taxes.

They did, but only after Mid-Del Schools had to sue to undo the deal on the theory that the OIA didn't have the power to grant special tax status to anyone.

A couple (or more) thoughts about the contract:

1) It looks like the Alliance wants to take over MAPS 3. It's right there on page 1 of the Contract. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but we've gone from management of MAPS by a Citizens' Oversight Board, the Mayor and the Council to a not-for-profit corporation. Not a good day for public input and sunshine.

2) It's also taking over the city's GOLT bond program, TIF districts, planning the city's retail strategy and incentives, OCURA, "job creation sites," and the financing of all of those things as well.

3) The Alliance, as conceptualized in the Contract seems to be taking over many of the core functions of the Chamber, and in the Alliance's case, it has city goodies to give out additionally. Do we need both entities?

4) The Contract gives the Alliance the sole discretion of which contractors it chooses to do things. Why not allow bidding on projects? This is a very troubling provision.

5) The basic idea here is to consolidate functions of several public trusts in a corporation. Why is this not a public trust? I'm worried that this has something to do with officers shirking their fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty, etc. You know, the ordinary duties trustees have to beneficiaries that would exist within the confines of a public trust.

6) I find it troubling that the Contract obligates the city to make municipal employees available to the Alliance. Again, why do we need a corporation to do this?

7) The Alliance doesn't appear to believe that it would be subject to information requests from the public. Page 7, paragraph D states that "[t]he Alliance shall be responsive to any reasonable request for information and/or documentation made by the General Manager, the City Manager, the Program Coordinator . . . " (etc.) it limits the class of people it would respond to and even goes so far as to limit the information it would need to turn over to our public officials to things which are defined within the paragraph defining the "Scope of the Work" and for expanding and promoting assigned or delegated economic development and redevelopment programs in the City. That is not only troubling, but runs contrary to existing case law and AG opinions.

8) It would seem that the fact that professional resources and staff being made available by the City would allow them to claim that their documents related to their jobs are off-limits any time the public requests because they could claim to have been doing Alliance work.

9) It then has a section specifically limiting records production to the City Manager and other higher ups. These folks will be withholding information from the public about how the public's money is doled out to for-profit entities. That doesn't smell right.

10) There's even a provision which allows the Alliance to fight the production of what otherwise would be city records which should be public.

Just about none of this is legal under Attorney General's Opinion 81-184, which specifically covers using a non-profit private corporation to circumvent the Open Meetings Act.

it doesn't "take over" any of these things ... it functions as the staff for those oversight boards .. and gets funding from all of them ..

it deals with maps 3 because ocura currently deals with maps 3 ...

After reading this, it is perfect sense of this years city council elections.

Interesting too that they had the council looking at this today. The day that the new council members were being sworn in, except Shadid wasn't supposed to be there.

it doesn't "take over" any of these things ... it functions as the staff for those oversight boards .. and gets funding from all of them ..

it deals with maps 3 because ocura currently deals with maps 3 ...

Due respect, that's not what the contract says. In the initial recitals, it states that "functions performed by the Alliance may include [b]coordination, management, planning and implementation of: [using acronyms here for brevity's sake] GOLT, TIF districts, retail strategy and incentives, OCURA, job creation sites, MAPS 3, and financing for all of the above. That's awfully open-ended. A conspiracy theorist might point out that our public trusts in the past, have been more about lining the pockets of the well-connected than serving the public good, are already beholden to the same folks that'll be running this corp, and that the folks who will be running this corp will really be calling the shots, and that this would be an effective vehicle to avoid public disclosure of that sort of implicit or explicit arrangement. And again, I'm talking in terms of an assume-the-worst framework here, not assuming that this is what's going on.

There's no evidence that there's anything evil afoot, and I can see perfectly good reasons for the secrecy, but doing things like not requiring this group to utilize competitive bidding for contractors which will be paid for with public money, and not having some sort of public access to records (even if you put a year or two hold before allowing public access) could serve as a framework for some bad stuff to happen. I'm not saying it will, just that it could.

After reading this, it is perfect sense of this years city council elections.

Interesting too that they had the council looking at this today. The day that the new council members were being sworn in, except Shadid wasn't supposed to be there.

You noticed that too?

I'd love to know whether there's a relationship between Alliance and the Momentum group. Again, I'm not implying there is, just that if there was, that would explain a lot.

If you haven't had a chance to view the city council meeting on video today, take a look. It was a pretty interesting discussion about this topic.

