Muskogee City Council Runoff Today

Muskogee's February 14th municipal elections resulted in three of the four city council seats going to a runoff. That vote is taking place today. If you reside in Muskogee, and are a registered voter, don't forget to vote. Because 'ward-voting' has not taken effect yet, voters in all four city wards can vote in all three races.

Personally, I voted for Gary Cooper in Ward I (my ward), Shawn Raper in Ward II, and D. Boots in Ward III. All three gentlemen are fine individuals, and would serve Muskogee well as city councilors. While municipal offices are non-partisan in Muskogee, these three men are facing union-backed candidates in the runoff. Cooper, in particular, is running against a very liberal candidate.

If you live in Muskogee, and have not voted yet, I encourage you to vote for Gary Cooper, Shawn Raper, and D. Boots.

Coburn wins mayor, three council races go to runoff

In last night's Muskogee mayoral contest, Bob Coburn defeated David Ragsdale with a resounding 69% to 31% margin. Coburn, cousin to the U.S. Senator, vacated a city council seat to run to succeed Mayor John Tyler Hammons.

Three council wards will be having runoff elections on April 3rd. In Ward I, Lee Ann Langston (49%) and Gary Cooper (42%) will face each other again. In Ward II, incumbent councilor Shawn Raper (47%) and Dan Hall (34%) are in a runoff. In Ward III, Derrick Reed (41%) and Dale "D." Boots (33%) finish out the runoff matchups. Wayne Johnson defeated Ron Venters 58% to 42% in Ward IV.

All three ballot propositions passed, with ward-voting receiving 57%. Proposition 1 (moving election date to comply with state law) took 79%, and Proposition 3 (moving swearing in date) got 88%.

Another Contentious City Council Meeting

Muskogee's city council meetings have taken a contentious turn the past few months. The past two meetings have been attended by standing-room only crowds of over 100.

The two issues that have sparked the action are flying the POW/MIA flag at the Civic Center, and reviewing and changing the city charter. One seems to have been resolved at the this week's council meeting, while the other has gone back to square one.

Again, as at the July 13th council meeting, over 100 people came to hear the resolution of the POW/MIA flag issue. And again, the feeling in the room was very much against the way the council has handled this issue.

To review from last time, the city attorney wrote an ordinance that would address set the requirements for flag flying on city property. There were no copies of the ordinance available at the meeting, so one of the pro-POW/MIA attendees distributed copies at his own expense. That doesn't help public opinion...

The council decided to follow their standing policy of allowing public comment (without council response), but restricted to three minutes per person (and only one time speaking). They rarely follow this policy, which again, does not lend itself to a good public image for the council. Several citizens ran out of time, and had to have others finish their remarks. On a side note, three minutes is probably a little too short for common citizens who are not accustomed to speaking with a time limit.

The ordinance originally stated that the requesting parties would have to pay to put up the flagpole. City Manager Greg Buckley stated that the current flagpole cost between $500 and $700 to put up. Councilor James Gulley proceeded to move that the city pay for it instead. Buckley then clarified his statement, changing the figure to $10000 to $12000, on account that the city merely used the flagpole that had previously been up (before the remodeling of the Civic Center), and his cost estimate was just accounting for labor. I personally think that the $10-12,000 figure is a little high - a quick perusal on the internet found comparable flagpoles for half that price.

Buckley did note that the original remodeling plan did include several flagpoles, mentioning the U.S., POW/MIA, Oklahoma, and Indian tribes' flags as planned, but the project ran out of money and had to cut them out.

Gulley maintained his motion, and the council voted unanimously to pass the resolution as amended. In later conversations with councilmembers, they expressed frustration at the animosity towards them. One councilor said that he wanted to tell the people present that the only thing keeping this ordinance from passing was their arguing in favor of it - all of the councilors were planning on voting for the measure, but were being kept from it by the citizens dragging the public input time out. Another councilor accused Mayor Hammons of stirring the veterans up and starting the whole controversy for his own political self-interests.

With the POW/MIA issue settled, most of the crowd left; still leaving about 30, which is much higher than a usual city council meeting. Before exiting, veteran Pat Davis presented Mayor Hammons with a POW/MIA flag, to be flown whenever the flagpole is set up.

The next issue taken up was the implementation of a new city council policy. Policy 1-4 dealt with requests from the councilmembers or mayor to city staff, i.e. writing new ordinances for presentation to the council.

Basically, the policy states that if the staff member estimates the request to take more than one hour of his time, the request must go on the next council meeting's agenda for approval by the whole council. The council can then give or deny permission for the staff member to fulfill the request.

