(In response to Michael Bates' editorial, "Out with the Old," in the October 23-29 issue of UTW)
In the most recent issue of Urban Tulsa, Michael Bates endorsed Sally Bell for Tulsa County Commissioner. In doing so, he made numerous accusations about my campaign and me that have no factual basis of any kind. Consider the following:
1) He engaged in an absurd attempt to compare my approach to County government to that of the defeated incumbent, Randi Miller. Aside from his blatant partisan political motivation for doing so, it is impossible to comprehend any conceivable factual basis for Mr. Bates' comments. Please consider the following:
a) Prior to the Republican primary, the record was clear that there were problems with Ms. Miller's work ethic and attendance at critical meetings. In sharp contrast, I have no such record - whether in a career as a TV journalist, reporter and anchor or during my service to this City as an aide to former Mayor Bill La Fortune. My 31-year work history has never been questioned in either the private or public sector. Mr. Bates' attempted analogy to portray me as a slacker cannot stand up to scrutiny.
b) Prior to the Republican primary, there were complaints that Ms. Miller was engaging in the business of the County "behind closed doors" in violation of the Open Records Act. When I launched my campaign - months before Ms. Bell even entered the race - I identified transparency and openness in government as one of my principal objectives. I spoke about it at every public opportunity and it has been included in all of my literature from the very beginning of the campaign. Again, Mr. Bates' ignores the facts.
c) Prior to the Republican primary, there were allegations that Ms. Miller had engaged in decision-making based upon insider dealings or contributions to her campaign. Nothing in my background or record could conceivably support any similar allegation.
d) Mr. Bates noted that at least one of Ms. Bell's priorities was "reducing waste and mismanagement throughout county government..." Presumably, this idea is to be contrasted with Randi Miller's record. Again, months before Ms. Bell even announced her candidacy, I had already identified as one of my goals to streamline services and combine resources (such as parks maintenance) between governments in Tulsa County to maximize YOUR tax dollars. Again, Mr. Bates' attempted analogy simply cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2) Mr. Bates states "Keith's sole claim to county government experience is her service as a spokesperson for the 2003 Vision 2025 sales tax campaign. Keith's vision for county government appears to be repeating Vision 2025--putting another county sales tax for amenities (not necessities) before the voters."
To begin with, nothing in my literature or in my public statements supports the assertion that I claim to have been a "spokesperson" for Vision 2025. Rather I have stated that I was "part of the team working for passage of Vision 2025."
After the successful campaign, I worked on the Arena and Convention Center Design Committee, as well as the Vision 2025 Downtown Housing Fund Committee. Clearly, I was more than a mere "spokesperson."
Secondly, my involvement in Vision 2025 has not been my only experience with county government. Throughout my campaign, I have spoken about my extensive experience working with government officials throughout the county on many issues and in connection with a number of projects.
Thirdly, my experience stands in sharp contrast to the total lack of any experience that Ms. Bell has had in public service at any level.
Finally, Mr. Bates has no conceivable basis for the now published fiction that I intend to put to the voters some mythical tax for "amenities." There is nothing in my literature or public statements to support the proposition that I intend to propose such a tax. This is nothing more than Mr. Bates' attempt to unfairly label me as a pro-tax candidate. There are simply no facts to support such a claim. What I have stated publicly is my desire to become an advocate for the County in securing a return of a greater share of our tax dollars that have historically gone to other cities and counties throughout the state. We are a "donor county" and I want to do something about that.
3) Mr. Bates references my endorsement by Bob Dick, a former Republican County Commissioner and then engages in an attack on Mr. Dick using catch phrases like "Dick's machine" or "Bob Dick style empire building." It is again almost impossible to determine the factual basis for these attacks. However, more importantly, Mr. Bates completely misses the real significance of Mr. Dick's endorsement. Throughout my public career, I have been able to cross party lines and engage in bi-partisan discussions and work with various and disparate groups for a common good.
Blind partisanship, like that evidenced so clearly by Mr. Bates' comments, simply no longer works--at any level of government. People in Tulsa County are tired and frustrated with partisan bickering, which has caused and continues to cause long-term problems for this county and state. I have not only been endorsed by Mr. Dick but by numerous life-long Republican business and political leaders including former Mayor Robert La Fortune and Realtor Joe McGraw.
