This article was written and published by the editor of the Owasso Reporter. I'm re-posting as an attempted wake-up call to everyone. If you are not happy with the direction of our Country, it all begins with your local city council and school board. Sadly, the dire situation of our nation is the direct result of good men doing nothing to secure and retain the liberty and freedom our Founding Fathers attained for us. Citizens must be involved, otherwise, the government runs a muck to do what is best for perpetuating the bureaucracy. About 2 years ago citizens approached the City of Owasso and asked that all public meetings be audio/video recorded so the public could watch & listen. The city refused the request.
City of Owasso needs to embrace openness
http://www.owassoreporter.com/opinion/article_b4158fd6-14ed-11e0-9aef-001cc4c03286.html
Posted: Friday, December 31, 2010 8:53 am
By Matt Roberts, Managing Editor [email protected]
Owasso is a growing, thriving community with a bright future. Its population boasts a median age of about 34, which means it's full of young families who are just now settling into productive careers and raising their children.
With a stable retail sector and an infrastructure in many places less than 20 years old, Owasso has a lot going for it other Tulsa suburb communities could only wish for.
With all that's great about our community, and with all the future potential we have, it's a shame our city leadership seems to think Owasso residents are better off left in the dark about the decisions they're making and how our tax dollars are being spent.
This unfortunate reality was once again highlighted to us by the city's refusal to comply with a request we recently made under Oklahoma's Open Records law for information about the compressed natural gas/historic filling station project that has been underway for a year.
City Manager Rodney Ray told the Owasso City Council in January that he intended to form a committee of three people - who he declined to name in open session - to oversee the raising of funds to pay for the filling station portion of the project. He also assured the council no public funds would be used in the station's construction, and that the committee would have until June 30 to obtain the needed funds.
June 30 came and went. The city remained mum on who the mysterious committee members were, and the city council rolled over July 6 and granted Ray an extension for the fundraising to Oct. 1.
Now, some three months after that second deadline, Ray bristled at the audacity of the local, community newspaper when we exercised our legal right to request public documents to ascertain exactly what he and the city were doing with the project.
What did we ask for? (1) Records of fundraising activities by public officials or members of city committees, boards or councils for the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point; (2) Names of all board/committee members and any other individuals associated with the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point project; and (3) All e-mails and other correspondence related to the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point project. What response did we get from the city? "None of your business."
Ray told us first that - although the city council had authorized and reauthorized the work of his fundraising committee on the project - there was, in fact, no committee at all.
Second, city staff informed us there was no documented information at all in their possession about the project. No papers, no e-mails, no receipts of donations - nothing. Considering it's nearly 2011 and we're smack dab in the middle of the information age, that's astonishing.
More accurately, that's downright deceptive. And more specifically, by not complying with our legal request for documents under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which was written and approved to stifle deceptive behavior by state and local governments, they are simply breaking the law.
A Claremore publication writing on the subject indicated Ray told them ground could be broken on the project as early as March or April. That would be pretty amazing, since not a single sheet of paper or e-mail has been generated about it. But it's not the first time the city has had trouble with openness.
Just prior to the city of Owasso lauding itself over a silly "Sunny Award" in January - an award given for static information the city chooses to put on its website that is unrelated to its decision-making processes - we had to make repeated requests and even consult the opinion of an attorney in a battle with city hall to get the addresses of those who were voluntarily serving on the city's boards and commissions.
Why did we want to know? We were interested in finding out if those serving on the committees that made decisions affecting Owasso were actually residents themselves. I think that's reasonable. But we really don't need to prove to city staff that our request is legitimate enough to warrant their compliance with the law, do we?
And then there's the recent approval of the city's new ad valorem tax. When Ray first introduced the idea of letting Owasso residents pay for judgments against the city through a property tax, I wrote a story about it, in which I quoted him as saying, "...We may be forced to look at these alternatives [i.e. ad valorem taxes] as temporary, I hope, measures of how to handle these lawsuits that come up."
Apparently many of our readers took the time to let the city know their dislike of the idea, as Ray withdrew from the idea somewhat, noting that rather than discussing the matter in open meetings in the future, they would discuss it "individually" with city councillors, an obvious violation of, at least, the spirit of the Open Meetings law.
