McAlester Watercooler PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine - Introduction to Common Sense Rat Mail  TV Listings  NewsCapital  Yellow Pages  Mail  Docs New Watercooler Portal via Google
Opinion 10338
	Opinion submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 09:18:58    (reads 2315)
	Does anyone know how long we have to put up with Slitherman? I know he was on the council before, but when do his term limits kick in? This may be a question for Hal to research for us. Wish this question was asked earlier -- Hal
	Comment submitted by Lizette on 2010-03-03 09:23:17
	One day is too long. This is a shame for the City of McAlester.
	Comment submitted by royal flush on 2010-03-03 09:28:18
	Just when you think that 1st ward had the dumbest councilor, here comes 6th ward & takes that prize away. Close second was 3rd, 4th & 5th though but 4th ward stepped up & removed their lump. Spidey I know they can serve 12 years, since he's already "served" (I use that term loosely) over 11, will this term put him over the 12 year mark? Let's hope so.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 09:33:50
	City Charter 2.02 (d) Term Limitation. No more than 12 years may be served as Mayor, Councilman, or a combination thereof. A Mayor or Councilman elected or appointed to serve less than a full term shall not have that partial term counted in the 12 year limitation. I understand that he was elected to full terms. So it would seem he can only serve the period of time he is short of 12 years total -- and maybe not even that. If he was elected to full terms and those full terms totaled 12 years, then just resigning short of completing the last full term does not necessarily mean he still has that availability left - since his service was cut short at the end and not a fill-in from a previous term. Also note, the 12 year term limit existed in his prior Council service and not just in the new charter. Could be an interesting legal question. City Council itself must agree to the sitting of its members. My 'non-legal' opinion is that he is NOT eligible, if he has been elected to terms that total 12 years (or more).
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 10:07:11
	When were the term limits first approved? I don't think any time served prior to that would count against his 12 year total, but I could be wrong.
	Comment submitted by BULLET on 2010-03-03 10:10:33
	Then Sam Mason or the other candidate must protest this before the deadline on Friday; and they should make an official request to the Council and the City Attorney IMMEDIATELY as to whether Smitherman can legally be seated. Don't wait until someone decides to swear him in. PROTEST RIGHT NOW TO START THE CLOCK. It may take another election in 6th ward - but better to get it done right than have a cloud hanging over it all.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 10:12:52
	My understanding was that they were originally State statute term limits. At the time of Smitherman's last term, I also understood that he was term limited then. Further, due to the break in serving, it would mean that the CURRENT rules of 12 years would apply to this case anyway.
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 10:26:57
	Does this mean that he can only serve one more year?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 10:37:45
	I think it means -- my opinion -- that he is NOT even eligible at all. Reason is that he has already been elected to full terms on the Council totaling 12 years -- the terms. The partial exception is only for someone coming in and replacing another -- not for failure to complete a full term he was elected to. The reason I say this is that, if this was allowed then someone could be elected for a last 4 year term and then resign short of that term end. AND them run again, later for another full term -- effectively getting around term limits. (over and over again) I would hope that even our courts are smarter than to allow that.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 11:10:01
	Note: eligibility is for the TERM -- at the start of the term. If the candidate is ineligible to serve the entire full term then he is NOT eligible for the term at all. That is why a special exception is provided for a PREVIOUS partial term.
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 11:19:32
	I hope someone steps up to challenge this.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 11:32:39
	It is an interesting legal point. My so far quick review of web based info indicates that losing a recall election in Oklahoma is the same as being 'impeached'. That alone might disqualify for future election to the same office.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 12:12:28
	My argument: Smitherman was elected to terms as City Councilman that totaled 12 years. He did not complete his last term due to loosing a recall election. The loss of the election made him 'ineligible' to remain in office and he therefore forfeits the reminder of that term in office. In short, Smitherman has already had his 12 years and is no longer eligible.
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 12:15:45
	Who could give a legal opinion on this? This needs to be addressed before he is sworn in.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 12:17:14
	It needs to be protested before Friday, on an eligibility issue to the election board. Obviously one of the other candidates could protest. But also a resident of Ward 6 might be able to on this issue. Another legal opinion. Need a 'good' lawyer -- if there is such a thing.
