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 10348
	Opinion submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 06:09:40    (reads 666)
	City Council Agenda Some things that came to mind while reading: Note that the swearing in ceremony occurs before the public has any chance to make comments. Also, there is no formal acceptance of the election certification. It is just assumed it will be accepted. Also, on the agenda is the selection of a Vice Mayor - again before the public is allowed any comments. Its after this item that the public is allowed to raise their issues not on the agenda. Consent Agenda: Besides the normal Minutes and Claims, is an item to file the copy of the MEDS audit -- without comment. No information is provided about the audit not even an executive summary. Public Hearings: Not sure what is prompting the issues of the public hearings -- hard to tell from the Agenda listing. However, one general comment does seem to be needed. Each item listed has the phrase 'consider and act upon'. I didn't think that it was allowed to 'act upon' within the Public Hearing. Hopefully, this is just a wording issue. Item 1 is to bypass bidding and to purchase some equipment -- appears to be a 'pothole plugger'. Can't deny we need one. Item 2 is for water tower repair. About a quarter of a million dollars. Item 3 is to raise the hanger fees at the airport by $25. Not sure why $25 nor why its a flat amount increase. Looking at the variation in rates one would expect a variation or sliding scale increase. Percentage-wise this seems to be hammering the small planes in favor of the larger and corporate ones. Item 4 is the Dispatch service agreement between McAlester and Krebs. Normally a standard item. But this time it seems that Krebs is asking NOT to pay for the service. My checking indicates this to be a new thing -- explanation seems to be that Krebs simply doesn't want to pay because it is having cash problems too. Frankly, I have not heard much about their problems. Have they cut staff or put people on furlough? If not then it seems to me McAlester has bigger problems than they do. I would say NO to this. Item 5 911 grant funds MOU -- OK. Item 6 Fireworks display -- keep it tabled. Item 7 Oil/Gas Lease. Normally a standard item, HOWEVER the City seems to be getting $350 per acre. The recent offer I've received from the same company is $500 per acre? Location might make the difference .... but needs checking. Item 8 Budget Amendment -- yes Gayla I'm confused. Not sure what the heading Revenue means in this context. Did note that there is exactly $100K more of it than Expense for Water Treatment Plant Improvement. Also saw where the $70K for Carolyn Hearod's settlement went through -- how many years has this taken? Item 9 Rezoning -- a much bigger Wade Watts Corridor. Might be a good idea, but I wonder what the residential owners think of it. Items 10 and 11 -- street and alley closings. Item 12 Oil/gas royalty. Item 13 MRHC special election requested to be canceled. Seems that the Bass heirs no longer want to sell the building. Item 14 is the Presentation of the Capital Budget -- no material provided.
	Comment submitted by Steve Harrison on 2010-03-07 08:45:56
	Regarding public hearings, one is required when an ordinance is proposed to be enacted, amended or rescinded. The wording in the "Public Hearing" section of the agenda is just referring to the items later in the agenda that propose to amend ("consider, and act upon") ordinances. First, the public gets to comment during the public hearing. Later, the council considers and acts. The agenda items related to the public hearing are items 8, 9, 10 and 11.
	Comment submitted by BULLET on 2010-03-07 12:01:32
	As you would expect, the city is going to slide through one of the most far reaching and potentially damaging ideas right when the new council is seated -- and they won't have a clue about what they're doing. It is a time honored trick. Serious questions were raised about this WW corridor overlay which were NOT answered by the planning commission because they don't understand; the measure barely passed on a split vote, and probably would have failed if the public had been informed about what was going on. Now Stasiak is hauling it before his new council with them completely in the dark. The city is preparing to spend a great deal of money on a new comprehensive plan...which was actually a campaign plank for one of the newly elected candidates, and if ever there were an issue which needs to be under the guidance of the comprehensive plan, it is this one. But as usual, the city is just using a scattergun approach and piece mealing something together. This matter should not have gone to the council so soon, because of the enormous repercussions it will have....but the developer Carl Voss is yanking chains to get it rammed through. The key is P L A N N I N G. Looking ahead and making good decisions based on ALL information obtainable, not having a knee jerk reaction to a developer. There are so many problems with the expansion of the WW overlay and with closing that alley on the south to give Voss more land. So many problems. This issue cannot be considered proper by any stretch of the imagination. Give Stasiak credit though for being slick, slick, slick. He knew the best time to ram this through with no questions being asked would be Tuesday, before any council member is educated enough to slow it down. Not that this council particularly cares about obeying the law, but if any one of them did care, I would point them to Title 11, O.S. S.43.108. That state law says our zoning ordinance (with its higher standards) takes precedence over all other city codes. This WW corridor overlay violates the zoning ordinance and violates state law. But hey - why obey the law when it's so easy to ignore. Sit back and watch this new council get off to a great start by breaking the law in their first meeting.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 12:20:29
	Public hearings: I understood the normal and State statute directed procedure was to have these separate from the voting. In fact, normally in a different meeting entirely to allow any points brought up by the public to be properly considered. This approach seems to say that no comments of any import or notice will be considered. --- Oh that's what they mean.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 13:49:38
	Wade Watts Corridor: The layout as presented MAKES NO SENSE. The original Wade Watts Corridor stopped half way through the blocks for a reason -- to allow for transition to residential. This proposal extends the corridor to the full blocks. What does that mean? Are Cherokee and Delaware now to be converted to 4 lane commercial as well? If not, how do you transition commercial to residential down the middle of a street? Some commercial might work ... but NOT all types as specified. This does not appear to have been thought through. Needs a comprehensive plan for the adjacent areas.
