In case you're wondering I don't listen to Don Imus.
I don't tune into Howard Stern, (the shock-jock, somehow my television can't seem to avoid the attorney) either. I don't listen to Rush, and I guess you could say I'm not that big of a talk radio fan at all.
So, in my opinion, that makes me the perfect guy to comment on Imus' national example of foot-in-mouth disease.
It sucked.
For years Imus has made a very lucrative living insulting the rest of us with his version of "humor." And yeah, once in a while, he was even funny.
But he went to far.
Calling a group of black women "hos" on a nationally syndicated talk show went beyond poor taste.
It was mean, bigoted and just plain stupid.
And the gals from Rutgers didn't deserve it.
The fallout was quick: People raised hell, critics complained, and then advertisers pulled their ads.
Imus fell.
And he fell hard.
As a member of the Fourth Estate and someone who will almost always stand behind the First Amendment, I didn't support the calls for Imus' ouster. Axing the messenger - even when we hate his message - worries me.
But that's not my biggest concern.
It's the use of the word, "ho."
Those of you who take time to read this column are not stupid, you know that "ho" is urban slang for "whore." And, today, "ho" has become close to an accepted greeting.
That's wrong.
Today the word "ho" is used in songs, by artists and others of many races and creeds. Today kids greet each other as "ho." At school where my wife is a first grade teacher, even the smallest kids call each other a "ho."
We have lowered the bar and beat ourselves with it.
If American society is going to establish the cultural boundary that says "ho" is not something we want our airwaves filled with, then it should also be eliminated from music, and other artistic and cultural performances.
If it's wrong, it should be wrong everywhere.
Calling someone a "ho" is yet another example of hate speech and it's all too frequent here in Oklahoma.
And it's most certainly wrong when referring to a group of young women who have done nothing but go to school and play basketball.
I'm not going to loose any sleep because Don Imus lost his job; before the month's out, I'll be you my copy of the Redneck Dictionary that he'll will be back, hired by an outlet which has even less morals and cultural grace than he has.
But I know the name calling will continue.
Today was a group of young, black women.
Tomorrow it will be a group of Asian males.
And soon, we'll try to demonize everyone because of their color of their skin.
Think I'm kidding?
Take a look at many of the demagogues in the state legislature; they're working hard to paint undocumented workers and something evil.
Look at how we belittle the poor and the unfortunate.
Think about the way people who have weight problems are insulted.
Hate speech happens all the time, and it's one of the banes of the human race.
Don Imus got slapped hard for what he did; the problem is that we, as society, forget too soon.
And that lesson, that we shouldn't hate, continues to go unlearned.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Nichols, Terrill bill would derail jail proposal
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A Senate bill -- which passed the House of Representatives late this week and is working its way back through the state legislature -- could force Cleveland County Commissioners to again alter their plans for a proposed new detention facility.
Senate Bill 896, authored by Sen. Johnathon Nichols, R-Norman, and Moore Republican Randy Terrill, would prevent three counties -- Oklahoma, Tulsa and Cleveland -- from building a jail "within a two-mile radius of any elementary or secondary school or technology center site."
That language, contained in section two of the two-page, Jail-Free School Zone Act, would prevent county commissioners from purchasing land near the Moore Norman Technology Center and building a new detention center there.
The measure also would force the commission to either expand the current facility or build a new jail within one mile of the old one -- in downtown Norman.
At present, commissioners are looking at three different plots of land for the jail, including a 30-acre area at Franklin Road and 24th Avenue NW.
The legislation is the second attempt in less than a month by state lawmakers to prevent a detention facility from being built in far north Cleveland County.
In March, Nichols amended House Bill 1776, in an effort to prevent the facility from being built along Franklin Road.
That bill -- which passed the House of Representatives on a 99-0 vote -- would have required counties with populations of more than 150,000 to get the consent of two-thirds of an area's property owners before a detention facility could be built. However, the language containing the jail location provision was later removed.
