Month: July 2018

Bridge at about 86th and Lewis into now closed Southern Villa Trailer Park where relatives lived for over 40 years.  ID’d by Greg Morris, Robert Franklin and Nancy Oswald.  We’ll have a fun Sandite lunch.

Having spent ten years as the first city councilor from Tulsa’s District 4 I do try to stay informed and was pleasantly surprised to learn that four qualified candidates are seeking election for the open seat in the upcoming August 28 nonpartisan primary.  I found information about them and a link to each campaign website here on Sustainable Tulsa’s site.  After reading the information about each I became even more uncertain about who would earn my vote so a friend and I decided to take matters into our own hands and host sequential neighborhood gatherings for all four.

After contacting each candidate, by the end of the following day we had scheduled Juan Miret followed by Kara Joy McKee on Thursday, July 19 and Daniel Regan followed by Barbra Kingsley on Wednesday, July 26, allowing each an hour to make their pitch and answer questions.  I learned later that there were candidate forum opportunities that I could have attended, but as a frequent candidate myself I was never fond of those events because you spent most of your time listening to the other candidates and thought each would appreciate having quality time to interact with several voters.  We had about fifteen voters each night with half that number attending both nights.

The four hours of local democracy at its best made it no easier for me to choose a candidate to support, EXCEPT I told myself in advance that, barring a clear favorite emerging, I would vote for the one who, without prompting, volunteered the most passion for improving public transportation in Tulsa.  Let me explain why.

Mayors everywhere are expected to fix most everything that is wrong, but what is actually within their responsibility is determined by the laws of their state and city.  Based on my fourteen years as an elected official with the City of Tulsa here are the primary functions of our city government and my brief evaluation of how well they work in Tulsa:

Airport:  we have one and you can fly lots of places on several airlines.

Cultural, Athletic, Convention and Entertainment Facilities:  we have the BOK, OneOk Stadium, the PAC, our convention center and Gilcrease Museum, pretty nice for our size city.

Police, Fire and Emergency Medical:  call 911 and well-trained professionals respond.

Floodplain and Stormwater Management:  we have a model system that was established after the 1984 flood and functions to prevent flooding like that which devastated our city in the 70s and 80s (knock on wood).

Land Use Development and Zoning:  we got it and it’s the rare homeowner who has to worry about a Sonic going in next door.

Municipal Court:  I’ve paid my share of tickets there and our judges are competent and honest.

Parks and Recreation:  forget the TV series, I love Woodward, Mohawk, River Parks and can’t wait for the Gathering Place.

Refuse Disposal:  it gets picked up on the appointed day with recycling to boot.

Water and Sewer:  turn on the tap and there it is, likely better for you than the bottled stuff you choose to pay for (so my dentist says); then you flush and it’s gone.

Streets, Expressways and Traffic Engineering:  I don’t like orange barrels either, but asphalt and pavement beat the gravel and dirt roads that still serve cities elsewhere on our planet, plus in midtown we’re 15 minutes from everywhere.

My point is we may have our gripes here and there and concerns with costs and choices for some of them, but fairly rated all of the above deserve at least passing grades and most much better than that.  The one exception for Tulsa city services, fairly rated, is our public transportation system.  I intend no disrespect for or disparagement of the work done by the good people employed by Tulsa Transit.  The reality is that Tulsa, for decades, has grossly under-funded public transportation and the result is it just doesn’t work well by any reasonable measure.

Linda and I lived four years in Philadelphia without a car and became very familiar with its transit system.  It had its problems and still does, but we were able to lead a pretty normal life, getting to work, school, shopping and entertainment seven days a week.  Just like turning on the tap, flushing the toilet, or dialing 911, the buses, trolleys and subway cars kept coming and got us where we needed and wanted to be; I don’t recall ever having to check a schedule.

Try to do that here in Tulsa; seriously, put your car keys away for a day or two and you will see what I mean.  Here’s how Linda and I would have managed our day on Friday, and we’re retired.

