The Oklahoma State Capital

Over the past few months it has been my privilege to attend many different council meetings in various communities around the Oklahoma City area. I can not help but notice and recognize the key differences in the role each council plays in each respective community.

In Edmond, the council serves as the review body for the planning commission. Administrative items are approved within seconds of being read. If no citizen opposes the planning commission's ruling, the council meeting is usually over within 45 minutes. If citizens are willing to appeal to the council concerning a planning commission ruling, they are directed by Mayor Rudkin to briefly address the issue and to state only unique items that have not previously been addressed. The process is fast, efficient, and effective. Never do citizens speak up from the audience before being recognized as a speaker.

In Mid-West City, Mayor Reed maintains a tight hold on the flow of the meeting. He sees that pages of agenda items are quickly approved. In the event of the dreaded executive session, he has the chambers cleared, stating the council will not return from executive session and that the audience should leave. On Tuesday, Oct 10, he cleared a six page agenda in less than fifteen minutes. This included a ten minute exchange with a citizen who had filed a tort claim.

Oklahoma City councilors seem to plow routinely through an agenda the size of a small book in one to two hours, during which time they adjourn and call to order several different governing bodies.

As a new reporter to each of these cities, I was amazed. For you see, I have been accustomed to dedicating my complete first and third Tuesday evenings of every month to attending Guthrie council meetings. Guthrie City Hall has become a second home to me as I have watched and waited as Guthrie councilors plow through their one and one-half page agenda at the pace of a crippled snail. Time and again the clock approaches eleven p.m. while councilors and city staff are still trying to complete their duties. Time and again, a fitting headline for council activities could be summed up as "Late, Late, Late Meeting." As a matter of fact, that was the headline which accompanied the following picture on June 20th.

Why is the Guthrie council so different? Is their method good or bad? While life is much simpler for the councilors of Edmond, MWC, and OKC, who spend a brief time addressing the needs and concerns of their citizens, are they doing them a disservice by not spending all night concentrating on the agenda with painstaking attention? Do the councilors in Guthrie provide a better service by taking time to analyze and re-analyze citizen concerns?

While I will leave it to the reader to determine if this pace is good or bad, I will attempt to answer the question, "Why is the Guthrie council so different?" After attending every Guthrie council meeting for the past one and three fourths years, I have made some basic observations.

1. The citizens are in charge. Citizens, no matter how right or wrong on an issue, can hold the entire council hostage for as long as they feel necessary. While the rules for citizen participation plainly state that a citizen may be limited to five minutes to make a presentation before the council, this is hardly observed.

This fact was never more clear than last Tuesday. In a very effective demonstration, eight citizens who live on Lakewood Road took to council chambers to demand improvements on their road. While this was a most appropriate issue for the city to address, and an issue at the very heart of municipal government, all rules of citizen participation flew out the window faster than an Edmond councilor leaving the parking lot.

The spokesman for the group exceeded the time limit allowed six times over. During this time, members of the group asked one on one questions with councilors and City Manager Jones, who once questioned whether they were obligated to answer. At any time, Mayor Nephew could simply have enforced the basic rule of time limits, or the common sense rule of not allowing questions from the floor. In no other city do the citizens speak up from the floor. The gallery is strictly reserved for observation only.

As a citizen with ideas and views on the role of city government, I myself would love to elaborate on the issues. I know, however, that this would be completely inappropriate and I would fear the possibility of correction from the Mayor. But alas, common sense rules do not always exist at Guthrie meetings. Time and again citizens abuse time restraints and disturb the flow of the meeting by questioning from the floor. Time and again Mayor Nephew does not enforce the basic concept of council decorum by enforcing these rules.

Does this unique way of allowing citizen participation enhance the local governing process? Is this an intentional action on behalf of the Mayor to encourage citizen participation? Is this a preferential process to that of the majority of local governments? I imagine Edmond residents who might be unhappy about a zoning change on neighboring property would love to have the ability to debate their councilors one on one during council meetings. It is likely they would love to have the run of the meeting and the ability to detain councilors for as long as they feel necessary to make a point. Does this justify the ability of the citizenry to detain the rest of the councilors and citizens for as long as they feel necessary to address one issue?

2. The councilors approach each issue with a sense of trepidation. This tends to prolong the discussion of issues and leads to antagonizing debate as councilors carefully skirt the issues.

This approach contrasts with Mid West City, whose Mayor will quickly inform councilors after a few moments of discussion that enough discussion has occurred and that a motion should be made. It is not uncommon for discussion about issues in Guthrie to last for forty-five minutes to an hour. It is not until councilors have completely skirted the issue that a councilor suggests a motion. Councilors will rarely venture this motion unless asked for it (Exact Words: "Council what is your pleasure?") by the Mayor. The Mayor is rarely in a hurry to ask for the motion. Thus councilors, reporters, and citizens are forced to sit through indirect discussion on an issue with an outcome that is often predetermined.

3. Leadership on Behalf of the Mayor. As already alluded, most city councils know who the leader is. The leader sets a steady pace for the meeting, instructs the citizens to observe the rules and only becomes involved in the issues when it really counts. The quintessential demonstration of this is Mayor Rudkin in Edmond. Mayor Rudkin actually seems familiar with parliamentary procedure. In a superb demonstration of leadership, he sets the pace of the meeting and enforces the rules of the council.

These are some of the factors I have observed in a two-year study of municipal events. It has been a fascinating study. I will admit to occasional frustration as I attend Guthrie meetings. While I love municipal procedure and enjoy reporting on it, I do not enjoy the routine I am repetitively forced to endure as I occupy a very hard gallery chair, muttering under my breath, "Will someone PLEASE make a motion?!"

Does Guthrie's system actually involve the citizens in a more productive manner? Does the citizen feel more involved in the governing process than he or she would in Edmond, OKC, Del City, or Mid West City? Or do the citizens feel more comfortable with leaders who take direct, fair, action based on their beliefs and principles? This is your decision.