The latest bill -- originally passed in March by the state Senate with different language and a different House author -- was heavily amended in the House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on April 12. At that time, the measure's House author, Norman Rep. Scott Martin, was removed and replaced by Terrill.
Both measures have drawn the wrath of Cleveland County Commission chair George Skinner.
"They (Terrill and Nichols) are gonna cause the taxpayers to pay a lot more money for a jail," Skinner said. "With this bill, there's not a place in the county that you can build it -- no matter where we look, we couldn't build anywhere except downtown."
Should that happen, Skinner said, the cost of the facility would jump by almost $3 million.
"It would take about $2.5 million just to buy out five businesses," he said. "And another $500,000 to tear down the old buildings."
Those costs, Skinner said, would be in addition to the cost of construction.
"It doesn't make any sense. We could buy property away from the downtown area for $1 million or so. It would be a lot cheaper."
The bill for the facility could go even higher should the delays continue.
Twice last year, state inspectors warned commissioners about the jail's inmate population. Then, in February 2006, Don Garrison, the state health department's jail inspector, gave the county 45 days to develop a plan to solve the overcrowding problem.
If the inmate population wasn't reduced, Garrison said, the county could be hit with fines of up to $10,000 per day for noncompliance with health and safety standards -- or state officials could ask the attorney general to close the facility.
"The jail is a hazard to employees and county citizens," Garrison told commissioners last year. "Now it's up to you guys."
Since then, the facility has continued to exceed inmate population limits and the state has continued its scrutiny.
"We know that it takes a long time to address these issues," said Ted Evans, the state health department's chief of consumer health. "Especially when it deals with getting funding from taxpayers."
And while Evans said Cleveland County's jail was "not in real bad shape, just overcrowded," he did confirm health department officials have "for the past several months" been reviewing the jail with their legal department.
"We're watching closely," he said. "But if they (the county) hit a big road block, we'll probably step in and take some type of action."
That action could include issuing an administrative compliance order and assessing a daily fine.
Terrill said neither he nor Nichols was "specifically aware of the all the details" surrounding the jail; but chided the commission for not involving state lawmakers.
"Neither Senator Nichols nor I were asked to participate," he said. "We were not contacted until today (Thursday). I would think the commission would want input from all parties, particularly those officials who represent large amounts of people in the area."
Terrill said he had "serious public safety concerns" about jails being located in proximity to elementary schools, secondary schools and career tech facilities.
"I'm not sure why we shouldn't have the same restrictions (such as those for sex offenders) with facilities that house these people," he said. "Jails house bad people."
In addition to his issues about public safety, Terrill said he was concerned about the jail's possible impact on the residents of the Franklin Road area.
"The people along Franklin Road never contemplated a jail in the area," he said, while those residents and business located near the present jail "knew what they were getting into when they bought there."
And state lawmakers, he said, should be involved in the decision on the jail's location.
"We haven't had an opportunity to provide our input," he said. "It's my hope this issue is not about the concern of some of the people in the immediate vicinity of where that jail has been located for an extended period of time."
Still, all sides agree something must be done about the jail, and that decision must come soon.
"It's a difficult situation," Skinner said. "We've looked everywhere for a location. We looked at the property up by York, but some people called Sen. Nichols about it. I understand he is doing this to protect those people, but they are not the only people in this district."
Senate Bill 896, authored by Sen. Johnathon Nichols, R-Norman, and Moore Republican Randy Terrill, would prevent three counties -- Oklahoma, Tulsa and Cleveland -- from building a jail "within a two-mile radius of any elementary or secondary school or technology center site."
That language, contained in section two of the two-page, Jail-Free School Zone Act, would prevent county commissioners from purchasing land near the Moore Norman Technology Center and building a new detention center there.
The measure also would force the commission to either expand the current facility or build a new jail within one mile of the old one -- in downtown Norman.
At present, commissioners are looking at three different plots of land for the jail, including a 30-acre area at Franklin Road and 24th Avenue NW.
