Widgets Magazine
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

  1. Default Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    See http://edshadid.org/upcoming-city-co...-transparency/ ... part of which reads:

    Procedural modifications are required to increase the amount of time that both the Council and the public are given to review and fully vet lengthy contracts with broad-ranged and long-standing implications for the city. Recent examples include the 36 page contract with the non-profit Alliance for Economic Development and the 42 page contract which outlines a 25 year lease of the renovated Myriad Gardens with the non-profit Myriad Gardens Foundation.

    In these cases, as well as many others, lengthy contracts are posted online and delivered to councilpersons on Friday evening. In almost all cases, this will be the first time that councilpersons and the public have seen the wording of the contract and yet, the vote is expected to occur some three days later with only the Monday before the Tuesday council meeting available as a workday.

    I have introduced a resolution which will be heard on Tuesday May 31, 2011 that mandates three public hearings before any such contract can be voted on by the council. I believe that allowing the public and council to digest and discuss the specific wording and implications of the contract is required prior to any vote. An outline of municipal counselor Kenneth Jordan’s summary of the issues as well as how the three public hearing process would work is as follows:

    THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
    OFFICE OF
    THE MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR
    Council Agenda
    Item No. X.B.
    5/31/2011

    TO: Mayor and City Council

    FROM: Kenneth Jordan, Municipal Counselor

    Joint Resolution with the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority and the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority establishing a three-public-hearings procedure for certain defined contracts and/or resolutions presented to the Council Members and/or Trustees; providing for waiver of the procedure by majority vote; directing the City Clerk to provide certain language on the City Council, Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority, and Oklahoma City Public Property Authority agendas; and directing the City Manager/General Manager to provide certain advance notice to Council Members and/or Trustees before certain contracts or resolutions are presented to Council Members or Trustees for action.

    Councilmen Shadid and White

    Background:

    Councilman Ed Shadid, Ward 2, requested that the Municipal Counselor’s Office draft a resolution establishing a procedure to provide City Council members with additional time to review certain proposed contracts and resolutions that are presented to Council. He also requested that the procedure provide for “advance notice” that City staff is working on such items. Since such contracts or resolutions can also be done by the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority (OCMFA) or the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority (OCPPA), and sometimes have been in the past, the policy, if adopted, should likely also include contracts and resolutions presented to the Council members in their roles as Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA. The result of Councilman Shadid’s request is the attached Joint Resolution that would provide for a “three-public-hearings procedure” for such contracts and resolutions. This Joint Resolution is being listed on the agendas of the City, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA as being requested by both Councilmen/Trustees Shadid and White.

    The following proposed contracts or resolutions are encompassed by the current language in the proposed Joint Resolution:

  2. #2

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Awesome.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Is he trying to inject reason into politics? Both weird and wonderful.

  4. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    I've gone to the City's website, city council agenda, and have copied from the PDF file containing this resolution the text as plain text. Here is the complete text of the resolution (not including any bold or underlining that is in the original):

    JOINT RESOLUTION
    JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE OCMFA AND THE OCPPA ESTABLISHING A THREE-PUBLIC-HEARINGS PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN DEFINED CONTRACTS AND/OR RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND/OR TO THE TRUSTEES; PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF THE PROCEDURE BY MAJORITY VOTE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LANGUAGE ON THE CITY, OCMFA, AND OCPPA AGENDAS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER/GENERAL MANAGER TO PROVIDE CERTAIN ADVANCE NOTICE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND/OR TRUSTEES BEFORE CERTAIN CONTRACTS OR RESOLUTIONS ARE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS OR TRUSTEES FOR ACTION.