	Comment submitted by Brother on 2010-03-03 13:00:57
	Spidey, at the very least, the city attorney should be consulted before the Council takes any kind of action. That's what he's there for. Whether one of the candidates talks to him or whether the Mayor does - he will obviously have to give either a green light or a red light. I'm pretty sure that if this is challenged, you will see someone from the Stipe Law firm step in to handle the case pro bono for Smitherman. Conceiveably, we could have three different attorneys arguing this point. Anyone trust the judges around here?
	Comment submitted by Rat on 2010-03-03 15:59:31
	Finally looked in the email: Term limits from the old City Charter: Article 6: Elections: Sec. 6-1 (G) "The Mayor and any City Councilman who is elected to office after the effective date of this Charter amendment [May 11, 1993] shall be eligible to serve no more than twelve (12) consecutive years as Mayor or Councilman; this amendment, however, shall in no way limit the total years of service but consecutive service as both Mayor and Councilman shall be counted in this prohibition. A Mayor or Councilman elected or appointed to serve less than a full term shall not have that partial term counted in the twelve (12) consecutive year limitation."
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 16:04:35
	At first read it seems to muddle the issue even more. HOWEVER: once someone leaves office and attempts to return he is bound by the CURRENT rules. So the issue is still one of defining how many years of Council service Mr. Smitherman has. I still believe that it is 12 years since he was elected to 12 years of service. He should NOT benefit from LOSING a recall election in his last term. Note, my calculations indicate that Mr. Smitherman was initially elected in 1994. I don't have anything to confirm this however.
	Comment submitted by Buddy on 2010-03-03 16:08:03
	Isn't the key word in the old Charter "consecutive"? Smitherman served 11 years and about 10 months CONSECUTIVELY......so wouldn't he only be eligible to finish out the last 2 months of his last term? Not start all over again?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 16:19:14
	The old charter does not apply to the current situation at all. Its a new game after a new charter was approved -- and yes the consecutive requirement is no longer present. Only issue NOW is the total number of years served on the City Council. I'm not sure of the exact time he was in office -- had not moved back to McAlester at that point. I can't see where losing a recall election that decreased his time in office slightly gives him eligibility to run again. He WAS elected to 12 years in office -- that is all you get NOW.
	Comment submitted by Brother on 2010-03-03 20:44:24
	Hal - name me one attorney in Pittsburg County who would have the balls to address this on an immediate basis by seeking both a protest with the Election Board, and trying to obtain a temporary injunction to prevent Smitherman from being seated until a decision can be reached about the term limits in court. I don't think there is one, and I don't think any citizen could pull it off by themselves without legal representation. Personally, I think people will be screwed by the system. WHO WILL FORCE THE ISSUE OF TERM LIMITS?
	Comment submitted by Pete on 2010-03-03 21:32:49
	Bet Wayne hires someone to represent him, the good old boys ain't takin' this lying down. Doubt Smitherman has a clue about the charter since he has trouble READING. Let the games begin.
	Comment submitted by Sergeant on 2010-03-03 21:55:42
	When someone figures out why all the white folks stayed home and didn't bother to vote, then look at how the NAACP local group rounded up all the black folks to go vote = you gonna see what happens when the majority don't get up off their rear ends to make some noise, and the colored made a whole lot more noise to get their boy in. They're working hard at this all over the country. It just would be nice if the boy they pick to stick out front had a lick of sense about him and understood how badly he failed before.
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-03 22:16:33
	If he is seated illegally, wouldn't that be a good basis for another recall?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-03 22:37:43
	Yes, it would. In fact, its likely that is the only option available if the Council seats him.
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-03 23:14:22
	Priddle will work his "bolts" to seat him, has to have another dumb one on the council. IT will be interesting to see what Joe Ervin says about the charter and Smitherman's prior tenure on the council.