The legislation is the second attempt in less than a month by state lawmakers to prevent a detention facility from being built in far north Cleveland County.
In March, Nichols amended House Bill 1776, in an effort to prevent the facility from being built along Franklin Road.
That bill -- which passed the House of Representatives on a 99-0 vote -- would have required counties with populations of more than 150,000 to get the consent of two-thirds of an area's property owners before a detention facility could be built. However, the language containing the jail location provision was later removed.
The latest bill -- originally passed in March by the state Senate with different language and a different House author -- was heavily amended in the House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on April 12. At that time, the measure's House author, Norman Rep. Scott Martin, was removed and replaced by Terrill.
Both measures have drawn the wrath of Cleveland County Commission chair George Skinner.
"They (Terrill and Nichols) are gonna cause the taxpayers to pay a lot more money for a jail," Skinner said. "With this bill, there's not a place in the county that you can build it -- no matter where we look, we couldn't build anywhere except downtown."
Should that happen, Skinner said, the cost of the facility would jump by almost $3 million.
"It would take about $2.5 million just to buy out five businesses," he said. "And another $500,000 to tear down the old buildings."
Those costs, Skinner said, would be in addition to the cost of construction.
"It doesn't make any sense. We could buy property away from the downtown area for $1 million or so. It would be a lot cheaper."
The bill for the facility could go even higher should the delays continue.
Twice last year, state inspectors warned commissioners about the jail's inmate population. Then, in February 2006, Don Garrison, the state health department's jail inspector, gave the county 45 days to develop a plan to solve the overcrowding problem.
If the inmate population wasn't reduced, Garrison said, the county could be hit with fines of up to $10,000 per day for noncompliance with health and safety standards -- or state officials could ask the attorney general to close the facility.
"The jail is a hazard to employees and county citizens," Garrison told commissioners last year. "Now it's up to you guys."
Since then, the facility has continued to exceed inmate population limits and the state has continued its scrutiny.
"We know that it takes a long time to address these issues," said Ted Evans, the state health department's chief of consumer health. "Especially when it deals with getting funding from taxpayers."
And while Evans said Cleveland County's jail was "not in real bad shape, just overcrowded," he did confirm health department officials have "for the past several months" been reviewing the jail with their legal department.
"We're watching closely," he said. "But if they (the county) hit a big road block, we'll probably step in and take some type of action."
That action could include issuing an administrative compliance order and assessing a daily fine.
Terrill said neither he nor Nichols was "specifically aware of the all the details" surrounding the jail; but chided the commission for not involving state lawmakers.
"Neither Senator Nichols nor I were asked to participate," he said. "We were not contacted until today (Thursday). I would think the commission would want input from all parties, particularly those officials who represent large amounts of people in the area."
Terrill said he had "serious public safety concerns" about jails being located in proximity to elementary schools, secondary schools and career tech facilities.
"I'm not sure why we shouldn't have the same restrictions (such as those for sex offenders) with facilities that house these people," he said. "Jails house bad people."
In addition to his issues about public safety, Terrill said he was concerned about the jail's possible impact on the residents of the Franklin Road area.
"The people along Franklin Road never contemplated a jail in the area," he said, while those residents and business located near the present jail "knew what they were getting into when they bought there."
And state lawmakers, he said, should be involved in the decision on the jail's location.
"We haven't had an opportunity to provide our input," he said. "It's my hope this issue is not about the concern of some of the people in the immediate vicinity of where that jail has been located for an extended period of time."
Still, all sides agree something must be done about the jail, and that decision must come soon.
"It's a difficult situation," Skinner said. "We've looked everywhere for a location. We looked at the property up by York, but some people called Sen. Nichols about it. I understand he is doing this to protect those people, but they are not the only people in this district."
Friday, March 30, 2007
County lawmakers react to Henry's budget veto
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Governor Brad Henry's veto of a $7 billion budget deal drew both praise and blame from members of Cleveland County's legislative delegation.