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City is the duly elected governing body of The City of Oklahoma City; and

    WHEREAS, by virtue of their status as duly elected Council members, the members of the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City also serve as the boards of trustees for the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority (OCMFA) and the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority (OCPPA); and

    WHEREAS, as the representatives of the interests of the people of The City of Oklahoma City, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and OCPPA have a solemn duty to make reasoned and informed decisions on contracts and resolutions presented to them; and

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA, in diligently performing their duties regarding certain proposed
    Page 2 of 9
    contracts or resolutions may, from-time-to-time, need additional time to adequately study the terms of such proposed contracts or resolutions before acting thereon; and

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA may also need additional time to receive input from the citizens of Oklahoma City and other informed parties regarding such contracts or resolutions prior to voting thereon; and

    WHEREAS, thorough public discussions regarding certain proposed contracts or resolutions, prior to approval or disapproval thereof by the duly elected or appointed public officers of The City of Oklahoma City and the OCMFA and OCPPA, are necessary for the knowledgeable and responsible operation of City government; and

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA desire to establish a procedure for holding not less than three public hearings on certain proposed contracts and/or resolutions presented to them;

    and WHEREAS, the proposed contracts and resolutions to which the three-public-hearings procedure established by this Resolution shall apply are the following:

    Category #1: Proposed contracts or resolutions to be voted on by the City Council and/or the Trustees of the OCMFA or the OCPPA for the lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of any real property owned in fee simple by the City or by any City beneficiary public trust or of any City public park property, but only if such real property or public park property is located in or near downtown Oklahoma City or in an existing or proposed Oklahoma City Tax Increment Financing District; for the purposes of this subsection, the phrase “in or near downtown Oklahoma City” shall mean the area bounded by NE and NW 10th Street
    Page 3 of 9
    on the north, Lincoln Boulevard on the east, the Oklahoma River on the south, and Western Avenue on the west; and

    Category #2: Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City or the OCMFA or OCPPA that are similar to the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The City of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust (EDT), and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc., which contract delegated certain of the City’s administrative economic-development-related functions to a private entity; and

    Category #3: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects. This Category #3 shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.; and

    Category #4: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan. This Category shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.; and

    Category #5: Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution; and

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to declare that, in regard to contracts or resolutions falling within Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 as described above, the three-public-hearings procedure provided for by this resolution may, as with any other policy
    Page 4 of 9
    established by resolution, be waived by a majority vote of the Council members and/or Trustees at any time and a final vote may be taken on the contract or resolution immediately upon such waiver or at any other time as determined by a majority vote of Council members and/or Trustees; and

    WHEREAS, for the purpose of providing for motions by Council members or Trustees regarding contracts or resolutions encompassed by Category #5 listed above, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to direct the City Clerk to provide a new item category on the Formal Agendas of the City Council, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA that reads as follows: “Request(s) to Invoke the Three-Public- Hearings Procedure for Contract(s) and/or Resolution(s),” which new category shall be placed on the said agendas at appropriate locations as determined by the City Clerk; and

    WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to direct the City Manager of the City and the General Manager of the OCMFA and the OCPPA to provide [?? fill in the blank ??] days’ advance notice to Council members and Trustees before any contract or resolution encompassed by Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 is presented to the City Council members or the Trustees for action by City administrative staff or by The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc. (“The Alliance”); provided, The Alliance will not be required to disclose any information that would not be a public record under the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The Alliance, the City, and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA that they hereby establish a three-public-hearings procedure for the following contracts and/or resolutions:
    Page 5 of 9

    Category #1: Proposed contracts or resolutions to be voted on by the City Council and/or the Trustees of the OCMFA or the OCPPA for the lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of any real property owned in fee simple by the City or by any City beneficiary public trust or of any City public park property, but only if such real property or public park property is located in or near downtown Oklahoma City or in an existing or proposed Oklahoma City Tax Increment Financing District; for the purposes of this subsection, the phrase “in or near downtown Oklahoma City” shall mean the area bounded by NE and NW 10th Street on the north, Lincoln Boulevard on the east, the Oklahoma River on the south, and Western Avenue on the west.

    Category #2: Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City or the OCMFA or OCPPA that are similar to the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The City of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust (EDT), and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc., which contract delegated certain of the City’s administrative economic-development-related functions to a private entity.

    Category #3: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects. This Category #3 shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.

    Category #4: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan. This Category shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.
    Page 6 of 9

    Category #5: Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution.

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any contracts or resolutions to which the three-public-hearings procedure is applied shall be heard, considered, and voted on in accordance with the following three-public-hearings procedure:

    • First Public Hearing. The contract or resolution will be read and staff will make a presentation advising the Council and/or the Trustees of the substance of the contract or resolution. Council members, Trustees, and/or members of the public can ask questions and make comments. Whenever the contract or resolution falls within Category #5, as described above, the first appearance of such contract or resolution on the agenda shall be considered to be the first public hearing thereon. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item.