But Ray was hardly finished with the matter. In fact, he has been very candid in recent city meetings that his ad valorem plans are anything but "temporary."
He told the Capital Improvements Committee Oct. 21 - well before the tort judgment ad valorem tax appeared on city residents' county assessments - that the city's sales tax revenues would not be adequate to fuel their development plans, and that his longstanding preference to avoid ad valorem taxation was mistaken, calling the position "my stupid decision, as it now appears."
The final approval for the new ad valorem tax mysteriously slipped its way onto the consent agenda of a November council session. A consent agenda is a listing of items that require no discussion and are routinely approved because there is no controversy in the matters - such as paying vendors and the like.
So why was the matter of the first ad valorem tax ever imposed by the city on the consent agenda? It was so neatly wrapped in the agenda that we even missed it initially. Why was it not discussed in an open council session, so we could hear some dialogue about it and residents could speak on the matter if they wished?
But let's not rest the mantle of this cloak-and-dagger government secrecy and irresponsibility solely on the shoulders of Rodney Ray or the city.
Our form of municipal government affords us representation in the form of a city council. But after two years of covering the city of Owasso, I'm beginning to wonder to whom the council answers.
I observed in a column a year ago there had been a single, solitary "no" vote from the council in my first year at the Reporter. I'm sad to say that, as I now pass my second year mark, that embarrassing statistic remains unchanged.
So, anything the city has proposed, has passed. Apparently the Owasso City Council answers not to local residents but to the city, since they continue to play possum while measure after measure skates by without any serious discussion or critical evaluation.
Why has the council allowed the filling station project to proceed after blowing multiple deadlines? And, more importantly, if Ray is correct that there has never been a committee formed in accordance with the council's directive, why has the council not demanded the city account for this discrepancy rather than handing Ray extension after extension?
And why did city councillors pass the ad valorem measure in a consent agenda - any of them could have pulled it at that time for more discussion - rather than promoting reasonable public input into the matter? Most importantly, is it reasonable to assume any new ad valorem adventure Ray embarks on will be passed 5-0 at the council meeting of his choice?
Ray and the city need to embrace openness in all aspects of the municipal government, not just those they think residents need to know about. The Open Records laws in Oklahoma are not optional.
And our elected city councillors need to start answering to us, not 111 N. Main. If they won't fulfill their sworn duties, we need to find others who will.
City of Owasso needs to embrace openness
http://www.owassoreporter.com/opinion/article_b4158fd6-14ed-11e0-9aef-001cc4c03286.html
Posted: Friday, December 31, 2010 8:53 am
By Matt Roberts, Managing Editor [email protected]
Owasso is a growing, thriving community with a bright future. Its population boasts a median age of about 34, which means it's full of young families who are just now settling into productive careers and raising their children.
With a stable retail sector and an infrastructure in many places less than 20 years old, Owasso has a lot going for it other Tulsa suburb communities could only wish for.
With all that's great about our community, and with all the future potential we have, it's a shame our city leadership seems to think Owasso residents are better off left in the dark about the decisions they're making and how our tax dollars are being spent.
This unfortunate reality was once again highlighted to us by the city's refusal to comply with a request we recently made under Oklahoma's Open Records law for information about the compressed natural gas/historic filling station project that has been underway for a year.
City Manager Rodney Ray told the Owasso City Council in January that he intended to form a committee of three people - who he declined to name in open session - to oversee the raising of funds to pay for the filling station portion of the project. He also assured the council no public funds would be used in the station's construction, and that the committee would have until June 30 to obtain the needed funds.
June 30 came and went. The city remained mum on who the mysterious committee members were, and the city council rolled over July 6 and granted Ray an extension for the fundraising to Oct. 1.
Now, some three months after that second deadline, Ray bristled at the audacity of the local, community newspaper when we exercised our legal right to request public documents to ascertain exactly what he and the city were doing with the project.
What did we ask for? (1) Records of fundraising activities by public officials or members of city committees, boards or councils for the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point; (2) Names of all board/committee members and any other individuals associated with the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point project; and (3) All e-mails and other correspondence related to the historic service station/compressed natural gas filling point project. What response did we get from the city? "None of your business."