Earlier this week, Henry vetoed almost all of the state's 2008 budget, saying House Speaker Lance Cargill and Senate leaders Mike Morgan and Glen Coffee employed "a flawed, closed-door process" to craft a budget that "did not represent the best interests" of state taxpayers.
"I do not use my veto authority lightly," Henry said. "But given the flawed process and the flawed product it created, I had no other choice but to strike down the spending bill to protect taxpayers' best interests."
Henry's veto derailed about $6.8 billion in new spending for fiscal year 2008 and a $1 million supplemental appropriation for the Legislative Service Bureau. Henry did approve $92 million in supplemental funds for common education, prisons, career technology centers and the Oklahoma's Promise scholarship program.
"Schools, prisons and other critical need areas are getting the emergency funds they must have to operate," the governor said. "Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide adequate funding for corrections and public safety, so we will have to address their additional emergency needs very quickly."
Two area lawmakers -- both Democrats -- agreed with Henry's veto, while two Republican House members said they were "disappointed" by the action.
Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman, said he was proud of Henry's veto and "encouraged the governor to do so" in a letter he sent to Henry earlier this week. "While I originally voted for the bill, I thought there were many things left out," Collins said. "Not knowing the future, I voted 'yes' but I held my nose doing it."
Collins said the measure contained several problems, including a $5 million funding shortage for the Norman Veterans Center. "They have problems with water seepage, mold and outdated technology," he said. "And their pay rate is too low. They have a high turnover rate which prevents veterans from getting top quality care. These issues need to be addressed, and vetoing the bill would be the way to take care of them."
Collins said he was concerned the appropriations bill -- House Bill 1234 -- didn't include a provider fee increase for facilities that offer substance abuse treatment services.
"We were promised a three-year state provider rate increase for facilities who offer substance abuse treatment," he said. "This year providers were supposed to get $4.3 million in funding. Those funds were left out of the bill."
Moore Republican Paul Wesselhoft saw the veto differently.
"I think the governor's veto is unfortunate," Wesselhoft said Thursday afternoon. "It was a very good budget. It was bipartisan and it only grows state government by 3.4 percent."
Wesselhoft said his biggest fear was that lawmakers would create a budget "which might be in the neighborhood of last year's budget."
The 2007 budget, he believes, spent "way to much."
"If we get close to that type of increase again, then I'll vote 'no,'" Wesselhoft said. "Whoever authors it."
Yet while he scolded Henry for his veto, Wesselhoft did agree with the governor on one issue: House Democrats were left out of budget negotiations.
"I do think the House Democrats were left out," he said. "They were pretty much left in the shadows. That's why they are out for a pound of flesh."
For Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman, the budget deal and its subsequent veto were a good example of the Legislature's cumbersome nature. "This is my ninth year here," Nations said. "And whether it's policy issues or budget issues, there's a process involved. It's often cumbersome; in fact, almost always. There are checks and balances."
Nations said the governor's veto was "the same type of thing" done by former governor Frank Keating.
"Keating did almost the exact same thing," he said. "This is an example of what goes around comes around."
Like Keating's, Henry's veto gives the minority caucus a stronger voice, Nations said. "This veto is an 'aha' moment for House Democrats who were in office when Keating was governor. Now we Democrats have the opportunity to strengthen our voice."
Still, Nations said the issue wasn't partisan, but instead, about who wrote the state's budget. "In this case it wasn't a partisan deal. It was just about who got to be among the handful of people who created the budget."
And while Nations said he didn't have any problem with "about 90 percent" of the appropriations bill, he confirmed he would vote to sustain the governor's veto.
"Oh absolutely. I voted against the Senate amendments which created the bulk of the bill and I voted against the bill, itself. I will support the governor's veto. There are things that can be improved. And if we get the shot, I think it will be a better product than it is now."
Nations said the bill needed to be changed because it contained "essentially no increase" for the state's higher education system and because there were no funds allocated for the struggling Teachers' Retirement System.