    • Second Public Hearing. Citizens will be allowed to address the Council and/or the Trustees to express comments or concerns regarding the proposed contract or resolution. Council and/or the Trustees can discuss the proposed contract or resolution and ask questions. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item.

    • Final Hearing. Council and/or the Trustees may debate the proposed contract or resolution and take such action on said contract or resolution that a majority of the Council members and/or the Trustees deems appropriate. Members of the public may be allowed to ask questions or make comments. Council members and/or Trustees may make a final decision on the item.
    Page 7 of 9
    • Continuances. The public hearings on proposed contracts or resolution may be continued at any time at the discretion of a majority of the Council members and/or Trustees.

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA that, in regard to contracts or resolutions falling within Categories #1,Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 as described above, the three-public-hearings procedure provided for by this resolution may, as with any other policy established by resolution, be waived by a majority vote of the Council members and/or Trustees at any time and a final vote may be taken on the contract or resolution immediately upon such waiver or at any other time as determined by a majority vote of Council members and/or Trustees.

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purpose of providing for motions by Council members or Trustees regarding contracts or resolutions encompassed by Category #5 listed above, the City Council and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA do hereby direct the City Clerk to provide a new category on the Formal Agendas of the City Council, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA that reads as follows: “Request(s) to Invoke the Three-Public- Hearing Procedure for Contract(s) and/or Resolution(s),” which new category shall be placed on the said agendas at appropriate locations as determined by the City Clerk.

    AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA hereby direct the City Manager of the City and the General Manager of the OCMFA and the OCPPA to provide [?? fill in the blank ??] days’ advance notice to the Council members and the Trustees before any contract or resolution encompassed by Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 is presented to the City Council members or the Trustees for action by City administrative staff or by The Alliance for
    Page 8 of 9
    Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc. (“The Alliance”); provided, The Alliance will not be required to disclose any information that would not be a public record under the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The Alliance, the City, and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust.

    ADOPTED by the City Council and SIGNED by the Mayor of The City of Oklahoma City this ____________ day of __________________________, 2011.

    [DL Note: I have omitted the various signature lines located in the original document in this version]

  5. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...

  6. #6

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Loudenback View Post
    What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...
    Hmmm, somehow I'm missing the thrust of this comment, Doug. Please eloborate for the clueless among us. :^)

  7. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Heck, probably just a bad joke ... but wouldn't it be ironic if a resolution which basically requested a good bit of advance consideration to a lot of stuff was continued so that IT (THE RESOLUTION) could receive more advance consideration and public input, etc. ... that is all. By the way, I informed my wife about the juniper bushes and your identification of same! I am now content.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    With your response, I, too, am content, Doug. Thanks.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Hard to disagree with the intent. This type of resolution is exactly the reason Ed Shadid is a very different kind of elected official. Thanks for posting Doug.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Loudenback View Post
    What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...
    Haha, that would be great. Maybe we should have 3 hearings on this though, and I think that those hearings should be used just as general information sessions. There is a lot of stuff going on in the city right now, no doubt.

    What would be the quorum for these sessions, by the way? If it's similar to a meeting quorum then technically there are issues with the Open Meetings Act unless some councilors step down and join the audience.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    I thought it was funny (the continuing bit, not the resolution itself. That makes more than a bit of sense.)

  12. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Excellent idea! Have really been impressed with my Council person thus far. And I voted for him in both rounds. But won't this put a significant snag in the whole "we have to expedite matters" process (i.e. the Alliance)? Not saying it is a bad thing, just saying....

  13. #13

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

    I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    While I agree in principle to large items that span many years, I have some concerns this seems a broader scope than what he was originally talking about (may be on account of just reading and not having further time to review).

    Any chance we can get the council to find some synonyms for WHEREAS, it seems like a drinking game whenever they read their documents out loud

  15. #15

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

    I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.
    I think it depends on how something is defined as major, and even then, maybe an amendment to the resolution suggesting one or two public hearings would be an improvement. I think two public hearings is a good number, and perhaps three is too much. But I do disagree with the idea that people can always come to council meetings. Those occur very regularly at the exact same time and many people can't make it during the morning week day. I also disagree with the idea that they have to wait till the end of the list (for 2-3 hours) to speak about anything to them. That's what I do, and it's not that fun, honestly. I can see where it definitely discourages people from being engaged.