1. Walk a block from our house to catch the 112 northbound at Lewis and 17^th at 6:24 am. Get off at Freeway Café at 3^rd and Rockford about 6:34 am to meet friends for breakfast at 7.
2. Breakfast ends at 8 so hopefully catch the 112 northbound at 8:04, if missed catch it at 8:49. Arrive at 3^rd and Boulder to collect granddaughter from her mother’s work a few minutes later.
3. Walk a block to downtown transit station and catch the 112 south bound at 8:25 am arriving back at 17^th and Lewis about 8:45 am.
4. Decide to see movie at Circle Cinema at 2:20 pm so catch 112 northbound again at 1:54 pm getting off at 3^rd and Lewis where it heads downtown, then walk a block to the Circle. Movie ends two hours later so catch the 112 southbound at 4:54 pm back at 3^rd and Lewis arriving about 5:08 at 17^th Street.

Not too shabby, but very fortunate the 112 uses 3^rd Street to access downtown.  Now let’s pretend I work a 7-3 shift at St. Francis hospital.

I catch the 112 southbound about 6:25 am, a block from my house and get off at 51^st and Harvard about 6:38 am, hoping we arrive before the 210 southbound connects at 6:46 am, which gets me to St. Francis at 6:56 am, not too bad if I can clock in by 7 am.  If I don’t have any margin for error, then I start my trip 45 minutes earlier because these buses run 45 minutes apart.

To get home I catch a 3:13 pm bus easily connecting with the 112 by 3:54 pm and get home an hour after I began.   If my shift changes to a 3-11, I can make the 3 pm start by catching the 112 before 2 pm, but the last bus home that night leaves St. Francis at 11:05 pm and I get to walk the last half mile home.   I live close to several routes; try it where you live.

There’s another aspect to this—family economics.  Read Sunday’s article in the World about Tulsa’s high eviction rate.   An attorney handling evictions for landlords is quoted saying, “Nobody making $11 an hour can afford an apartment in Tulsa. Not on their own, anyway. They just can’t afford it.”

What does an article about evictions have to do with public transit?  These same individuals and families being evicted must also struggle with affording transportation, i.e. car payments and insurance and repairs.  This harsh reality, in my opinion, explains why around 25% of Oklahoma’s drivers are uninsured.  Imagine what a difference it would make in many families’ lives if they could get by with one less car or no car at all.  We did that for many years and the money we would have spent on operating a car went to purchasing a house.

Also a large percentage of Tulsans cannot physically operate a car—yet they get to pay sales and property taxes to maintain the streets we car owners drive and park on.  In cities where public transit works a huge financial burden is lifted from many and their lives are greatly enhanced.   I made these arguments repeatedly in many settings with Tulsa policy-makers during my fourteen years at City Hall, mostly falling on deaf ears because, I think without exception, none of my colleagues had ever been transportation dependent, as I had chosen to be earlier in my life, and just couldn’t get it.

I suspect all four Council District 4 candidates actually do get it, or readily would if challenged to, but the one who volunteered his experience and passion with improving public transportation in Tulsa was Daniel Regan.  He’s getting my vote.

As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location, which is somewhere along the 112 route.

After proudly critiquing Kevin Stitt’s education platform in my last post cleverly titled “Stitt Strikes Out” I looked forward to more of the same reviewing the platform of his run-off opponent Mick Cornett.  While I don’t feel defeated by any means, this exercise has not been nearly as much fun.  First I struggled to come up with a clever name, trying hard for a meaningful alliteration playing off the musical instrument but finally settled on imagery that captures my more substantive frustration, namely that his website really says very little about his plans for education.  Here are his statements with each followed by my comments:

“Mick’s mother was a teacher and he understands the importance education plays in growing our economy, promoting a stronger workforce and creating better jobs that keep our kids and grandkids here.”  I can’t argue with a nicely stated platitude that invokes a mother for authority.

“Mick believes teachers deserve a raise. He would like to see salaries increased to the regional average with competitive pay increases for STEM teachers.”  Unlike Stitt who said he supports a raise for teachers but didn’t support the funding, Cornett remained initially noncommittal on the raise and funding package but in the end spoke out against the referendum veto effort.  He recognizes that the raise is a big deal and new revenue is needed to fund it.  But what’s this about singling out STEM teachers?  As a former math teacher I appreciate the thought; as a student of economics I understand the logic; but as a lawyer I don’t know that the facts are in evidence; and as one who appreciates the importance of well-rounded education including languages, humanities, the social sciences and fine arts, I question the wisdom of what this implies. 

“With advances in technology, education is a lifelong endeavor. Mick wants to raise the expectations for education in our state and create a culture that empowers families and individuals—regardless of age or income— to seek the best educational outcomes.”  Is this more platitudes or some code words for school choice?  Or maybe the “income” reference means he’s a fellow traveler with me wanting to assure equality of educational resources available to students in all districts.

To his credit Cornett has served as mayor of Oklahoma City for 14 years and has faced the reality of balancing budgets, assuring adequate revenues and making tough choices in a political environment.  Perhaps it is that experience that has taught him to keep his positions on issues, if he has them, “close to his vest” until absolutely necessary because there is somewhat less substance in his education platform than in Stitt’s.

As a side note, showing my turnpike rivalry mentality from 20 years of service as an elected official in Tulsa, I do want to point out that Oklahoma City’s MAPS for Kids funding, while certainly laudable, does not indicate greater support for education by the city’s political leadership in Oklahoma City than in Tulsa.  The Tulsa County Vision 2020 program that build the BOK Center included funding for area schools, and, more importantly, the Tulsa Public Schools have enjoyed a facilities construction and renovation renaissance since the mid-1990s when Tulsa’s Mayor Susan Savage led the campaign for the first major bond issue in over 20 years.  By contrast MAPS for Kids, as I recall, was conceived after Oklahoma City voters had rejected school district bond issue efforts.  The legacy of that success continues today as shown by comparing Tulsa’s sinking fund revenue, $69 million for FY 2017, which is almost double Oklahoma City’s $37 million despite Tulsa being the slightly smaller district in student population.

Because Cornett says little about education policy, let’s look at another area:  “Our Health” as he calls it.  Here’s his statement:

“Mick believes we must prioritize health and wellness to reduce medical costs and live up to our full potential as a state. Mick led Oklahoma City through a transformational shift in its approach to obesity. Relying on individual responsibility and improving the built environment, Oklahoma City’s health statistics have improved in nearly every measurement.  Mick wants to create a state that will attract the top doctors and medical care, and he wants all Oklahomans to have access to quality emergency care and hospitals… including rural areas.”

Nice aspirations and vague statements but, like his education platform, short on specifics.  Also he cleanly omits the most significant state issue that affects Oklahomans’ health, namely Medicaid expansion.  You see there’s evidence that the health of Oklahomans is getting worse, specifically that life expectancy for women is now falling.  There is also evidence that fewer people will die when more are covered with health insurance, a result that will increase life expectancy and means better health for those covered.

So how is Oklahoma City doing in achieving a high rate of its people being covered by health insurance?  Apparently not so well because the most recent (2014) State of the State’s Health publication by the Oklahoma Department of Health lists Oklahoma County as having a 22.3% rate of uninsured, making it the second worst of Oklahoma’s 77 counties.  We can conclude then that accepting Medicaid expansion is one concrete step that would improve the health of people in Oklahoma County and the rest of the state.

Where does Cornett stand on Medicaid expansion?  Predictably he’s against it.  But who needs health insurance when you can live in Oklahoma City and enjoy a “transformational approach to obesity” and “improvement in the built environment”, both sure to stop that cancer and reverse your heart disease.

As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location.

Surprise, AZ, Cactus League home field for the Royals and Rangers, ID by Mitchell Kelough.

Having missed seeing the Yankees play the Blue Jays due to a dental malfunction while on vacation, I have baseball on my mind.  Oklahoma primary races decided last month included contests involving the subjects of two of my recent posts, Todd Lamb and Chuck Strohm, and each lost in primaries for governor and state representative respectively.  The losses were a surprise since Lamb is the sitting Lieutenant Governor and Strohm was the incumbent.  It motivates me to do more posts about positions advocated by some running for office this election cycle.  I’ll begin with the Republicans still in the running for governor, the position that proposes our state’s budget within which K-12 education is the largest expense.

Having done the campaign and election thing several times myself, I appreciate those who are willing to stand for election when their primary motivation is to improve our society and I believe Kevin Stitt falls in that category.  I also admire Mr. Stitt’s business success as it has been reported to us.  I suspect he worked very hard to learn what was needed to be successful in servicing mortgages, the area of business in which he chose to compete.  He must have learned it well since he was and is successful.  It is puzzling then to see that his position statements about education are shallow and disingenuous.  Here is what he says on his campaign website interspersed with my commentary.

 

Reforming Our Education System

Oklahoma leads the nation in cuts to education funding. Our teachers are underpaid and leaving the state in droves. Too much money fails to reach the classrooms and some school districts have resorted to four-day school weeks. Our leaders are failing our students, our families, and jeopardizing our future. Enough is enough. I will prioritize students and funding for the classroom and invest in the teachers that make a difference every day. It’s time to restore respect to teachers!

His generalities overwhelm me; I await the specifics.

1. Raise teacher pay so that it matches the pay of teachers in our six-state footprint.With 95 percent of Oklahoma children attending public schools, we must ensure those on the front lines of teaching our children receive the support they need to succeed.

Let’s get this straight.  Stitt’s lead off issue is that he wants to raise teacher pay, which is exactly what the 2018 legislature and Governor Fallin did, including stepping up to fund the cost.  Where was Stitt when the going was tough?  Just like now defeated Representative Strohm, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.  He was for the raises but against the funding—now that’s visionary leadership.  STRIKE ONE.

 

2. Require line item budgeting for the Education Department.With added transparency and accountability, we will be able to better force more education dollars into the classroom room from the $2.5 billion that goes to the Department of Education.  

For “transparency” to be helpful the user must know how to read the state’s education budget, which apparently Mr. Stitt does not—or he hasn’t bothered to do so.  As required by Senate Bill 1600 here is the Oklahoma State Board of Education’s FY 2019 Budget:

That $2.278 billion under FY19 at the top is what goes directly into the state aid formula and then is budgeted by Oklahoma’s 500+ school districts.  Every one of those districts has a line item budget and their finances are fully transparent and audited annually.  Does Mr. Stitt plan to insert himself in 500 separate budgeting processes to “force” more dollars into the classroom.  By the way, note the $400 million increase in this amount over FY18—that’s the funding, which Mr. Stitt opposed, for the teacher pay raise which goes “into the classroom room”.

Then there are the line items of $33 million for textbooks, which I’m pretty sure are headed for classrooms, and $487 million for teacher and support employee health insurance—part of school employee compensation that Mr. Stitt says he favors but doesn’t want to fund, which also are budgeted by school districts, not the State Department of Education.  Those amounts are followed by $95 million for “School Activities”, a hodge-podge of various mostly state or federal mandated expenditures, the largest of which is $32 million for the Teacher Retirement System that is actually part of teacher compensation; here is the detail with citations to the mandates:

The two $3.5 million line items at the bottom are each legislative mandates, one for the retirement system which is effectively compensation and the other an incentive fund to reduce the number of school districts.  That leaves the $16 million for operation of the State Department of Education itself that Mr. Stitt might play with—a whopping one half of one percent of the almost $3 billion OSBE budget.  The line items are there and they are mandated; and they are managed by elected school boards across this state.  Mr. Stitt’s proposed “line item budgeting” and “transparency” are just cover-ups for the fact that he hasn’t done the hard work to understand what’s going on.

STRIKE TWO

 

3. Review ways to empower local communities to best fund the needs of their local schools. I love what we are seeing in Western Oklahoma where energy development is taking schools off the state funding formula and allowing for higher teacher pay. But we still have many counties without these commodities. I like the policy proposed by a conservative group of House legislators to give schools the flexibility to use part of their current property tax revenue on teacher pay instead of being restricted to buildings and infrastructure.

I’ve written repeatedly about this, first showing that the well-intentioned state question to allow school districts flexibility with their building funds is much ado about nothing, and most recently critiquing Todd Lamb’s proposal to require all districts to expend at least 65% on instruction.  Many school districts in Oklahoma, whether because they are off the state aid formula due to their “commodities” income (gross production tax) or because they enjoy a property tax base valuation per student that is well above the state average (like Pryor at three times the average due to Google’s investments), already have the ability to use their good fortune to enhance teacher pay and put more resources into the classroom.  Apparently Mr. Stitt is aware of several that are doing so.

What Mr. Stitt apparently is not aware of is that for the vast majority of Oklahoma school districts whose valuations per student are near or below the state average, his proposal does nothing, nil, nada.  His proposal essentially tells local school boards that they would have plenty of funding for their classrooms if they would just buckle down and make their communities a lot richer.  In fact, in FY2019 those school districts will have more funding for teacher pay raises through the state aid formula, thanks to Governor Fallin and the 2018 Legislature, but no thanks to Mr. Stitt.

STRIKE THREE

His website has two remaining education policy proposals, but in baseball you only get three strikes—I’m done.

As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo location AND its relation to baseball.

My inspiration for starting this blog two years ago came from my earlier review of the sloppy work done by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs when they were leading the charge to eliminate all of Oklahoma’s public employee pensions so I like to update how the largest plan, Oklahoma Teachers Retirement, is doing from time to time.  Last year I wrote in opposition to efforts by legislators to greatly diminish the benefits for new teachers as a cynical way to push them into less efficient individual retirement accounts.  Fortunately, that effort failed and was not revived this year.

The pleasant reality is that recent changes to OTRS have placed it on a clear path to being mostly, if not fully, funded by 2034.   That is in dramatic contrast to the federal Social Security retirement plan which the recently released 2017 Trustees’ report projects will exhaust its trust fund resulting in reduced benefit payments as early as 2034.  In recognition of this dramatic divergence of the two pensions I am grateful to receive, I wrote a post that was picked up by the online newspaper NonDoc.com which you can read here.

This is something Oklahomans can be proud of and teachers thankful for—our legislature has set in place a combination of benefits moderation, namely making it difficult for unfunded COLA’s to be approved, and dedicated funding supplements, namely 5% of some major revenue sources, that assure the state will keep its promises to current retirees and teachers and maintain a competitive retirement plan that will help recruit and retain teachers in the future.  This is worth both thanking legislators and encouraging them to stay the course.

By contrast Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation, led by supposed fiscal conservative James Inhofe, have known as long as each have been in office that Social Security is on a collision course that, the longer ignored, will inflict much pain on either or both of workers who will be asked to pay more and retirees who will see benefits slashed.  There have been several “commissions”, dating back to 1981, that have made thoughtful recommendations, always advising that acting sooner than later will lessen the pain.  Yet Inhofe and the rest have managed to do nothing about this greatest fiscal challenge facing our nation.

So I conclude:  It was the best of pensions, it was the worst of pensions, it was born in the age of wisdom, it was buried in the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, our grandchildren had nothing before them, we were all going to retire happily, we were all going to work till we die – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities (think Inhofe) insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of hypocrisy only.

As always lunch is on me for the first to ID the photo (a bust of FDR whose vision brought financial security to millions in their old age) location.