"That's an enormous one," he said. "They did nothing to address shoring up TRS which, everyone agrees, is in desperate need."
Like Wesselhoft, Norman's newest lawmaker, Republican Rep. Scott Martin, said he was "extremely disappointed" by Henry's veto.
"This general appropriations bill is very balanced," Martin said. "We've met some of the obligations we committed ourselves to in years past, and also, in a large part, funded those essential services."
Martin said he was "shocked" that Gov. Henry would say lawmakers were "not giving enough" to education.
"The governor knows that we understand how important that (education funding) is," he said. "I'm disappointed in the tone and rancor that he's presented."
But while Martin said he didn't understand why the bill was vetoed, he said lawmakers have the opportunity to create a good budget.
"It's very important that we do this the right way," he said. "I think the governor and the Legislature each have a vital role in this process. You can't pass a successful budget without all of the parties being there."
Earlier this week, Henry vetoed almost all of the state's 2008 budget, saying House Speaker Lance Cargill and Senate leaders Mike Morgan and Glen Coffee employed "a flawed, closed-door process" to craft a budget that "did not represent the best interests" of state taxpayers.
"I do not use my veto authority lightly," Henry said. "But given the flawed process and the flawed product it created, I had no other choice but to strike down the spending bill to protect taxpayers' best interests."
Henry's veto derailed about $6.8 billion in new spending for fiscal year 2008 and a $1 million supplemental appropriation for the Legislative Service Bureau. Henry did approve $92 million in supplemental funds for common education, prisons, career technology centers and the Oklahoma's Promise scholarship program.
"Schools, prisons and other critical need areas are getting the emergency funds they must have to operate," the governor said. "Unfortunately, this legislation does not provide adequate funding for corrections and public safety, so we will have to address their additional emergency needs very quickly."
Two area lawmakers -- both Democrats -- agreed with Henry's veto, while two Republican House members said they were "disappointed" by the action.
Rep. Wallace Collins, D-Norman, said he was proud of Henry's veto and "encouraged the governor to do so" in a letter he sent to Henry earlier this week. "While I originally voted for the bill, I thought there were many things left out," Collins said. "Not knowing the future, I voted 'yes' but I held my nose doing it."
Collins said the measure contained several problems, including a $5 million funding shortage for the Norman Veterans Center. "They have problems with water seepage, mold and outdated technology," he said. "And their pay rate is too low. They have a high turnover rate which prevents veterans from getting top quality care. These issues need to be addressed, and vetoing the bill would be the way to take care of them."
Collins said he was concerned the appropriations bill -- House Bill 1234 -- didn't include a provider fee increase for facilities that offer substance abuse treatment services.
"We were promised a three-year state provider rate increase for facilities who offer substance abuse treatment," he said. "This year providers were supposed to get $4.3 million in funding. Those funds were left out of the bill."
Moore Republican Paul Wesselhoft saw the veto differently.
"I think the governor's veto is unfortunate," Wesselhoft said Thursday afternoon. "It was a very good budget. It was bipartisan and it only grows state government by 3.4 percent."
Wesselhoft said his biggest fear was that lawmakers would create a budget "which might be in the neighborhood of last year's budget."
The 2007 budget, he believes, spent "way to much."
"If we get close to that type of increase again, then I'll vote 'no,'" Wesselhoft said. "Whoever authors it."
Yet while he scolded Henry for his veto, Wesselhoft did agree with the governor on one issue: House Democrats were left out of budget negotiations.
"I do think the House Democrats were left out," he said. "They were pretty much left in the shadows. That's why they are out for a pound of flesh."
For Rep. Bill Nations, D-Norman, the budget deal and its subsequent veto were a good example of the Legislature's cumbersome nature. "This is my ninth year here," Nations said. "And whether it's policy issues or budget issues, there's a process involved. It's often cumbersome; in fact, almost always. There are checks and balances."