	Comment submitted by BULLET on 2010-03-07 14:07:07
	That's not the problem. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 50,000 sq.ft. for a commercially zoned lot with appropriate setbacks. The WW corridor 'overlay' was just a fancy word for getting around the requirement for lot size. They dropped the size way down in return for some architectural/landscaping requirements, but COMPLETELY IGNORED STATE LAW WHICH SAID THE Z.O. HIGHER STANDARDS HAD TO PREVAIL. That's the basic problem. The 'overlay' term is not truthful. Second problem is that Delaware DEAD ENDS at 14th Street. Why is the city proposing to extend this commercial and illegal smaller lot size all the way down to the bypass THROUGH THE WOODS? How can they meet the street frontage and ingress/egress requirements WHEN THERE IS NO STREET? There is not even one platted and the city sure isn't going to just go build one. So why would this designation be taken all the way east to the bypass? And as far as protecting residential neighbors, forget it. This LDC has been so bastardized it can't protect anyone. The planning commission and city never even notified any of the neighbors about the alley closing. Wyandotte (Wade Watts) was NEVER DESIGNED NOR BUILT TO BE A COMMERCIAL STREET. THAT WAS NEVER THE PLAN. But everything got tossed out the window years ago when Gene Stipe appeared before the council and threatened them if they didn't allow him to get his residential property on Wyandotte rezoned to commercial. The planning commission had already turned him down....but he controlled the council and got what he wanted. Don't blame the poor street for all the potholes and caving in sections of concrete. THE STREET WAS NEVER DESIGNED FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC USE OR A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. Urban Renewal put it in simply as access for emergency vehicles. You can thank Gene Stipe for everything else.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 14:31:57
	Problem seems worse than I thought. At the moment the basic question is: Why this now? Someone (Carl Voss I'm told) has plans. What are the plans? Shouldn't such disclosure be part of a public hearing?
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-07 23:32:04
	I've talked to the City Attorney. He claims he has no authority on the issue. My checking confirms this. He and other lawyers say that the correct way to clarify the issue is for a declaratory county court ruling. The Council can request such. Or after the individual is seated, any citizen can as well through appropriate legal action. The Charter, state law, and normal parliamentary procedures makes the Council responsible for rules on seating their members. The Council simply has never made any. The eligibility to hold the office of Councilman is not a decision of the Election Broad -- according to local and OKC personnel. Without in place procedures, the Council has just been accepting a certification of the Election Board as good enough. It would seem to be a good idea for the City Council to consider making such procedures/ordinances to cover this process. Note, by the City Charter the previous Councilmen hold office until a new Councilman is seated. So there is always a quorum and and normally a full Council (unless a seat is vacant for other non-election reasons). So NO, the swearing in does NOT have to take place first. It is just the way they have always done it.
	Comment submitted by Bryan on 2010-03-08 08:06:44
	Hal, you are one smart man. Glad this issue came up and there was a discussion. Since the people of 6th ward want Mr. Smitherman, he got out the vote, the rest apparently do not care who represents them, he deserves to be seated. Now, what he does going forward will be noteworthy since he's been on the council before, admitted he never read anything put before him so the question is, who is pulling his "string" since he doesn't mind being a puppet. Legality in McAlester is highly subjective, depending on those in control. This is better than any soap opera, watching how the ones running the council manipulate the "law". So many like to make money off the taxpayers, been doing it for 40 years, it is not going to stop, it's a way of life embedded in the culture in McAlester. Only problem for the GOBs I foresee is the ones doing the manipulating being revealed and Smitherman is the tool for that to happen. Maybe a legal path or him simply talking at a council meeting.