The argument from those in favor was that no one member should be able to monopolize the time of the city manager, city attorney or other staff members. Mayor Hammons protested, but he was the only vote against the policy. Essentially, now the council can vote down an ordinance before actually voting on an ordinance.

The council then moved on to the city charter issue. As mentioned in my post on the last council meeting, the city council formed a committee to review the charter last September. We learned more about the committee at this council meeting. At this meeting, the council was to go over the reccommendations of the committee.

Each councilor appointed a citizen to serve on this committee (Councilor Jackie Luckey did not appoint anyone, since the charter was not to be reviewed in whole). Councilor Bob Luttrull chaired the group, with Councilor Jim Ritchey also serving on the committee.

Mayor Hammons asked if the review committee ever voted on the reccommendations; John Vincent, the city attorney, said that he did not know if they did. Hammons pressed his point - "It is my opinion that if the charter review committee did not vote on these reccommendations, then these are not the reccommendations of the committee." Councilor Shawn Raper then asked if they were going to follow their policy of public input first; Hammons wanted to make sure that they were actually dealing with the reccommendations as voted on by the committee, but moved the meeting to the public hearing.

Since the council was following their public-input-first policy at this particular meeting (although they did not keep to the time-restriction policy), several citizens spoke. One person in particular had several very good points.

Brian Fuller, president of the local firefighters union, had requested and received from the city the list of the members on the charter review committee.

According to Fuller's research, most of the members only attended one committee meeting. The majority of those members were either never notified of other meetings, or were told that the meeting was canceled without being told when or where it would be held. One of the members is not a current resident of the city.

Fuller's findings also showed that the meetings were not properly posted, and were not held in a public forum; both violations of the Open Meetings Act. Several other provisions were, according to Fuller, in direct violation with state law.

There was a section that dealt with firefighter residency in the reccommendations, which said that firefighters had to live within 20 miles of the intersection of Main and Okmulgee - a change from the previous within-city-limits-for-one-year-before-hiring requirement. Fuller stated that 1/3 of the city's employees live farther than 20 miles from the aforementioned intersection, including many department heads.

Fuller closed by asking that the council start the whole process over again, do it right, and include the three city unions in the review process.

After the public hearing was closed, Mayor Hammons proceeded to ask Councilor Ritchey if the committee ever voted on the reccommendations. Ritchey said that he was never under the impression that the committee was to vote on reccommendations, but thought they were to complie them. Hammons restated his question, "Did the committee vote to approve these?" Ritchey again repeated himself statement. After several rounds of Hammons repeating the question, and Ritchey repeating his statement, Hammons asked Councilor Luttrull the question. Luttrull said that the committee voted on them, but he could not remember when the meeting was.

Hammons and Shawn Raper both suggested to restart the review process, since the facts were muddled. The council voted unanimously to take no action on the agenda item, and to come back another day to start the process over.

So, the POW/MIA flag will fly, but the charter review situation is unresolved. Stay tuned for the latest developements, available on the blogosphere exlusively at Muskogee Politico.

Follow-up on July 13th City Council Meeting - Part 1

The July 13th Muskogee City Council meeting was a council meeting to remember. Two very hot topics were on the agenda: charter changes (see previous post), and whether to fly the POW/MIA flag at the Civic Center (I was unaware this was to be discussed, actually).

All of the council meetings I have been to were sparsely attended, and fairly non-controversial. Boy, was this one different! This was this most controversial, most attended, most contentious city council meeting seen in years, perhaps decades.

I knew something was up when both KOTV and KJRH had television crews in the parking lot at City Hall. The crowd of American Legion, military veterans, and motorcycle club members going through the doors also gave a hint of what to expect.

There were over 120 people packed into the Council chambers - literally standing room only, and almost not enough room for people to stand. It was evident that most of the crowd was there for the POW/MIA item, so Mayor Hammons moved for that item to be taken up first, instead of last (its original order in the agenda).

When the Civic Center was remodeled recently, due to lack of funds no flagpole was put up. This created quite a bit of outrage, and on July 2nd they installed a flagpole. In years past, the POW/MIA flew at times at the Civic Center, however, no provision was made for any flag to be flown save the American and Oklahoman flags.

Mayor Hammons' proposal was to fly the POW/MIA flag on the six congressionally mandated days for said flag to be flown on federal property. Councilman Shawn Raper then said that this needed to be brought in the form of an actual ordinance, and since this would be setting a precedent, he wondered how the council would decide which flags could be flown, and which flags could not be flown. Hammons clarified by stating that only flags flown by Congressional order would be flown.