  16. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

    I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.
    I beg to disagree with you, my dear sister (not sarcastic ... for those who don't know, I count Betts/Jill as being a good friend of mine). Here's my rationale.
    1. The Alliance proposal was sprung on the public (and the council) just a few days before its intended vote, and it was on the consent (zip me right-on-through) docket, for gawd's sake. Who knew? The Alliance proposal is the perfect example of what this resolution seeks to avoid in the future.

    2. Regarding city council awkwardness should it decide to waive the proposed procedure, well, you do have a point, because causing the council to feel awkward is certainly the last thing I, for one, and you, for another, want city council members to experience and that sensation should be avoided at all costs. Those poor babies deserve better than that. <read as sarcasm>

    3. Just one public hearing? Do you mean like the 1st hearing which was scheduled on the Alliance proposal just a few days after it was placed on the initial agenda, or the hearing which actually occurred? At least, because Shadid asked for and received a continuance, the Alliance proposal effectively received 2 hearings, although that was not required even if it occurred. After the continuance having been granted, it developed that Catherine O'Connor and Jim Couch gratuitously laid out the then-existing proposal and a good bit of council discussion ensued. Effectively, as it turned out, this hearing was like that contemplated in hearing #1 under the pending resolution.

    4. Effectively, then, there were two hearings on the Alliance proposal, rather like hearings #1 and #3 under the proposed resolution. The resolution would institutionalize hearings #1 (as it actually occurred) and #3 as a matter of course. I'll assume that you would agree that the changes made to the Alliance proposal between the pair of hearings were good. In any event, as Meat Loaf wisely said, "I want you, I need you, but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you -- but don't be sad, cause 2 out of 3 ain't bad," institutionalizing what actually happened with the Alliance proposal would be good, even though 3 out of 3, under the Shadid's resolution, would be better, since it simply adds a hearing #2, a public discussion not involving any vote, sandwiched between #1 and #3.

    5. Concerning your representative democracy point, sure, council members are our elected representatives. But local, municipal, government is said to be that governmental element which is closest to true democracy and which can most directly and genuinely involve the people. There is nothing wrong, and arguably there is much right, with essentially requiring our elected representatives to listen to their constituents and providing for an institutionalized time and means for them to do so. In the proposal, that would be the function of hearing #2, below.

    6. On the effectiveness of public input at council meetings, you said, "Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful." Is this how you would characterize your own excellent comments, and those of Jeff Bezdek, made in January 2011 before the city council? But, your point is well taken. Public input at formal council meetings, as presently constituted, is probably pretty much meaningless, particularly given the "5 minute" rule that any public citizen is granted an opportunity to speak, and given that a council vote will ordinarily occur immediately thereafter. Hearing #2 under the proposed resolution, though, might change that since it appears to be specifically designed to provide a time for meaningful discourse involving citizens and council members. No vote. Just discussion and listening. Are you suggesting that such a hearing would be an impediment to the city in any way, my friend?

    7. About Public Input. Public input and scrutiny isn't limited to what goes on in the city council chambers, though. It can occur in places like this forum or places like my and other peoples' blogs. It can occur on one-on-one communication with council members, and it can occur in neighborhood/community meetings and lots of other ways. A good example of that is the public input given during the several sessions on the downtown streetcar which occurred several months ago of which both you and I were a small part. But as to the resolution at hand, that type of discussion is chilled if only one hearing (that which would occur at the 1st time that a proposal is on the city council's agenda) is the institutional norm.

    8. Nichols Hills? Well, what Nichols Hills does is its business. Nichols Hills is a cloistered little island in the metro which has nothing at all to do with Oklahoma City, aside from the fact that some wealthy people live there who might like to influence what Oklahoma City does and who broadly claim that they are Oklahoma Citians, which they are not. What Oklahoma City does and how its government functions is mine and yours to decide (now that you don't live there but live next to downtown Oklahoma City). Your implication that, by this resolution, Oklahoma City would become like Nichols Hills is not well taken.