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-04 00:44:39
	Sounds like we need someone like Joyce Carlson to raise a little hell about this. If no one says anything, he will be seated without any questions being asked. We MUST follow the charter, or it is nothing more than a worthless document.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 06:50:40
	I noticed an interesting Federal ruling a year or two ago -- during the TABOR petition stuff. The Federal court held that Oklahoma could NOT refuse to accept names on a petition collected by people not residents of Oklahoma. Overturning the Oklahoma idea of requiring petitions to be done sole ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 07:54:28
	Note: referring to the above. The Federal court ruling on petition signature collectors likely also means that a similar requirement in our City Charter is also unconstitutional.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 08:11:48
	Confirming what I suspected. At this point in time there does NOT appear to be any issue that can be raised with the Election Board regarding the Ward 6 election. Any protests must be by a candidate only -- and only issues on the election procedures not on eligibility. ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 08:39:58
	Another confirmation of a blank wall -- expected. The current City position is that the Council does not have the authority to decide if a candidate is eligible for office. This according to the City Clerk Cora Middleton. Records show that Mr. Smitherman first took office in April 1994 and ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Galadir on 2010-03-04 10:05:43
	So if the election board certifies and the council can't decide eligibility, who can? Does this have to go to municipal or district court? Can the council refuse to seat him? Would they is another question. I hope this gets brought up at the upcoming council meeting tonight.
	Comment submitted by Brother on 2010-03-04 10:58:00
	I think the Council, under the provisions of the Charter which govern them, could refuse to seat Smitherman UNTIL the legalities of the term limits have been decided in court. However, I am positive they will refuse to do so. They don't want to get involved and will kick it back to the election ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 11:36:07
	Ludicrous! My reaction to what I'm hearing from the City Hall types on Smithermans term limits. The current position told to me is that he will be eligible for the full 4 year term. Apparently anything less than 12 years 'served' qualifies. In practice this now means its really about ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by spidey on 2010-03-04 11:39:38
	What a ridiculous rationalizaton! I hope it gets tested in court.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 11:43:41
	At the moment that seems to be the only recourse -- legal action in court once the Council seats Smitherman.
	Comment submitted by Popeye on 2010-03-04 12:14:30
	The City Charter specifically states under General Powers and Duties of the City Council: "All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council, except as otherwise provided by law or this Charter and the Council shall provide for the exercise thereof and for the performance of all dutie ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 12:55:51
	I'm sure they will try. Some Councilmen have already indicated they would. My talks with lawyers indicates to me that the smartest thing the Council could do is ask the Pittsburg County Court for a 'declaration' on the issue. Smart and City Council seems unlikely. ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-04 12:58:13
	BTW -- there is a non-action City Council meeting this evening at 5:30pm -- Scheduled to be on the trash pick-up issue. I'm sure that at least some City Councilmen will be available to talk to.
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-04 22:53:41
	Therein lies the problem...taking responsibility. Judging from the council's track record, that is not going to happen. Ignorance prevails, the charter was overlooked so incompetence is to blame. Send Smitherman back on the council to do as he is told and God forbid he should try to think and become ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Galadir on 2010-03-06 10:21:30
	I watched the early parts of the trash workshop meeting before I had to leave home. I saw Garvin, Priddle, Condit, and Browne there. I didn't catch the very beginning of it, but I didn't hear any talk about the election. Any word on the eligibility issue?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-06 13:02:46
	Its being 'actively ignored'. Looking again at this issue, another point comes to mind about the second sentence of the Term Limits paragraph in the Charter. The current interpretation of the City is that the first sentence 'served' means that 'No more than 12 years may be served' -- prior ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Pete on 2010-03-06 22:13:02
	Hal, you know more than most lawyers here, can you take it to court? If this is ignored by the council and election board, he is seated, he votes on matters of the city and then it goes to court, he is then "unseated", does it negate all the issues he voted on? I will be willing to help on the legal ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-06 22:34:12
	Actually the only real option to decide the issue is taking it to court. In fact if our City Council was doing its job, they should be requesting a declaratory judgment from the county court. When the City Council seats Mr. Smitherman, then it could be challenged in court by any resident of ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Pete on 2010-03-06 23:37:15
	Does it have to be a lawyer here? I would like to go out of town and think I know a good one in Ok. Cy. who reads the Cooler and will be willing to take this on. I haven't checked the cost yet but I would like to see this go to court. And, to make it more interesting, I think we will be some publici ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 05:31:18
	Go for it. Lawyer only has to be accredited by the Oklahoman Bar Association. I've tried in the past and found that lawyers outside the local area are extremely expensive. Besides the travel expense, the consistant attitude seemed to be that the court would be hostile and likely require ma ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Susan on 2010-03-07 19:03:57
	Yes, I think the reputation is that it is basically a marginal group of lawyers, buddies with the judges, tight group. Bet this works out ok for the citizens with Smitherman on the council because the ones who voted for him are going to hit the ceiling when their water bills go up to pay for incompe ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by brandx on 2010-03-07 22:24:51
	This just proves if you get the fools on your side, you can be elected to anything! Brownebutt, Fiddler & buckethead proved it & Slitherman followed suit!