This started a discussion over where to put the flags, and how many flagpoles to be used. During the whole meeting, many councilmen complained of being called unpatriotic for not flying the POW/MIA flag. The crowd was very interactive (which is never the case), to the point of a severe lack of decorum. During the public input times, councilors would get into heated back-and-forths, even though it is the council's stated policy that they cannot respond to the public during a meeting.

There were boos and hisses, applause and cheering all throughout the entire meeting. It was certainly the most raucous council meeting in recent history.

Many people addressed the council, including several out-of-towners, the daughter of a Vietnam MIA, and a self-proclaimed Vietnam POW. The latter appears to have started an entirely different controversy, since national POW groups do not recognize him on their official lists as a Vietnam POW, as he claimed he was. He claimed several medals as well, which if he did not receive, could land him in jail for up to two years as a federal crime of stolen valor. The Muskogee Phoenix has a short article on the issue here (though not all that was printed in the newspaper, for some reason).

Finally, councilman James Gulley suggested placing two flagpoles beside the centennial arch at the Civic Center, and flying the POW/MIA flag on one of those poles. The other flagpole could be utilized for any other flag recognized by Congress (the other five possible flags being the service ensigns).

The council then directed the city attorney to draft a proposal to fit the suggestion, in order to bring it back to the council for a vote on July 27th. The reasoning was that if they ordered the city manager to fly the flag now, they could not deny any other request (and requests were allegedly already coming in) until they had legal language setting the restrictions.

This ended the POW/MIA item on the agenda. After a short recess, the council continued business. About 35 people stayed for the rest of the meeting, still a very significant increase in attendance from usual council meetings.

Click here for part two of the meeting.

Muskogee City Council, Public Works Cmte & Finance Cmte Meetings - June 16th

Here is the video from Tuesday's special City Council meeting on the budget, the Public Works Committee meeting, and the Finance Committee meeting.



Kudos to the Council (especially Shawn Raper) for cutting the travel expenses for the Council and Mayor to attend the National League of Cities conference and Conference of Mayors, as well as looking for other cuts, instead of raising fees to balance the budget.

Muskogee Businessman Denied Re-Zoning Request

The City of Muskogee Board of Adjustment denied a local small businessman's request to allow towing services under the E-1 Local Commercial zoning classification.

Chris Fulton, owner of Bargain Wrecker Service, purchased a building at 620 South Main Street in Muskogee last November, with the intent to run his towing service out of the facility. The building had previously been used as a storage facility for a concrete company.

But, problems arose when an employee parked his car on the grass outside the building; vehicles must not be parked on the grass, per city ordinance. Someone complained to the city, and Fulton was cited for illegal parking. City Planning Director Gary Garvin then informed Fulton that his facility was not zoned correctly for a towing service. Garvin said that the property would need to be zoned F General Commercial.

For clarification purposes, here are the definitions for E-1 Local Commercial and F General Commercial.

E-1 Local Commercial is defined in the city ordinances as "intend[ing] to provide for the conduct of retail trade and personal service enterprises to meet the regular needs and for the convenience of the people of adjacent residential areas." Some of the 73 examples listed in the city code as falling under the E-1 label include antique shops, appliance stores, laundromats, pawnshops, and used car lots. The ordinance further states that "no article or material shall be kept, stored or displayed outside the confines of the building."

F General Commercial is "intended for the conduct of general business to which the public requires frequent and direct access, but which is not characterized by either constant heavy trucking other than that which is necessary for stocking and delivering of retail goods or by any nuisance factors other than occasioned by the congregating of people and passenger vehicles." Examples include bakeries, blacksmiths, cabinet shops, electrical transmission stations, mini-storage units, and sign shops.

Therefore, under the current E-1 zoning, Fulton would have to park the towed vehicles inside this building, something that he has stated he would do. He estimates that the facility could hold up to 25 cars - more room than he currently uses.

Most of the towing Fulton does is related to road-side assistance/insurance and impounded vehicles. A very small percentage of his work is wrecked vehicles (Fulton stated that 90% of his income was from the road-side assistance and insurance jobs).

Per Gary Garvin's instruction, Fulton and his attorney, Steve Scherer, attempted to have his property rezoned F General Commercial. Most of the area surrounding the building is E-1 Local Commercial, although a few of the nearby businesses are F General Commercial.

The Public Works Committee of the City Council deliberated on the issue on April 7th. Councilors Raper and Ritchey were the most out-spoken opponents of the rezoning. They opposed it on the grounds that rezoning it F General Commercial would open up the possibility of other types of businesses coming in if Fulton sold the property down the road, as well as the fact that F General Commercial doesn't fit into the Future Land Use Map for the area enacted by the city in 2003. Raper said that several citizens, as well as an official with Downtown Muskogee, Inc., had called in opposition to rezoning.