Shadid said something to the effect of If this had been proposed 6 month earlier, or even 6 months from now, it probably wouldn't be a big deal. But coming off of the most divisive election in recent memory causes people to react with alarm at the lack of transparency. I'm paraphrasing.

But it set off quite a discussion. Including a detailed discussion on timing of the Convention Center, CC Hotel, and overall lack of diversity on the proposed alliance.

It was just interesting. It was standing room only for swearing in. Also, he specifically referenced Facebook and OKCTALK. Definitely a councilman in touch with how people feel about things. It's going to be a different era in city government.

As Jeff said, today's city council meeting was wholly intriguing, not only on this topic but on the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum (which was roundly bashed by Pete White without specifically naming the organization) -- he called it an "obscenity" and an "atrocity." I'm in the process of putting together a flash file which includes all the discussion associated with this proposal and that will hopefully be up by tomorrow morning, but it might be later (I need to attend to my son's hospital operation in the morning, and so there may be a delay).

In the meantime, as Jeff said, it is, to this forum, noteworthy that Ed Shadid's comments included a reference to the discussion here, in this thread, at OkcTalk.com. He may be the 1st council member to publicly acknowledge the discussion and its value which occurs here.

If you've not already listened to or viewed today's council meeting, I will add this observation. Only council members Salyer and Ryan (who are proposed council members on this organization) seemed to be implicitly in favor of the proposal ... they chimed in from time to time to defend the proposal or its essence. Council member Marrs also noted that this "Alliance" proposal had been approved about 2 months earlier ... something that I had missed.

I really feel tempted to want to do a "Shadid Watch" segment on my blog that watched incredible weekly statements made by the new councilor. But what I wanted to say, Doug, was do you think you could either give me some tips on how to make videos out of these city clips or could you make clips that break down the comments of each of the councilors, a video for each councilor. There were some really good comments made in succession starting with Pete White and ending with Ed Shadid, or depending on where you draw the line, Pete White again...lol

Nick, to record either audio and/or video from city council meetings, you need some software that will do that, and it ain't always fail-safe. It's probably best that we discuss this privately rather than muck up this thread. I'll be glad to tell you what little I've learned ... but just enough to be dangerous, as they say.

A couple broad concerns from my earlier narrow concerns:

1) Transparency and accountability: This corp was set up to be the opposite of that. Does no one find it concerning that not even the mayor, not even our elected city councilmen who are supposed to make a lot of these funding decisions (or at least decide who makes the funding decisions) are not even allowed to request records from the corp? Are we to trust that they will be able to get everything they want and need by requesting that Couch make the appropriate requests?

2) Why a corp and not a trust?: Most of this could be accomplished through a public trust, and I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was. There's no really good reason (from a John Q. Public perspective) that there should be all this privacy, the Chamber can handle those sorts of transactions just fine. But aside from transparency, there's another big aspect with a trust which does not have to exist with a corp. With a trust, trustees are forbidden from self-dealing, from taking advantage of deals which their fiduciaries would have benefited from without first bringing that opportunity to their fellow trustees, they have a duty of care, to be competent. In this case, unless their contracts exclude said duties, which is pretty standard these days, even if the officers of the corp have those duties, they will be to the corporation and not to the people. It is concerning that we have all of this secrecy and all of this insider info in one place, and the folks with access to that information are basically free to engage in insider trading.

Let's say, like with the I-40 alignment, the corp basically knows where the convention center is going to go significantly sooner than everyone else. Well, then it's perfectly fine and dandy for individuals, corporate officers, etc., to go out and buy up all of the land surrounding the site, only to be able to turn around and sell it back to the city or to another investor at a handsome profit once the public knows where the center is going. And I really don't think that sort of assumption really requires me to adjust my tinfoil hat very much, I think this could easily be one of the reasons a corporate form was chosen rather than just creating another public trust.

Due respect, that's not what the contract says. In the initial recitals, it states that "functions performed by the Alliance may include [b]coordination, management, planning and implementation of: [using acronyms here for brevity's sake] GOLT, TIF districts, retail strategy and incentives, OCURA, job creation sites, MAPS 3, and financing for all of the above. That's awfully open-ended. A conspiracy theorist might point out that our public trusts in the past, have been more about lining the pockets of the well-connected than serving the public good, are already beholden to the same folks that'll be running this corp, and that the folks who will be running this corp will really be calling the shots, and that this would be an effective vehicle to avoid public disclosure of that sort of implicit or explicit arrangement. And again, I'm talking in terms of an assume-the-worst framework here, not assuming that this is what's going on.

