Safe City Proposal Trashed by Media

Updated: The leftist-fan-boy Tulsa World Editorial Board in an unsigned editorial today, attacked the recent “Safe City” proposal and ignored procedural gymnastics of a City Council majority to defeat it, asserting that it “would only instill fear in all immigrants, divide residents and make our city more intolerant.” Who says we are intolerant?

The rejection of Dist. 9 Councilor and Mayoral Candidate Jayme Fowler’s Safe City ordinance, “which sought to prevent City dollars from being used to fund illegal immigrants, was voted down and denied a final reading by a council vote of 6-2. This unusual procedure waved both Council and City Charter rules. Said another way, the majority of Tulsa City Councilors are now lawbreakers,” as this publican covered March 14 here.

We must assume from their pompous pontification that the Tulsa World Editorial Board supports tragic death, enslavement, rape, torture, and profiteering by criminal cartels on America’s Southern Border as President Joe Biden imports more uneducated, sickly and unskilled welfare clients willing to vote for socialist policies and drug traffickers, thus insuring the complete destruction of the United States as we know it. How sad the Editorial Board doesn’t understand the difference between legal immigrants and criminal invaders.

Mayoral Candidate Fowler said, “Our services, shelters, and tax dollars are meant for Tulsans and should be safeguarded. You don’t wait until a fire is raging to install smoke detectors. This migrant crisis is spreading from city to city, and this ordinance would ensure Tulsa is shielded from it.”

First let’s focus on the procedure that defeated the “Safe (we would add sane) City” ordinance. Tuesday March 19, Councilor Grant Miller wrote to Jack Blair, City Attorney and Parliamentarian, the following:

Dear Mr. Blair,

The foundational principles of our City Charter, established in 1908, dictate the procedural integrity and democratic process essential to Tulsa’s governance. Specifically, the Charter prescribes the waiver of its provisions in extraordinary circumstances, emphasizing the critical nature of such actions to address genuine emergencies promptly.

However, during the vote on Item 6.h. at the last Council meeting, on an ordinance introduced by Councilor Fowler, facilitated by Councilor Bellis’s motion, we witnessed a departure from these principles. The ordinance, lacking an emergency clause, did not justify the waiver of our procedural safeguards designed for immediate crises.

This situation highlights several procedural concerns:

1. Violation of Required Discussion Under Robert’s Rules and Council Rules: Directly proceeding to a vote after the motion to “Waive both the charter and Council Rules and consider item 6.h. on first reading,” without allowing for the required discussion, contravenes both Robert’s Rules of Order and our Council Rules. Our rules specifically state, “The waiver of this charter provision is a serious action that must not be taken lightly. Such an action should always be preceded by a deliberate and full consideration by the Council.” No discussion at all was had as required by Council Rules. This lapse in procedure denied council members and the public the opportunity for critical debate and deliberation, fundamental to our democratic process.

2. Insufficient Public Notice and Engagement: The Council’s failure to inform the public that it might act on an item during its first reading goes against Council Rules, undermining public trust and limiting meaningful community participation. According to Council Rules Article V Section A: “Public input is allowed on all items except items continued from a previous meeting where public input was received on the item, items listed under First Reading (unless the Council notifies the public it may act on the item), Public Comments (except for the individual who requested the item), or the Mayor’s presentation of the Budget (since public input will be received at a future public hearing).”

To simplify to the relevant portion: “Public input is allowed on all items except…items listed under First Reading (unless the Council notifies the public it may act on the item)” (emphasis added). The Council did not notify the public it may act on the item. In fact, that item does not appear on the agenda posted for the meeting 03/13/2024 as of writing this letter five days later. Additionally, public input was taken from one individual who, suspiciously, was there for public comment on first reading despite the fact that comment is almost never taken on first reading and there was no notification public comment would be taken. Not surprisingly the person was vehemently against the ordinance and that was the only commentor. The lack of procedure deprived other residents who may want to speak in favor of the opportunity to do so.

3. Improper Consolidation of Motions Contrary to Robert’s Rules: The motion that conflated the waiver of both Council Rules and the City Charter into one motion presents a clear procedural misstep as outlined by Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules advise against combining distinct substantive motions because it can lead to confusion and complicates the voting process, preventing members from expressing their preferences on each issue clearly. Specifically, Robert’s Rules recommend the “Division of a Question” for motions that contain multiple, independent parts, allowing each to be debated and decided upon separately. The combined motion in question failed to respect this principle, obscuring the clarity and specificity required for procedural integrity and informed decision-making. Council Rules and the City Charter are distinct bodies which should be considered separately. Had they been considered separately, it may also have eliminated skipping the important council rule that requires the vote to “[b]e preceded by a deliberate and full consideration by the Council,” something that didn’t occur at this meeting.

The conduct of these proceedings not only displays a disregard for established governance norms but also suggests a troubling readiness to bypass democratic principles for convenience. This is more than a procedural oversight; it represents a significant deviation from the principles of transparency, accountability, and public participation that should underpin our city’s governance.

Given the gravity of these procedural discrepancies, I urge your immediate intervention. Upholding the integrity of Tulsa’s governance demands a thorough examination and correction of these breaches. It is our duty to the residents of Tulsa to ensure that Council operations are characterized by transparency, fairness, and unwavering adherence to our City Charter and Council Rules.


Grant Miller, City Councilman, District 5

By their words and action we must assume, the six Councilors who opposed the Safe City proposal and the Tulsa World Editorial Board support the “complete usurpation” of citizen rights and the granting of rights and taxpayer funded government benefits to illegal criminal invaders. They obviously don’t care that; jobs are being stolen, local social services are overwhelmed and tax-paying families are less safe in their own homes. Maybe next this unholy alliance will counter propose renaming Tulsa Biden’s Oklahoma Blueberry.

The City of Tulsa will hold general elections for mayor, city auditor, and city council on August 27, 2024. The filing deadline for this election is June 12, 2024. All nine City Council seats will be up for election.

Update: In related news today, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is urging Oklahoma legislators to act quickly this session to pass a measure allowing state law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants.

Also today, Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, issued a statement regarding legislation to secure the border of Oklahoma against the ongoing illegal immigration crisis.

“The failed policies of the Biden Administration have turned every state into a border state,” McCall said. “Oklahoma is a law and order state, and should be the last place illegal immigrants want to settle when they cross over the border. For those reasons, and in light of recent court rulings regarding Senate Bill 4 out of Texas, I am immediately introducing legislation to secure the borders of Oklahoma in the same fashion as our neighbors to the south. Oklahoma will stand ready to defend its borders from all who would enter our country illegally.”

Don’t tell the Tulsa City Council or the Tulsa World… it is news outside their blueberry views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *