The following emails were received from Tulsa citizens, reflecting their thoughts on the city budget crisis and the proposal to use surplus funds from the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy (TARE) for general fund purposes.

From Douglas L. Boyd, an attorney, who explains how transferring funds from the TARE would run afoul of the law and expose city officials to a taxpayer lawsuit for misuse of funds:

I would not be opposed to the raiding of the TARE slush fund by the police were it legal to do so.  After all TARE should have never had the money in the first place.  As you recall the fund was created when TARE continued to charge the commercial trash generators (businesses) $25/ ton to pay for bonds after the reserve funds of the bonds exceeded the balance of the bonds.  This is more fully explained in the attached petition I filed in 2007.  As you know a tax may not be imposed without a vote of the people.  City of Tulsa v. Air Tulsa, Inc. 1992 OK 146.  On the other hand a license fee may be collected if it does not exceed the cost of regulating the activity to be regulated and charges may be made by and for the benefit of a public utility.   Red Slipper Club v. City of Oklahoma City, 599 P. 2d 406; Oklahoma City Hotel & H.M.A. v. Oklahoma City 531 P.2d 316.  Clearly the collection of $13 mil in less than a year exceeded the cost of regulating the commercial waste generators.  The payment of any of that money for general city services such a police and fire protection would  prove that it was neither required to regulate activity nor was for the benefit of a public utility.  The money collected would then be a tax.  If the City could do what is proposed all the utilities could simply collect excess revenue then pay it over to the City for general purposes.  A vote of the people would never be required.  I made the above arguments before TARE when the Mayor wanted money for mowing. The Mayor said that rules did not apply because the City had advanced TARE $10 mil in the 1990s.  However she admitted that the money was not a loan. Wiser people may figure out a way to move the money but if it is done as propose I fear that  fear that some enterprising attorney, not me,  might bring a qui tam action.

Douglas L. Boyd

From Jan J. Johnson, January 13, 2010:

You asked, I'm responding.   Without being knowledgeable about the City's inter workings, I can list the following for your consideration to help save two of our most important functions of The City of Tulsa.

1.) Stop work on new ball park until we can afford it.

2.) Ask all households to donate from $1.00 to whatever they feel they can afford.  Make this a push on television, radio and newspapers. This could be payable with the city utility bills to save postage and time. I think you would be surprised at the response.  I think I know Tulsans.

3.) City to furnish bags for recycle of paper plastic, cans etc.  Use recycle money for police and fire fighters. This would replace one day of normal garbage pick up.This could come with a promise that as soon as Tulsa gets back on it's feet, that a portion of the recycle money could be returned via lower utility bills. 

4.) Stop personal use of city owned property, i.e.; vehicles, computers, etc. No City parties. Make Overtime a thing of the past.  

5.) City employees' travel and entertainment expenses limited to necessary and accountable events. This cannot be abused.

6.) Calls to Police or Fire requiring responses for anything other than crime reporting, control of abuse, life or death will be billed at a minimum rate of $50/hr. (No free "cat rescue" type calls, until we rebound.)

7.) Why did we move...the old building seemed to provide adequate shelter and everyone knew where you were! Who lives in the old building?  Is it bring in revenue? Do  we still own it? 

Jan J. Johnson  Thanks for asking.....Let's all work together. 

From Bill Youngblood, senior buyer in the City of Tulsa purchasing department, January 13, 2010:

Mayor Bartlett,

Thanks for having the employee meeting and giving us the straight story which is hard to get sometimes. Three comments and I'll get to the point:

1. It appears we will go well beyond July 1 with the current cut in pay(includes furlough pay cut and this pay cut) and we'll be lucky if it doesn't get worse.

2. Hopefully the fat will be cut by July 1 or much sooner. The turnip hasn't been squeezed. On the other side, like the sales tax idea you mentioned, we might need to hire someone in a position where the position can show additional revenue beyond their salary and benefits.

3. In the recent past, the folks in the ranks saw the hiring freeze as a joke.

I spoke at the meeting in support of the employee suggestion program/high performance government program. I can speak from experience that the communication was lacking. I for one did get a $ 500 stipend for a suggestion made 1-9-2009. The suggestion was a simple one:

1. Make sure the City paid the contract price for things we purchase

2. Go back and get the money over charged

To date there have been many meetings/discussions but no coordinated effort to stop overpaying, collect past over payments, and prevent in the future. I was invited to one meeting and then the topic was taken over by the IT department. After a year, no plan, even an interim plan. I tell suppliers a little story: If there are 10 taxpayers standing in my cube and 7 - 8 are happy with how I'm spending their money, I feel pretty good and try for the rest scratching their head. On this topic, the City should be ashamed! There are solutions. I have attached the referenced suggestion and a couple credits from suppliers to prove the validity of the suggestion.

