On June 25, 2009, Councilor John Eagleton filed a request for an ethics opinion with the City of Tulsa Ethics Advisory Committee. The request concerned the hiring of Mr. Chris Westcott as a police cadet, and whether those who hired Mr. Westcott violated the ethics code by knowingly hiring someone who, as the son of a city councilor, could not serve as a Tulsa police officer. (35 KB PDF). Here is an excerpt from the request:

It has come to my attention that City officials hired Mr. Chris Westcott knowing he was the son of City Councilor Rick Westcott. It has been stated this hiring was in violation of Title II, section 8-106 of the Oklahoma Statutes and Section 107 of the City of Tulsa's Personnel Policies and Procedures.

As such, I request the City of Tulsa's Ethics Advisory Committee provide an opinion on whether such a violation of state statute constitutes a violation of the City of Tulsa's Ethics Code. If so, what are the factors in determining when an individual would be in violation of the Code?

The City of Tulsa has spent thousands of dollars in his salary, training, and other expenditures when officials knew or should have known the expenditure was in violation of city policy and state law. As a result of this misconduct or neglect of duty, the City of Tulsa is now short another police officer because of it. It seems the Ethics Code should address this situation, if not, I welcome the Committee's recommendations to rectify the situation.

On June 24, Councilor Bill Martinson issued a rebuttal (30 KB PDF) to a statement from Fraternal Order of Police president Philip Evans. Martinson defended his budget proposal. (You can view the presentation of Martinson's proposed budget alternative here.) Here are a few key paragraphs from his response.

As I stated to both Chief LaCroix and Chief Palmer on Thursday night, my intent was not to attack, but rather to prepare both departments for a drastic decline in funding dictated by economic reality. Since Police and Fire have managed to consume 100% of our sales tax operating revenue, I feel they must be prepared to adjust their operating structure to keep expenses in line with those revenues. My proposal Thursday night accomplished just that. The choices were theirs to make and, despite the budget approved by the Council and their hopes to the contrary, they may still face those choices and sooner than they think.

The public safety unions have done a masterful job of dictating policy. This needs to stop and elected officials must assume responsibility for the Citizens.

The unions, Administration, and certain City Councilors argue that the only option in reduced funding is to reduce staffing. This is true only if they wish it to be. They, not I, nor the other three Councilors voting against the Mayor’s budget view the issue with such limited perspective; a limited perspective certain to instill fear in the citizens and union members and sure to divide the City. Extreme measures can often be avoided with sufficient planning. For example, it is not unusual for the City to re-negotiate contract terms, and while I have not been a party to any of the pending contract negotiations, prudent business practice would be to include language allowing for a revision in compensation structure, including perks, should conditions so dictate. If a relief provision is not incorporated in the agreements, one must wonder why, or one must ask why protecting certain union paychecks is more important than protecting the City. This intransigent position also protects some union members at the expense of others – so much for the concept of brotherhood. The issue is with the unions, not with the individual cop or fireman. Appropriately, the rank and file focuses on fighting crime or fire, not reading financial statements. However, when they are misled, all are done a disservice. Look at the fates of the railroads, steel industry, certain airlines and automobile manufacturers, and the recent bankruptcy of city of Vallejo, California, if you doubt the catastrophic potential of uncompromising union leadership and weak management.