Nations said the governor's veto was "the same type of thing" done by former governor Frank Keating.
"Keating did almost the exact same thing," he said. "This is an example of what goes around comes around."
Like Keating's, Henry's veto gives the minority caucus a stronger voice, Nations said. "This veto is an 'aha' moment for House Democrats who were in office when Keating was governor. Now we Democrats have the opportunity to strengthen our voice."
Still, Nations said the issue wasn't partisan, but instead, about who wrote the state's budget. "In this case it wasn't a partisan deal. It was just about who got to be among the handful of people who created the budget."
And while Nations said he didn't have any problem with "about 90 percent" of the appropriations bill, he confirmed he would vote to sustain the governor's veto.
"Oh absolutely. I voted against the Senate amendments which created the bulk of the bill and I voted against the bill, itself. I will support the governor's veto. There are things that can be improved. And if we get the shot, I think it will be a better product than it is now."
Nations said the bill needed to be changed because it contained "essentially no increase" for the state's higher education system and because there were no funds allocated for the struggling Teachers' Retirement System.
"That's an enormous one," he said. "They did nothing to address shoring up TRS which, everyone agrees, is in desperate need."
Like Wesselhoft, Norman's newest lawmaker, Republican Rep. Scott Martin, said he was "extremely disappointed" by Henry's veto.
"This general appropriations bill is very balanced," Martin said. "We've met some of the obligations we committed ourselves to in years past, and also, in a large part, funded those essential services."
Martin said he was "shocked" that Gov. Henry would say lawmakers were "not giving enough" to education.
"The governor knows that we understand how important that (education funding) is," he said. "I'm disappointed in the tone and rancor that he's presented."
But while Martin said he didn't understand why the bill was vetoed, he said lawmakers have the opportunity to create a good budget.
"It's very important that we do this the right way," he said. "I think the governor and the Legislature each have a vital role in this process. You can't pass a successful budget without all of the parties being there."
Monday, March 5, 2007
Meacham blasted for opposition to audit
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The chair of a House committee blasted State Treasurer Scott Meacham for opposing a proposal that would earmark $1 million for an audit of the state Department of Corrections.
That line-item, state records show, is part of a recently passed budget agreement developed by House and Senate leaders. The bill -- House Bill 1234 -- has drawn the fire of Gov. Brad Henry and his chief budget negotiator, Meacham. Neither Henry nor Meacham participated in meetings that spawned the bill.
On Friday, state Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, claimed Meacham has a "poor track record" when it comes to making budget projections.
"'Meacham math' certainly isn't doing the state any favors," Duncan, chair of the House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, said in an e-mailed media statement. "Given his failures on the tobacco tax and lottery, it's clear (he) has a poor track record when it comes to making projections. He has aggravated the harmful cycle of band-aid supplemental spending on prisons, and it's time to stop that cycle."
Duncan continued, accusing Meacham of having "consistently low-balled" budget estimates for DOC.
"In each case the Legislature appropriated millions more for state prisons than recommended by the executive branch, and then had to make supplemental appropriations on top of that year after year," Duncan charged.
Friday afternoon Meacham's spokesman, Tim Allen, downplayed Duncan's statement. "It sounds like we struck a nerve," Allen said.
Allen said lawmakers have failed to provide the proper funding for the corrections department.
"Consistently, the administration has proposed funding for the Department of Corrections as requested by the Department of Corrections," he said. "And consistently, the Legislature has failed to adaquetly fund the Department of Corrections and has been forced to come back in and pass supplemental appropriations."
Duncan said the audit's $1 million price tag is a fraction of DOC's total budget. "Meacham should stop protecting mediocrity after four years of failed policies to address problems in Oklahoma's prisons," he said.
But Meacham, Allen said, is not opposed to an audit.
"An audit is fine. But earlier, the state auditor did a complete audit of DOC and it only cost $16,000. And now, the Legislature needs $1 million for the same thing?"