On a broader note, I agree with the other gentlemen who spoke on the suggestion program. The suggestion program needs some real work to encourage suggestions. I believe the program should include a review committee made up of Mayors office, Council office, and regular employees. Employees would be happy to work 4 -10s and do this on their day off. Suggestions should be on the intranet (can get a volunteer). Some of the best suggestions are suggestions from a suggestion. Just a thought.

Mayor, thank you for your open invitation for employees for suggestions. Thanks for the interest of some of the councilors.

I realize how unpopular this email will be, but life goes on.

Thanks

PS: I'm probably not the only one ready to submit more suggestions if they don't fall on deaf ears. I will be submitting a $ 250,000 - $ 500,000/year suggestion very soon based on real numbers from 2009 requiring a simple ordinance if the Mayor and Council like the idea. Will require no labor except someone to look at a report and deposit one check each month.

From James E. Coover, January 13, 2010: 

Dear Councilors:

It is just as I had feared, Mayor Bartlett has painted the city employees into a corner and offered only two choices of his selection.  He states that it is up to them to choose between his two choices and in effect tries to wash his hands for any responsibility from the outcome.  He has made no attempt to access the TARE funds because in my view he has other designs for those funds.  The FOP has offered other concessions that would provide savings but he does not want to listen to them because he is determined to cut the Police and Fire payroll by any method. 

The Mayor and his staff have agreed to settle the Black Officers Consent Decree by placing video cameras in each Police car at a cost of $4,000,000.  Now since the Mayor is asking for the Police Department to cut their budget by approximately $4,000,000, is there any relationship between these two numbers?  If not, where is the Mayor going to get this money?  He told TV channel six that he did not know where he would get this money.  If so, why did he agree to this solution when he has told all of us that the City of Tulsa financial situation is unsustainable.  I have an idea, why not get the money from the TARE fund since they have a surplus of $11,000,000 that belongs to the citizens of Tulsa.  Oh, I forgot, it is illegal and unethical to use this money for the benefit of the citizens of Tulsa even though the money belongs to them, not some Trust.

I hope that the Tulsa City Council will come up with their own budget plan for the city employees that will be something more than a choice between slitting their own wrists or hanging their self.  Why not talk to the involved people and reach some compromise based on using some of the Tare funds, so that we can get past this crisis and start with a new fiscal year.

Sincerely,

James E. Coover

Although I have not read the paper this morning about last night’s meeting, I did hear one comment on the radio that you made last night.  I totally agree with you……if the TPD would write tickets for running lights, illegal turns, etc., then that should help the city’s revenue a lot!  Good for you!

Debbie Burling 

P.S.  I live in District 4. 

From a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous, January 8, 2010: 

Mr. Eagleton,

I applaud your vote against using the trash reserve fund to help pay the police and firemen's salaries and benefits.  It seems like a blatant violation of law, both in letter or spirit.  Plus it sets a dangerous precedent that should be avoided. I hope the Trash Board turns them down next week.

The bullying tactics of the police and fire unions are having a negative effect on the proper functioning of city government. Yes, public safety is vitally important.  But everyone must sacrifice in this economy.  Why can't they take minor pay cuts, furlough days or lose a few extra benefits?  I'm sure there are creative ways to solve this issue.

Keep up the good work!

From another Tulsan who wishes to remain anonymous, January 8, 2010:

Dear Councilor Eagleton,

I am one to admit when I am wrong... so here goes.

Thank you for voting against using the TARE fund to help save jobs on the Police and Fire Departments.

I now realize that, when I wrote you earlier this week asking you to consider that option, I didn't really understand the dynamics of what that meant.

So many people in Tulsa have lost jobs, taken pay cuts, not gotten raises and lost money to higher insurance premiums and cutbacks to retirement funds.

So, I am puzzled about why the FOP and its members are so adamant about not taking paycuts and want the citizens who pay their salaries and are already struggling themselves to give up money that's owed to them so that higher level police officers can make up $90-100,000 a year. 

So... I was wrong.  Thank you for sticking to your convictions.  I know that no matter what the solution ends up being, not everyone will be happy.  It's just that kind of a situation.

Thank you again for stepping up to be part of the effort to find the right solutions.

I hope you and Councilors Bynum and Westcott can prevail upon Mayor Bartlett to veto the council's decision last night.