Several weeks ago, parents learned the Bartlesville School Board was considering a massive change to their school district. Oak Park Elementary School will be closed, and the school district lines will be re-drawn. All this is being done to balance the upcoming budget. According to the school district's public press release, the only other alternative to closing Oak Park is to fire teachers.
The details of the plan are important. As are the final decisions being made by the School Board. However, the most disturbing part of this argument is the fact that parents - particularly Oak Park parents - were not consulted until almost too late to have any impact on the final decision. Why were these decisions being discussed and weighed without letting the public know what was going on?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
City Board Appointment process
What a disappointment to see the City Council implement such a flawed appointment process for Committees, Commissions, Boards and Trust Authorities. What could have compelled them to act as they did, completely ignoring the need for openness, transparency and accountability?
The Council spent little time discussing the pros and cons of the appointment process presented by Ms. Tullos. What they glowingly called "a good starting point" was no more than the codification of the old appointment process, with even more lack of accountability and openness that the original.
One of the most glaring examples of "stacking the deck" on these so-called citizen committees is the ability to put one or more City Council members on each committee. Thus we throw out the committee's ability to make unbiased decisions or allow significant input from Bartlesville citizens at large.
Another statement in Ms. Tullos' proposal was extremely disconcerting: "Appointment of a non-council member (that would be a Bartlesville citizen at large) ..... shall be the privilege and responsibility of a council member serving on that committee, trust, board or authority." So apparently local citizen participation and support of a Committee, Commission, Board or Trust Authority is strictly optional.
The Council ignored a well-researched proposal presented by Grassroots Bartlesville that would allow for a more diverse and open appointment process and for City Committees, Commissions, Boards and Trust Authorities that are truly "citizen committees". Instead they decided to stay with the old status quo, which allows for a closed system that favors those in power and disenfranchises the majority of citizens.
The Council spent little time discussing the pros and cons of the appointment process presented by Ms. Tullos. What they glowingly called "a good starting point" was no more than the codification of the old appointment process, with even more lack of accountability and openness that the original.
One of the most glaring examples of "stacking the deck" on these so-called citizen committees is the ability to put one or more City Council members on each committee. Thus we throw out the committee's ability to make unbiased decisions or allow significant input from Bartlesville citizens at large.
Another statement in Ms. Tullos' proposal was extremely disconcerting: "Appointment of a non-council member (that would be a Bartlesville citizen at large) ..... shall be the privilege and responsibility of a council member serving on that committee, trust, board or authority." So apparently local citizen participation and support of a Committee, Commission, Board or Trust Authority is strictly optional.
The Council ignored a well-researched proposal presented by Grassroots Bartlesville that would allow for a more diverse and open appointment process and for City Committees, Commissions, Boards and Trust Authorities that are truly "citizen committees". Instead they decided to stay with the old status quo, which allows for a closed system that favors those in power and disenfranchises the majority of citizens.
A Teachable Moment #1
A teachable moment… What do you as a citizen do when your government leaders violate the law?
The Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "...all public bodies shall, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to ... special meetings, display public notice of said meeting, setting forth thereon the date, time, place and agenda for said meeting. Only matters appearing on the posted agenda may be considered at said special meeting."
On January 18, the City Council held a special meeting. Their agenda called for the Council to discuss and take action on a rezoning appeal for CarMart. One thing the agenda did not state was that a public hearing was to be held.
Mayor Nikkel asked the City Attorney if they could hold a public hearing even though it was not listed on the agenda, as required by State law. The City Attorney said he believed they could since a sign announcing a public hearing had been posted on the property and notice was posted in the local paper. Therefore, he said, the intent was there. No one on the Council objected.
Unfortunately, many people did not know a public hearing was to be held. Citizens who might have wanted to speak at the hearing did not appear, and those who were present were unprepared to speak.
Based on an open and transparent government, what do you think the Council should have done? And what should you as a citizen do if you believe your city leaders have violated the law? What is in the best interest of the citizens in Bartlesville
Electing the Mayor
Bartlesville's Charter Review Committee decided on an 8-to-2 vote to prevent the citizens of Bartlesville from electing their own mayor. The City Council, who had the power to overturn the Committee's recommendations, decided to go along with it instead. By going along with the recommendation, they also refused to allow the citizens an opportunity to decide for themselves if they would get to elect their own mayor.
The Committee gave several reasons for voting to keep the status quo; that is, leaving the appointment of the City's mayor with the City Council itself. Some of the reasons given? The primary one was that the mayor would come from the Ward that had the most voters turn out, thus giving more weight to one Ward over the others. Another popular reason with the Committee members was that the mayor would have too much power if he/she was not accountable to the Council. A third reason was that the mayor was only a ceremonial position and so didn't warrant a popular vote.
Unfortunately, none of those reasons were held up to public debate, thus preventing a full and vigorous discussion of the issue. If a true townhall had been held, or a formal debate, it's likely that the Committee and the Council would have heard arguments that might have caused them to change their minds. At the very least, the public would have heard the debate - and perhaps would have put pressure on the Council to allow them the opportunity to vote on the issue.
The Committee gave several reasons for voting to keep the status quo; that is, leaving the appointment of the City's mayor with the City Council itself. Some of the reasons given? The primary one was that the mayor would come from the Ward that had the most voters turn out, thus giving more weight to one Ward over the others. Another popular reason with the Committee members was that the mayor would have too much power if he/she was not accountable to the Council. A third reason was that the mayor was only a ceremonial position and so didn't warrant a popular vote.
Unfortunately, none of those reasons were held up to public debate, thus preventing a full and vigorous discussion of the issue. If a true townhall had been held, or a formal debate, it's likely that the Committee and the Council would have heard arguments that might have caused them to change their minds. At the very least, the public would have heard the debate - and perhaps would have put pressure on the Council to allow them the opportunity to vote on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)