Robert Perkins, David Ragsdale and Bob Luttrull were in favor of rezoning. All three councilors mentioned that the South Main area has changed very little over the past thirty to fourty years - other than vacant, dilapidated buildings being torn down.

Jim Ritchey moved that the rezoning be denied, with Shawn Raper seconding. Ritchey, Raper, James Gulley and Jackie Luckey voted in favor of the motion; while Perkins, Ragsdale, Luttrull and Mayor John Tyler Hammons voted against. Since it ended in a tie, the issue was sent on to the full council meeting on April 13th. Councilor David Jones was absent, causing the tie.

At the city council meeting on the 13th, after another lengthy discussion, James Gulley moved to deny the rezoning request, with David Jones seconding. Councilors Raper, Ritchey, Gulley, Luckeyand Luttrull did not change their vote from the Public Works meeting - Perkins and Hammons flipped, and Ragsdale abstained. Thus, it went from a 4-4 tie to a 7-1 denial.

Failing at the council, Fulton had one other option: appeal to the Muskogee Board of Adjustment for an exception to the E-1 Local Commercial zoning, allowing him to operate his towing service without rezoning.

Fulton didn't have any better luck with the Board of Adjustment this afternoon. Members Janey Boydston, Linda Carter, Carter Bradley and Jim Eby upheld Gary Garvin's ruling that a towing service does not fall under E-1, while Gary Dunlap was the only member to vote in favor of allowing it (Earnie Gilder was not present).

Fulton said that he already spent thousands of dollars cleaning the property up, filling several 10-12 yard dumpsters with trash and debris from the facility.

The tone of the Board of Adjustment meeting was very negative on behalf of the board members. Fulton said many times that he would store the towed vehicles inside the building, which had ample room, but Janey Boydston and Jim Eby continually stated that they did not believe he would. Steve Scherer, Fulton's attorney, had to repeatedly state throughout the meeting that he did not feel, from a legal standpoint, that the Board could deny Fulton's request on the assumption that he would not follow the rules. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Here, in the midst of a recession, the City of Muskogee is more concerned about how the entrance to the city looks than economic output. South Main is not the main thoroughfare into town, and has always been very tacky. Nothing new has gone into that area for decades, and most of the buildings are in very bad shape.

Rather than allowing a young small businessman to turn a vacant building into something of economic worth, the City Council, and the Board of Adjustment, would rather let the facility rot. And again, Fulton's vehicles would be parked inside the building, rather than outside, eliminating the eyesore potential.

"Now I'm $80,000 in debt, with a building I can't use." Fulton said when I interviewed him. Asked whether he would continue to pursue the matter, Fulton said, "Oh, yeah. I ain't stopping yet. I'm a fighter, man, I don't ever give up."

Campaign Finance Shot Down in Muskogee

Muskogee Mayor John Tyler Hammons proposed a campaign finance disclosure ordinance this past week that would require all city candidates to report contributions in excess of $200, or face a fine and misdemeanor conviction. The City Council approved a campaign finance ordinance in 2001, but voted it out a few years later.

On January 6th, the City Council's Public Works committee voted 6-2 against the measure. Voting against were Councilors Bob Luttrull, Robert Perkins, David Jones, Jim Ritchey, James Gulley, and Shawn Raper. Mayor Hammons and Councilor David Ragsdale were the only votes in favor; Councilor Jackie Luckey was not present.

From the Muskogee Phoenix:

The councilors voting against the measure did not hesitate in letting Hammons know how much they disliked his proposal.

“I’m very much opposed to it,” Luttrull said.

“On what grounds?” Hammons asked.

“I think it’s just stupid,” Luttrull answered.

Ritchey said Hammons’ repeated messages calling for openness and transparency in the city government implies those now in office have something to hide.

He asked Hammons who is doing what that he thinks is wrong.

Hammons campaigned with such an ordinance as one of his main planks in his platform.

On January 7th, the Muskogee Phoenix, so far not one of Hammons' allies, came out in favor of a campaign finance ordinance, although with modifications from Hammon's proposal.

During the city council's meeting on the 12th, Mayor Hammons brought the measure up again. This time, the vote failed 6-3; Councilman Luckey was present, and voted with Mayor Hammons for the ordinance. Councilman Jones voiced his support of campaign finance disclosure, but opposed Hammons' version.

Since the failure of the ordinance, the Muskogee Phoenix's letter-to-the-editor section has been flooded with support of Mayor Hammons' measure, and disapproval of the council's reaction, councilmembers Luttrull and Ritchey in particular.