	Comment submitted by Susan on 2010-03-09 08:05:56
	Hometown, are you Randy's new spokesperson?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-09 08:13:01
	You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln, (attributed) 16th president of US (1809 - 1865) ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Galadir on 2010-03-09 18:14:57
	Smitherman sworn in. No one stood up and said a thing when time for citizens to say something came, makes me a little sad.
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-09 18:20:16
	This was a done deal as soon as it became known he should not be taking a seat on the council because of his previous sorry representation on the council. With that information, our city attorney "blessed" it. I guarantee you, there will be legal consequences down the road.
	Comment submitted by Galadir on 2010-03-10 17:28:36
	I was reading something on another website that had some kind of local chat forums. I don't remember its name but remember some commentor named no1uno. While I generally disagreed with most of his points, I give him credit for one thing. He was saying that if we want things to happen, we have to ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Chass on 2010-03-10 18:12:30
	Yes there has been and the council, mayor and CM ignroed it.. and the City attny said "you would have to take it to court". Yawn city councils job and yet again they failed to do it. Now its up to some citizan w2ho will get harrassed and chased out and hunted down to do their work for them again kin ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Brother on 2010-03-10 19:10:04
	Well, if no1uno would like to kick in about $30K, find an honest attorney in Oklahoma who would actually come to Pittsburg County and work the case to force the council into doing what they were sworn to do.....I'll be glad to sign on as the Petitioner and would not say another word on any blog. ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Lizette on 2010-03-10 20:39:04
	I worked my butt off with several others to do the recall on Smitherman..We had around 700 signatures.....133 people got him voted back in and it looks like he will be getting a 4 year term unless someone steps in and makes the effort to find out if this is legal. I am ashamed of the people in sixt ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Apathy on 2010-03-10 21:19:04
	Lizette - did you really think the Prince of Darkness and his evil empire would give up control of McAlester? Lee Anderson, Wayne Stipe and the firemen's union SWORE they would get rid of Sam and reclaim that ward back for the GOBs. I never doubted that they would pull out all the stops to do just ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-10 22:03:20
	They just fell back into the old McAlester ways. Wanting someone else to do things for them so that they don't have to be bothered.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-13 08:54:37
	My read of case law. The Oklahoma case that would seem to determine Mr. Smithermans situation is the case of State Senator Angela Monson. The main difference between the cases is that Mr. Smitherman's not serving 12 years was not benign like Ms. Monson's but due to being recalled -- losing a r ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-13 13:11:20
	Wanna bet he has to give up the seat? I predict he will, this case is being looked at by others who find McAlester politics interesting, unethical and downright illegal. The ones checking us out are also taking a CLOSE look at the changes happening with Hwy 69. Things could be shaken up around here ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Apathy on 2010-03-13 14:00:57
	Well, I for one don't know what you're talking about, but I hope and pray your information is accurate and on target and something positive will come out of all this. People like Gene Stipe who value money over anything of any moral value have raped and ruined this community for far too long. It's ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-13 14:36:01
	I can't say more than that since the person who contacted me said, hang in there. More is coming down the road, sometimes good things happen as a result of poor decisions (seating Smitherman)left me with the words, "God works in wondrous ways". Hope never dies.
	Comment submitted by Susan on 2010-03-14 07:29:19
	I guess the person who contacted you is going to look at the negotiations going on by our city council. I am assuming that's where our "help" may come from? Not sure what you mean either but I do know Smitherman is not the brightest tack in the drawer and found out there was at least one couple (ini ... Read Full Text
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-14 07:52:14
	Understood there were irregularities in the Ward 6, but not enough to change the outcome. Not unusual in itself, that happens in nearly all elections. People forget to update addresses with the election board.