4) Mr. Bates stated that "Karen Keith's idea of having the county government act as some sort of metropolitan government service provider isn't likely to get off the ground." Nothing in my literature or public statements could conceivably support the notion that I have ever espoused the county becoming a "metropolitan service provider." I simply stated that there should be better cooperation between the various city and county governments to "maximize tax dollars." How does the idea of cooperation among elected officials at various levels of government translate into making the County a metropolitan service provider? It clearly does not, except in the chaotic and partisan mind of Mr. Bates.
5) Mr. Bates asserts that at the KRMG debate I engaged in an "awkward attack on Ms. Bell's business record." In fact, I clearly raised the issue of the Oklahoma Department of Labor's six-month investigation of Bells Amusement Park after the tragic death of a teenage boy in a ride accident. It is a matter of record that this report, written by a Republican Commissioner of Labor, cited Bells for 64 separate safety violations.
This investigation and its finding by a Republican Commissioner of Labor go to the heart of Ms. Bell's alleged qualifications to be a County Commissioner--her experience in managing Bells Amusement Park. Leaving aside for a minute the credibility of relating making payroll to actually managing a business, the findings of the State Department of Labor constitute a damaging and devastating critique of the "management" of Bells.
Ms. Bell's principal response was to state that the author of the report, State Labor Commissioner Brenda Reneau, later recanted those findings.
Ms. Reneau has now come forward, in the midst of a campaign that does not involve her politically or personally in any manner, and categorically denied Ms. Bells' attempt at revisionist history. This episode reflects Ms. Bell's alleged expertise in "managing" a business.
6) Mr. Bates refers to my alleged "money belt allies." Who exactly are these so-called "money belt" allies? Aside from the fact that the tone of the phrase is demeaning and unprofessional, it utterly ignores the fact that I have raised money from people of both political parties, every conceivable occupation and socio-economic background. That is the essence of my campaign--I have reached out to the community as a whole, not to any political party or special interest. Mr. Bates' remarks are insulting to the hundreds of my supporters who do not consider themselves as "money belts."
It is a given that there will be differences and disagreements in any political race. However, to resort to misrepresentation and false rumors to promote one's ideas or support for a candidate is simply wrong. Mr. Bates, as his history indicates, would rather rely on catch phrases intended to evoke visceral responses as opposed to examining the facts and engaging in thoughtful and substantive discussion.
Share this article:
|
|
|
|
(1) Karen Keith doesn't seem to get the difference between one's philosophy of government and one's conduct as an elected official. I wrote: "Although Randi Miller is gone, her philosophy of county government is still in the race. The Karen Keith platform is nothing more than the Randi Miller approach to county government with a more appealing façade." To those who think this is unfair, please give an example of a policy decision that Randi Miller made as a county commissioner that Karen Keith would have made differently. It's noteworthy that nowhere in her response does Keith note any policy differences with Miller. Keith sets up a straw man with her subpoints, all of which have to do with conduct, not philosophy or policy. (2) She says that she was "part of the team working for the passage of Vision 2025." Her part was to serve as a spokesperson during the campaign. She debated on behalf of the vote yes campaign at the TulsaNow debate at Harwelden and on KWHB 47. I know because I was there debating on the other side. She also made speeches to civic groups and neighborhoods on behalf of the tax. She debated against Jack Gordon and Jim Hewgley on Fox 23. She may have also been doing work behind the scenes, but her visible role was as someone who spoke on behalf of passing the tax. Keith is on the record as supporting more local tax dollars for river development, which I consider an amenity, not a necessity. She supported the failed river tax increase last year. She has stated at least by implication that she'd support sending another river tax to the voters: "Keith also said she would not oppose using more public funds for infrastructure projects along the Arkansas River. [snip] "'We've already made significant public investment in engineering for the river,' Keith said, 'but more may be needed to make it possible for the private sector to come in and create housing, entertainment and retail that is sensitive to the natural habitat.' "After her speech, Keith clarified her remarks by saying residents would have the final say on any tax-increase proposal." Keith protests at being called a "pro-tax" candidate, but I can't think of any local tax initiative that she's opposed. Someone let me know if I've overlooked one. Furthermore, would Karen Keith unequivocally commit that she would not