    9. In the first place, the resolution limits the 3-hearing rule to these limited categories:
      1. Proposed contracts or resolutions which deal with "downtown" (as defined in the resolution) and, even then, those dealing with property that the city owns and which relate to lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of such properties.
      2. Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City, such as the Alliance proposal.
      3. Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects.
      4. Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan.
      5. Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution. In other words, unless an item is included in categories 1-4, the special procedure would not apply, unless a council majority decided that it should.

    10. In the second place, as to the above categories, the resolutions define the 3 public hearings:
      1. First Hearing: "The contract or resolution will be read and staff will make a presentation advising the Council and/or the Trustees of the substance of the contract or resolution. Council members, Trustees, and/or members of the public can ask questions and make comments." In other words, the 1st meeting on the Alliance proposal as to what in fact occurred would have qualified for hearing #1.
      2. Second Hearing: "Citizens will be allowed to address the Council and/or the Trustees to express comments or concerns regarding the proposed contract or resolution. Council and/or the Trustees can discuss the proposed contract or resolution and ask questions. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item." In other words, the 2nd hearing institutionalizes a public forum ... no vote, just discussion. This is the only element lacking in what transpired with regard to what actually occurred with the Alliance proposal.
      3. Third Hearing: "Council and/or the Trustees may debate the proposed contract or resolution and take such action on said contract or resolution that a majority of the Council members and/or the Trustees deems appropriate. Members of the public may be allowed to ask questions or make comments. Council members and/or Trustees may make a final decision on the item." In other words, this is like the 2nd council meeting on the Alliance proposal.

      The only thing different than that which happened with what actually occurred with the Alliance proposal is hearing #2 which did not occur. And, Betts, my sister, are you saying that you think that having a hearing like #2 would be a bad thing, would make Oklahoma City like Nichols Hills, and would wreak havoc on Oklahoma City government?

    Summarizing, if this resolution is adopted, what would it change? If the Alliance experience is the model, it would add only one additional hearing, one week's time (depending on city council agenda scheduling availability). If the Alliance experience is not the model (i.e., had not O'Connor and Couch made their pitch followed by council member comments), it would add two weeks. What's the problem with that, my good friend?

  17. #17

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    FWIW, I think various OKC city council folk ought to invite Doug by for coffee/brainpicking on a very regular basis.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    No kidding. ^

  19. #19

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Seeing some of the stuff that has occurred at Lake Hefner, I would like to see this ordinance expanded to include the whole city, not just the downtown area, and to include OCWUT.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    In fact, it should include every city trust, just so we don't have COTPA building the convention center to get around having hearings.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by bornhere View Post
    In fact, it should include every city trust, just so we don't have COTPA building the convention center to get around having hearings.
    Well hopefully they would go with the Golf Commission before they go with COTPA Lol!

  22. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    +1000 (esp starting with #16)

  23. Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Loudenback View Post
    What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...
    pretty good...Doug called it...
    An ordinance introduced Tuesday by new Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid that attempts to require more public notice before votes are scheduled on major contracts will itself be delayed for a few weeks.
    Read more: http://newsok.com/okc-ordinance-requ...#ixzz1O13yKKpi

  24. #24

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    this IMHO is DOA it would not have passed this week and i doubt it will in 5 weeks when it is heard again .... as council woman Salyer and Marrs said if a council person has questions then they can ask for a deferal.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31

    Quote Originally Posted by bornhere View Post
    Seeing some of the stuff that has occurred at Lake Hefner, I would like to see this ordinance expanded to include the whole city, not just the downtown area, and to include OCWUT.
    No one on the council was for the geographic restrictions, not sure if any of it would apply to any of the individual items happening at Lake Hefner though their is only so much they can bog down smaller items. It seems to be more about the trusts and major funding projects.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is Ed Shadid's Website being DDoSed?
    By FilthyLiberalScum in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2011, 06:13 AM
  2. Council resolution to accept 5% paycut
    By Mikemarsh51 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 483
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 03:27 PM
  3. Photofest at Paseo Upcoming
    By so1rfan in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:18 AM
  4. Upcoming 76ers Game
    By Doug Loudenback in forum Sports
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-03-2005, 01:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO