Your OKC City Charter Amendment Voter Guide is Here!
The 2020 General Election is undoubtedly the most critical election not only in our Nation’s history, but for our city as well. Oklahoma City has long been known as
the “buckle of the Bible-belt” and the capitol of the “most conservative state in the Nation.”
The 9 propositions to amend the OKC Charter threaten, we believe, the very freedom and liberty that has given us that well-deserved title. While Oklahoma City has
experienced a renaissance of late, any such transformation must not come at the expense of abandoning
our core principles. We believe these propositions do just that.
Amendments to the City Charter should be taken with the same soberness of mind and level of caution as amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Any efforts to do so much
be guided by the same guiding principles upon which the original charter was founded. With that in mind, when we carefully considering our recommendations, we were guided by two fundamental principles.
First, this is the primary governing document upon which the entire foundation
of our city government rests. Changing that foundation should be made with the utmost care and trepidation. Only those changes which are deemed absolutely necessary to continue to guarantee the protection of the life, health and property of the citizens should
be considered. It is through the seemingly innocent trifling of our founding documents that freedom and liberty is slowly lost. Once it is lost, it is nearly impossible to get it back.
That leads us to
reason number two as to why any such change should be undertaken with the greatest amount of scrutiny: it is very hard to undo these kinds of changes once the changes have been made. It is a lengthy process to amend the city charter and any such amendment
requires a vote of the people. It’s not as simple as amending an ordinance, which can be done by the Council itself. Justifiably, this is, and should be, a heavy lift.
Even if the proposed amendment seems innocuous, unless
we can see an overwhelmingly compelling reason for its
passage, we will recommend a NO vote.
With that said, our recommendations are as follows:
Proposal 1: We are AGAINST this proposal
• On the whole, this amendment is innocuous. However, oversimplification of legal language is dangerous. While the proposed amendment does read much simpler, the complexity
of the existing language allows for protection from potential loopholes. Given the highly qualified City Manager and General Counsel, it should not be an issue for the existing language to be understood clearly. Whereas, over-simplifying the language allows
for legal loopholes in the future.
• They are striking out the pronouns “he” and “she” from the charter and replacing them with “the person” or “the candidate.” This is straight out of the leftist indoctrination
handbook. There are only TWO genders. Unless we plan on electing asexual space aliens to office, this change MUST be rejected.
• They are moving up the date for the city’s general election ONE MONTH, from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Given how the focus of the
electorate over the holiday season is anywhere but politics, this represents a clever attempt to allow for far less realistic vetting time for City Council and Mayoral candidates. We already have enough of a problem with vetting given that our elections are
“non-partisan”, meaning neither major political party are involved (which has allowed Marxists to sneak in unopposed), with the dates that currently exist. If anything,
the election dates should be pushed back to April to allow for MORE time, not less.
Proposal 2: We are AGAINST this proposal
• We understand what the Charter Review Committee said about OKC’s current 3-year requirement being ruled unconstitutional by the courts and over-ruled by State law,
which only requires a minimum 6-month residency. However, they have not stated what time-frame has been deemed acceptable by the courts.
In our opinion, this information should be made known, and the residency requirements should reflect the maximum amount of time allowed by law. Anything else puts
OKC in grave danger of “carpetbagging” leftists moving to OKC and running for City Council or Mayor. We already have enough problems vetting the candidates we have. We don’t need anything that would make it harder.
Proposal 3: We are AGAINST this proposal
• This proposal violates our guiding principles as set above. We cannot see any overwhelmingly compelling reason to extend the time allotted for the calling of a special
election from 15 to 30 days.
Proposal 4: We are AGAINST this proposal.
• This would allow the Council to call a meeting at any time they choose which would make it far more challenging for citizens, or watchdog groups like ours, to monitor
council meetings in order to hold our elected official’s accountable. Holding meetings on Tuesdays does not cause any hindrance to carrying out City business. This should be rejected.
Proposal 5: We are AGAINST this proposal.
• This amendment represents a violation of the separation of powers in a Council-Manager form of government and allows the Mayor or Council to put undue influence
upon the City Manager for the termination of city employees which fall solely under the control of the Manager. Regardless of whether the current Mayor our Councilmen/women would engage in such activity is irrelevant. The ability to do so
should be absolutely forbidden. It also potentially removes criminal penalties for such influence by changing the language from, “shall be guilty of,” to, “may be
Proposal 6: We are AGAINST on this proposal.
• This proposal violates our guiding principles as mentioned above. It is already clear in the existing Oklahoma City Code that the City Manager, Municipal Counselor,
City Auditor, and Municipal judges serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council. We don’t know if this is just an attempt to consolidate
language that is currently spread out throughout the OKC Municipal Code or if it’s an attempt to take what is in the OKC Municipal Code and make it a permanent part
of the City Charter. We cannot imagine how the existing language has hampered city business. Until the city can prove that the existing language serves
as a significant barrier to said business, we fail to see the purpose of this amendment.
Proposal 7: We are AGAINST this proposal.
• Once again, this is an effort to remove masculine and feminine pronouns from the City Charter by removing “Councilman/men” and “Councilwoman/women” and replacing
it with “Councilmember.” Language matters. There is no reason for this proposal except to capitulate to the LGBTQ+ agenda.
Proposal 8: We are AGAINST this proposal.
• This is perhaps the
most terrifying of all the proposals because it authorizes nearly unlimited power for the Mayor and City Council. This language would add the words “safety” and “welfare” to the legal justification necessary for ordinances whose current justifications
are, “to protect health, life, and property.” This is legally inconsistent with the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitution, as well as the stated goal of any Republic to protect “life, liberty, and property.” There is no legal definition provided for what would constitute
“safety” and “welfare” under this proposal, meaning they could pass an ordinance stating, “in order to protect the ‘welfare and safety’ of the citizens it shall be illegal for you to have more than 10 people in your home,” or anything else they feel like making
Of all of the proposals …
THIS ONE MUST BE DEFEATED!!!
Proposal 9: We are AGAINST this proposal.
• This proposal violates our guiding principles as mentioned above. This proposal appears to set clearer rules to ensure that the public trust placed in city employees
and officers is not abused through access to special favors and things of value from any privately-owned business conducting business with the city. While this is already illegal, the language in this proposal closes a couple of loopholes which could be exploited
while keeping certain benefits available for city employees normally available to them in the performance of their ordinary duties. There is a question, however, as to whether the current language allows sufficient enforcement of this already existing clause,
which could make amendment 9 necessary as a remedial measure. Additionally, any such potential abuse of public trust could, and should, be prohibited by prudent oversight of the various department heads. Unless the city can demonstrate an overwhelmingly compelling
reason for this amendment, we cannot justify supporting it.
Use this information and knowledge to engage your fellow citizens in discussion and debate about these amendments.
MANY people have no idea that they will be on the ballot. It is up to us to help draw attention to them so that this attempt to permanently move OKC to the Left will
fail. If we remain silent, the guilt will fall on us. Help us lead the charge!
Keep the Fight! Keep the Faith!