There's no evidence that there's anything evil afoot, and I can see perfectly good reasons for the secrecy, but doing things like not requiring this group to utilize competitive bidding for contractors which will be paid for with public money, and not having some sort of public access to records (even if you put a year or two hold before allowing public access) could serve as a framework for some bad stuff to happen. I'm not saying it will, just that it could.

i think they can and will act as the agent for those orgs, however it is important to note that they are not a decision making body and the orgs "the alliance" will represent/work for will meet and direct them just as they do with city staff today.

i don't see this as any different then city staff or the CVB... this is contracting out some city functions in a more effiecient way ... now i do see a point about accountability. I think monthly rather than quarterly reports back to council would be a better way to handle this.

one last note on the so called non diverse board. Just as councilmen Mars said the council doesn't pick the board for lots of orgs that do business for the city. In this case the board represents the orgs that will contract with the alliance for services which IMHO is very very appropriate. If the council wants this board to be more diverse they need to change the leadership of the orgs that will contract with the Alliance.

But the way it's set up, while the trusts are by and large accountable at some level to the Council, outside of termination of this contract (and I haven't looked at that part of it), I don't see what sort of oversight the Council itself has. They can't even request documents. And if city employees are working in some capacity for the Alliance, then where are we with regard to FOIA/Open Meetings? I think there's an AG opinion on the subject, but I just don't see Scott Pruitt vigorously enforcing the Open Meetings/Open Records act like his one-term predecessor back in 79-83.

But the way it's set up, while the trusts are by and large accountable at some level to the Council, outside of termination of this contract (and I haven't looked at that part of it), I don't see what sort of oversight the Council itself has. They can't even request documents. And if city employees are working in some capacity for the Alliance, then where are we with regard to FOIA/Open Meetings? I think there's an AG opinion on the subject, but I just don't see Scott Pruitt vigorously enforcing the Open Meetings/Open Records act like his one-term predecessor back in 79-83.

how much current access do we have to the dealing of the city staff? clearly they have been working on this for some time and we did know anything about it until last week

how much current access do we have to the dealing of the city staff? clearly they have been working on this for some time and we did know anything about it until last week

Anything they have not falling within certain very narrow categories (e.g., personnel) is open to the public via FOIA or the Open Meetings Act. That the 4th Estate may have been not doing its job or that there was nothing of substance to report is no reason to conclude that the public would be better served without knowing what its money is paying for.

Where we might be concerned is that certain well-connected individuals, even members of this corp, will be privy to important information before the rest of us, e.g., where the convention center will go, and they will be able to make a mint on real estate investments. There's also a concern about TIF appropriations, what developers will be approved, which won't, and all of the information regarding that will be closed to the public. Right now, there are AG opinions which would theoretically protect the public from this, but the way this contract is written, they either don't know those opinions are out there, which I highly doubt, or because they expect that no one will do anything to stop Alliance from hiding information from the public.

There needs to be a clear & distinct separation of City & Chamber. Period.

You noticed that too?

I'd love to know whether there's a relationship between Alliance and the Momentum group. Again, I'm not implying there is, just that if there was, that would explain a lot.

Of course there is. Duh. Dontcha think Clay Bennett and Larry Nichols were big Momentum spenders, along with buddy Aubrey McLendon?

Midtowner's post has me completely sold against this. It should be voted down. It's odd that two of the council members are on the steering committee, and are expected to vote as to whether this organization should exist? Say what? This has the strong stench of cronyism.

Of course there is. Duh. Dontcha think Clay Bennett and Larry Nichols were big Momentum spenders, along with buddy Aubrey McLendon?

No, I have no evidence to that effect.

I enjoyed Cathy O'Connor's presentation, especially when she talked about how dumb the Chamber of Commerce is (1:37:23 "chamber doesn't have the knowledge...") and can't really do anything - so let's give the responsibilities to the all knowing alliance. Her statement that "...a lot of cities create entities like these..." was rather bizarre, I don't think the alliance has been created by "The City" (I.E people who do actual work for a living and pay taxes, boring stuff like that, etc...) rather a group of elites who's main desire is to preserve the status quo (with regards to money and power).

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when she said the alliance is "not a policy making entity" over and over and over. Anyone with a functioning brain that follows these types of groups, be it The Heritage Foundation or Planned Parenthood or whoever, take your pick, do make policy - indirectly if you want to call it that.

at 1:48:38 she made the funny quip, after several discouraging statements from the council on how this group doesn't seem focused on the South Side, East Side, mainly downtown, that the "structure (of the alliance's work) is designed to be city wide" I wish one of the Council members would have asked her where the evidence is for that statement. I doubt there is any other than the vague statements they have in their heads that they'll make at proper times...