	Comment submitted by Hal on 2010-03-08 10:08:03
	I've presented quite a bit of discussion and arguments on this, but the clear simple statement is that: Mr. Smitherman is NOT eligible to be a City Councilman due to the Term Limits provision in the City Charter. Lawyers my try to argue and obscure this but that is the simple fact of the situation. But of course if no one is willing to bring it up in court -- and put out the money to hire a lawyer to do so -- then it will never be corrected. So this is just another 'apathy test' for McAlester. Simply don't vote, don't get involved and don't care -- the McAlester normal response. If this rather simple legal issue can be ignored then just about anything goes -- and the law is a joke -- not a very funny one. Somehow people seem to be afraid to even interpret a simple sentence like: "No more than 12 years may be served as Mayor, Councilman, or a combination thereof." without 'approval' from the 'enlightened attorneys' -- that alone is a MAJOR indictment of our entire legal system. A legal system ONLY accessible to a select few is NOT a fair and impartial one -- nor a just one.
	Comment submitted by Apathy on 2010-03-08 15:02:27
	Wonder if the charter review committee who worked way over a year on this, or Weldon Smith who basically wrote the entire thing, or all the people who voted for it, or certain people in town who fought against it.....have the foggiest idea that all that time, effort and money was spent in vain. Without someone to ENFORCE the charter (City Council), it doesn't make a damn bit of difference about term limits or anything else the Charter references. IT IS JUST A COLLECTION OF WORDS IN A DOCUMENT WHICH DON'T MEAN DIDDLY. In other words - without enforcement, nothing written in the Charter is valid. The council or the city manager can now effectively pick and choose which part they want to ignore. No one is there to stop them. Not having a single citizen step up and challenge this in court will have the effect of rendering city law impotent. I have NEVER seen such an historic death blow given to something all thought was impervious. There will never be another need for a citizen vote to change ANYTHING in the Charter. Because nothing in the Charter is valid any longer. Ignore any part of it you want to.
	Comment submitted by Susan on 2010-03-08 16:15:51
	You would think Weldon or Sharon Ervin would speak up but we can all see that is not going to happen. Their work on the charter is for nothing, no one seems to care and MOST of all, our City attorney is telling us it is ALL legal. Interesting the families who choose certain parts of the law to follow or have enforced. Sure disappoints me in Weldon AND Sharon. I think this is a lesson in how the town is run, more information than most wanted to know but time to recognize who is running the "show". The families who have benefitted from our city taxes are not about to do the "right thing" for the rest of us.
	Comment submitted by bom3 on 2010-03-08 17:03:28
	http://www.youforum.biz/themcalesterites/index.php
	Comment submitted by bom3 on 2010-03-08 17:18:01
	The above is what has been said about Item 4 on the agenda by taxpayer, yep, let's furlough our officers & maybe they can take another day off to let Krebs get by without paying that $18,000..suck it up boys. Just went by an accident on 14th & Parkway, guess what cop car came flying up from the west..yep, a Krebs cop. Why does Krebs even have cops, they stay in McAlester all the time anyhow.
	Comment submitted by Apathy on 2010-03-08 18:53:27
	Chew on this one for a minute. After enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth following the Randy Green debacle, a previous charter committee (organized and run by Bill Rayburn and Don Lewis) changed the language concerning the hiring of a city manager. To wit: The minimum qualifications for the city manager shall be a master's degree with concentration in public administration or related discipline and 2 years experience in an appointed managerial or administration in a local government; or a bachelor's degree and 5 years of experience. It also said that applicants should be appointed SOLELY on the basis of education and experience in the accepted competencies and practices of local government management. In other words, no more high school grads with a few hours of college like Randy. YOU HAD TO BE A PROFESSIONAL. Bunch of people have been chomping at the bit to take Mr. Stasiak from 'acting' to 'permanent' city manager. But that stupid old Charter requirement was keeping them from doing it. Guess whaaatt?? The Charter is not being enforced! It doesn't matter what experience Stasiak has or doesn't have! They can put him in any time they want to and no one can stop them! Hell, for that matter - why don't we put Chris Fiedler in as city manager? He's as good as anyone else when there aren't any rules to be followed. And none of this "but we didn't mean it that way" nonsense. If the council refuses to enforce the term limits portion of the Charter - then it has no right to enforce any other provision of it. Now does it say anything about refusing to pay my water bill???
	Comment submitted by schultz on 2010-03-08 19:56:04
	Paid mine today -- having second thoughts.