Ray told us first that - although the city council had authorized and reauthorized the work of his fundraising committee on the project - there was, in fact, no committee at all.
Second, city staff informed us there was no documented information at all in their possession about the project. No papers, no e-mails, no receipts of donations - nothing. Considering it's nearly 2011 and we're smack dab in the middle of the information age, that's astonishing.
More accurately, that's downright deceptive. And more specifically, by not complying with our legal request for documents under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, which was written and approved to stifle deceptive behavior by state and local governments, they are simply breaking the law.
A Claremore publication writing on the subject indicated Ray told them ground could be broken on the project as early as March or April. That would be pretty amazing, since not a single sheet of paper or e-mail has been generated about it. But it's not the first time the city has had trouble with openness.
Just prior to the city of Owasso lauding itself over a silly "Sunny Award" in January - an award given for static information the city chooses to put on its website that is unrelated to its decision-making processes - we had to make repeated requests and even consult the opinion of an attorney in a battle with city hall to get the addresses of those who were voluntarily serving on the city's boards and commissions.
Why did we want to know? We were interested in finding out if those serving on the committees that made decisions affecting Owasso were actually residents themselves. I think that's reasonable. But we really don't need to prove to city staff that our request is legitimate enough to warrant their compliance with the law, do we?
And then there's the recent approval of the city's new ad valorem tax. When Ray first introduced the idea of letting Owasso residents pay for judgments against the city through a property tax, I wrote a story about it, in which I quoted him as saying, "...We may be forced to look at these alternatives [i.e. ad valorem taxes] as temporary, I hope, measures of how to handle these lawsuits that come up."
Apparently many of our readers took the time to let the city know their dislike of the idea, as Ray withdrew from the idea somewhat, noting that rather than discussing the matter in open meetings in the future, they would discuss it "individually" with city councillors, an obvious violation of, at least, the spirit of the Open Meetings law.
But Ray was hardly finished with the matter. In fact, he has been very candid in recent city meetings that his ad valorem plans are anything but "temporary."
He told the Capital Improvements Committee Oct. 21 - well before the tort judgment ad valorem tax appeared on city residents' county assessments - that the city's sales tax revenues would not be adequate to fuel their development plans, and that his longstanding preference to avoid ad valorem taxation was mistaken, calling the position "my stupid decision, as it now appears."
The final approval for the new ad valorem tax mysteriously slipped its way onto the consent agenda of a November council session. A consent agenda is a listing of items that require no discussion and are routinely approved because there is no controversy in the matters - such as paying vendors and the like.
So why was the matter of the first ad valorem tax ever imposed by the city on the consent agenda? It was so neatly wrapped in the agenda that we even missed it initially. Why was it not discussed in an open council session, so we could hear some dialogue about it and residents could speak on the matter if they wished?
But let's not rest the mantle of this cloak-and-dagger government secrecy and irresponsibility solely on the shoulders of Rodney Ray or the city.
Our form of municipal government affords us representation in the form of a city council. But after two years of covering the city of Owasso, I'm beginning to wonder to whom the council answers.
I observed in a column a year ago there had been a single, solitary "no" vote from the council in my first year at the Reporter. I'm sad to say that, as I now pass my second year mark, that embarrassing statistic remains unchanged.
So, anything the city has proposed, has passed. Apparently the Owasso City Council answers not to local residents but to the city, since they continue to play possum while measure after measure skates by without any serious discussion or critical evaluation.
Why has the council allowed the filling station project to proceed after blowing multiple deadlines? And, more importantly, if Ray is correct that there has never been a committee formed in accordance with the council's directive, why has the council not demanded the city account for this discrepancy rather than handing Ray extension after extension?
And why did city councillors pass the ad valorem measure in a consent agenda - any of them could have pulled it at that time for more discussion - rather than promoting reasonable public input into the matter? Most importantly, is it reasonable to assume any new ad valorem adventure Ray embarks on will be passed 5-0 at the council meeting of his choice?
Ray and the city need to embrace openness in all aspects of the municipal government, not just those they think residents need to know about. The Open Records laws in Oklahoma are not optional.
And our elected city councillors need to start answering to us, not 111 N. Main. If they won't fulfill their sworn duties, we need to find others who will.