send a tax for amenities to the voters? Sally Bell has. She has danced around this issue, by saying that the final decision belongs to the voters. But the voters can only give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever package the County Commissioners choose to send to them. Tax votes are expensive: Expensive for the county election board, expensive for the proponents, and expensive and time consuming for the opponents. Putting a tax on the ballot is not a neutral act. Surely Keith understands that. At the All Souls debate Keith said that her most important platform plank is "economic development for this region," citing Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County. Keith appears to believe that government-funded amenities are the key to economic growth. At the Red Fork debate, Keith blamed the failure of the river tax in part on the delay in announcing that Celine Dion would be performing at the BOK Center. She also blamed the state of Tulsa's streets on failed tax initiatives. Tulsa has passed every tax initiative for streets since 1980. The only taxes we've turned down have been for amenities. Karen Keith seems to believe money for amenities brings prosperity which brings revenues to pay for streets. In reality, you'd make much more progress on streets if you put the funds directly to that purpose, instead of investing it in amenities and hoping for a marginal improvement in revenues over time. At the same debate, she said that if the river tax were put back on the ballot, it would be a different package, and it would pass. Who is going to put that tax back on the ballot, if not her? Over and over again, Keith has cited the Vision 2025 tax package as the model for progress, as the source of our economic growth. (3) Regarding the Bob Dick endorsement, Keith is either disingenuous or staggeringly unaware of Dick's legacy as a county commissioner. Again, I would challenge her to specify any major decision made by Bob Dick as Commissioner which she would have made differently. If I were blindly partisan, I would not have been as critical as I have of Dick's record, nor would I have called for someone to step up to challenge Dick for his 2006 re-election bid. (4) Here Keith contradicts the point she made in item (1)(d). Having the County take over municipal park maintenance is an example of "having the county government act as some sort of metropolitan government service provider." (5) I stand by my statement. Keith did attack Bell's business record at the Kiwanis debate, and if you listen to what she said (I think you can still find it on the KRMG website), I think you'll agree it was awkward. She stumbled and stammered through it. It was a stark contrast to the smooth way she reads prepared text. (6) I've written many times about the "Money Belt" phenomenon, for example, in my July 30 column on the Collective Strength survey of 1,000 Tulsans. I was writing about the regional differences on agreement with statements like "City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs" and "I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out." "The gap between Midtown and south Tulsa on the one hand and north, west and east Tulsa is not surprising. Maps of election results showing support for various tax increases, of where appointees to city boards and commissions live, and of those selected to the PLANiTULSA Advisers and Partners reveal a common pattern. "I've labeled it the 'Money Belt'--a band of Tulsa's wealthiest neighborhoods running south-southeast from downtown through Maple Ridge, Utica Square, and Southern Hills then fanning out into the gated communities of south Tulsa. Regarding Keith, I wrote: "Keith and her midtown money belt allies appear to think it was a foolproof recipe for passing funding packages, but as we saw last October, in the failed attempt to pass a countywide sales tax for river projects, its time has come and gone." That statement doesn't preclude the possibility that she has non-Money Belt allies, but by reason of her geography, mindset, and major contributors, Keith clearly belongs to the Money Belt. By the way, the Urban Tulsa staff requested copies of both candidates' ethics reports. The Bell campaign supplied her report. The Keith campaign did not even reply to the request.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Karen Keith, you want more tax dollars and you mention keeping the temporary 4 to Fix and Vision 2025 in place as a neccessity. I applaud you for not wanting Tulsa to be a donor county. In one of debates you emphasized downtown Tulsa. I think too much emphasis has been put into downtown Tulsa. Among your list of supporters I find some "good ol' boys" that like insider deals. And with all of your campaign dollars I'm afraid that you may be "bought".
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised Mr. Bates could hear anything at the KRMG debate above and amid the rudeness of Ms. Bell's (grown) sons who jeered, snickered, and giggled disruptively like a couple of pubescent hyenas at the table in front of mine. In addition to experience, empathy, and intelligence, Karen Keith, if elected, will also bring dignity and honor to the position of County Commissioner - District 2. Ayn Robbins
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|