Skip did ask a good question at 2:03:25, with regards to the Convention Hotel which the alliance wants to make happen, "....do we know of a convention center hotel in our region that has been successful" - O'conner replied "..I could probably get you some information on that..."

She liked saying that the alliance will become a "one stop shop for..." and I think she said it about a dozen times. For some reason, this image came into my head. Dunno why, haven't seen this movie in years....

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f313/fashionquote/onestop.jpg

Something even funnier, the opinion piece in The Oklahoman today is, you guessed it "Economic development alliance idea worth pursuing (http://newsok.com/sweetener-city-alliance-idea-worth-pursuing/article/3558156)" The article starts off "Some folks haven’t gotten over passage of MAPS 3. That was in December 2009." and gets worse from there.

I like this funny part: "...The city council on Tuesday deferred approval of the alliance, with new council member Ed Shadid joining others in questioning the proposed entity’s transparency and lack of diversity of its proposed membership. Yet one day earlier Shadid had spoken against disbanding a governor’s advisory council on Mideast cultures, a council that had no apparent religious diversity."

We need, if anything, an alliance that can look into the possibility of getting our town a newspaper and some local ownership of tv and radio.

Of course there is. Duh. Dontcha think Clay Bennett and Larry Nichols were big Momentum spenders, along with buddy Aubrey McLendon?

Midtowner's post has me completely sold against this. It should be voted down. It's odd that two of the council members are on the steering committee, and are expected to vote as to whether this organization should exist? Say what? This has the strong stench of cronyism.

Will throw this out there...think it was Councilman Ryan (Chamber/Momentum backed and one of the Alliance members) that stated they weren't voting on creating the Alliance (essentially saying it already exists), that they were only voting if the City should be part of their funding.

Am I the only one wondering if this is just "Oklahoma Industrial Authority II"?

Am I the only one wondering if this is just "Oklahoma Industrial Authority II"?

It's set up that way. The OIA's undoing was an AG who the Oklahoman billed as "anti-business" getting at their records through FOIA. The Alliance is set up to attempt to frustrate the purpose of FOIA. Under current law, that will not ultimately be successful.

Anything they have not falling within certain very narrow categories (e.g., personnel) is open to the public via FOIA or the Open Meetings Act. That the 4th Estate may have been not doing its job or that there was nothing of substance to report is no reason to conclude that the public would be better served without knowing what its money is paying for.

Where we might be concerned is that certain well-connected individuals, even members of this corp, will be privy to important information before the rest of us, e.g., where the convention center will go, and they will be able to make a mint on real estate investments. There's also a concern about TIF appropriations, what developers will be approved, which won't, and all of the information regarding that will be closed to the public. Right now, there are AG opinions which would theoretically protect the public from this, but the way this contract is written, they either don't know those opinions are out there, which I highly doubt, or because they expect that no one will do anything to stop Alliance from hiding information from the public.

midtown thanks for you posts in this thread .. clearly you knwo the law much better than I .... that being said this new org couldn't approve a TIF as they don't have that ability ...

and ? do you think this simply needs a new more defined contract? the idea of pooling the staff functions of several org together is a great idea .. maybe they didn't write the contract well enough ..

Oh I agree, re: the TIF issue, and I'm not even intimately aware of what bodies are empowered to approve TIFs, but I'd assume it's the Council. You know.. the Council where a clear majority of the members have either very recently been elected using Momentum money or who understand that there will be dire political consequences for going against the Momentum grain.

I'm not really worried about the pooling of staff and functions. That clearly needs to happen. What is particularly disagreeable with me is that we're talking a body empowered to "coordinate, manage, plan and implement GOLT, TIF districts, retail strategy or incentives, OCURA job creation sites and MAPS III, all without any public input or supervision. From a real-estate investment perspective, this has the potential effect, assuming there's some insider dealing going on, of meaning that a select few would know all of the comings and goings of municipal projects and economic development incentives before everyone else and could invest accordingly. They could even self deal, by which I mean, Billy Bob[fictional character], who is a big donor to Momentum, sits on the Board of Alliance, could decide he wants to develop blackacre. He can make sure that the city, under the guise of economic development, connects a trolly line right up to his development's front door, fixes all the streets, lights and sidewalks at our public schools' expense using a TIF district, declares the property to be an "economic development zone," etc.. Or say Billy Bob, or fictional insider is sitting on the BOD, he knows that the Alliance, in its capacity as managers, coordinators, planners and implementers of MAPS III has decided where it wants the convention center to go. Either Alliance will have the power to say "dominy dominy, the convention center shall be here" or the Alliance will make a recommendation to the Council, by which time, Billy Bob will have purchased (for a song) all of the adjacent land, which he'll of course be able to count on the city for assistance with TIF districts, etc., and Billy Bob will now be able to phone up his councilmen, reminding them that he helped get them elected and that if they wanted to keep his support, they'd vote for this project. And in either of these hypotheticals, all of the insider dealing would be closed to the public. We'd get an exciting press release/story in the Oklahoman telling us about this exciting new development Billy Bob is building, or that the convention center will be located in a certain place (and the why shall ever remain a mystery).

That IS the sort of thing the OIA engaged in, and when they were exposed to the light of day, they basically shut down. But now, the AG is Scott Pruitt, an individual who has a professional history of being the lackey of OKC's billionaires' club, so don't expect him to do anything.

Here is the actual discussion had before the City Council on April 12:

Catherine O'Connor's Presentation

/v/dT4KJ2FjFiY?version=3

Responses by Pete White, Larry McAtee, David Grenwell, & Skip Kelly

/v/vu8ICyhSwrI?version=3

Responses by Patrick Ryan, Meg Salyer, Gary Marrs, and Ed Shadid

/v/1je60A9CG5s?version=3

Additional Comments by Pete White on Momentum Committee

/v/CT5Flyvtras?version=3

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind after today's tawdry editorial that OPUBCO (Oklahoman) is at the center of this cabal. I have some advice for Ed Shadid: be yourself and stand up to this institutional corruption. Don't worry. We have your back and we'll support you even more in the next election. You've already defeated these nitwits once. We'll make sure you're reelected by an even bigger margin next time, and by then, the Joklahoman will have hemorrhaged another 100,000 readers or so.

And Today, can you believe it! The Editorial Staff gets Martin Vander Laan (GM of The Skirvin) to write an article about the Skirvin (which as we recall O'conner helped put the deal together on) and the wonders of public-private partnerships. Now let me state I totally supported bringing back The Skirvin. I even had a website savetheskirvin.com in the late 90s (Didn't do much with it) and loved talking to my Grandmother about the old days of the place and how great it would be to get it back and running. Anyway, here is an Interesting excerpt that basically says we need to vote for the Alliance or we'll never get stuff like this again, maybe just more Waffle Houses or something:

"One of the first things I noticed was the Skirvin's place in this city. The relationship is both charming and unique. It is a testament to the exceptional civic pride of this community. It also has its roots in the successful public-private partnership Oklahoma City has developed with the hotel. The vision our city leaders had a decade ago to initiate this partnership is still paying dividends to this community. Lastly, it comes from the history this iconic hotel has in Oklahoma City and the hotel industry. She is truly the star. "


link here (http://newsok.com/skirvin-gm-embarking-on-special-adventure/article/3558807?custom_click=headlines_widget)

Here is a collage of comments relating to the Momentum Committee (Sam Bowman 3/1) and others during the discussion of the proposed Alliance (Pete White (x2), Ed Shadid, and citizen Dr. Jack Warner) on April 12. The Alliance issue will again be on the city council's agenda on April 26.

/v/-xDP1MWOD-c?version=3

Wow!!! Is the council finally waking up with the influx of new blood? Another Great Time for us to say "We told you so!" I hope that everyone caught that the Convention Center will NOT be viable unless paired with a Convention Center Hotel and will cost the taxpayers at least an additional $50 Million. The initial study of the feasibility of a convention center told our city leaders this prior to the MAPS3 vote but they buried it. And if you catch the inference by council members they knew it was coming as well..........Trust is something that must be earned. Especially after being lied to time and time again.

Facebook - Citizens Against The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Citizens-Against-The-Alliance-for-Economic-Development-of-Oklahoma-City/165384286851581)

Wow!!! Is the council finally waking up with the influx of new blood? Another Great Time for us to say "We told you so!" I hope that everyone caught that the Convention Center will NOT be viable unless paired with a Convention Center Hotel and will cost the taxpayers at least an additional $50 Million. The initial study of the feasibility of a convention center told our city leaders this prior to the MAPS3 vote but they buried it. And if you catch the inference by council members they knew it was coming as well..........Trust is something that must be earned. Especially after being lied to time and time again.

I don't think the need for a Convention Center Hotel has ever been a secret. It was actually discussed frequently during the campaign.