Duncan said neither Meacham nor the governor questioned the proposal when it was first introduced in January.
"If Meacham wants to oppose reform measures, then I think he is out on island by himself," Duncan said. "I certainly hope the governor repudiates this stance."
Allen countered, saying responsibility for the problem was the Legislature's.
"They've never wanted to bite the bullet and do what they needed to do," he said. "That's the problem."
The Governor has until Wednesday to take action on the bill.
That line-item, state records show, is part of a recently passed budget agreement developed by House and Senate leaders. The bill -- House Bill 1234 -- has drawn the fire of Gov. Brad Henry and his chief budget negotiator, Meacham. Neither Henry nor Meacham participated in meetings that spawned the bill.
On Friday, state Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, claimed Meacham has a "poor track record" when it comes to making budget projections.
"'Meacham math' certainly isn't doing the state any favors," Duncan, chair of the House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, said in an e-mailed media statement. "Given his failures on the tobacco tax and lottery, it's clear (he) has a poor track record when it comes to making projections. He has aggravated the harmful cycle of band-aid supplemental spending on prisons, and it's time to stop that cycle."
Duncan continued, accusing Meacham of having "consistently low-balled" budget estimates for DOC.
"In each case the Legislature appropriated millions more for state prisons than recommended by the executive branch, and then had to make supplemental appropriations on top of that year after year," Duncan charged.
Friday afternoon Meacham's spokesman, Tim Allen, downplayed Duncan's statement. "It sounds like we struck a nerve," Allen said.
Allen said lawmakers have failed to provide the proper funding for the corrections department.
"Consistently, the administration has proposed funding for the Department of Corrections as requested by the Department of Corrections," he said. "And consistently, the Legislature has failed to adaquetly fund the Department of Corrections and has been forced to come back in and pass supplemental appropriations."
Duncan said the audit's $1 million price tag is a fraction of DOC's total budget. "Meacham should stop protecting mediocrity after four years of failed policies to address problems in Oklahoma's prisons," he said.
But Meacham, Allen said, is not opposed to an audit.
"An audit is fine. But earlier, the state auditor did a complete audit of DOC and it only cost $16,000. And now, the Legislature needs $1 million for the same thing?"
Duncan said neither Meacham nor the governor questioned the proposal when it was first introduced in January.
"If Meacham wants to oppose reform measures, then I think he is out on island by himself," Duncan said. "I certainly hope the governor repudiates this stance."
Allen countered, saying responsibility for the problem was the Legislature's.
"They've never wanted to bite the bullet and do what they needed to do," he said. "That's the problem."
The Governor has until Wednesday to take action on the bill.
Budget deal "flawed" Meacham says
OKLAHOMA CITY — An omnibus budget bill, quickly ushered through both houses of the Legislature this week, is “very flawed” and a good portion of it should be vetoed, the governor’s chief budget negotiator said Thursday.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said State Treasurer Scott Meacham, “where a deal just sorta’ emerged from the back room and then passed both bodies of the Legislature within a week.”
Meacham, Gov. Brad Henry’s Cabinet secretary for revenue and finance — and Henry’s chief budget negotiator — wasn’t allowed to participate in the House-Senate budget meetings which created the bill.
And that, he said, created problems.
“This is the type of product you get when three people get together behind closed doors and do a deal,” he said. “There’s a reason why the subcommittees exist. There’s a reason why we go through the appropriation process. There’s a reason you work together. You don’t get extra points for doing it fast, but for doing it right.”
And, so far, Meacham said, the Legislature gets very few points.
“The whole time we’ve been here, there’s always been this idea that the Legislature writes the budget and the governor’s job is to sign off on it,” he said. “I don’t think lawmakers fully understand that state government is a three-legged stool. It makes a lot more sense to participate from the outset.”
As it’s currently written, Meacham said the budget — contained in House Bill 1234 — is very flawed. So flawed, he said, that it funds some programs which no longer exist, doesn’t fully pay for last year’s $3,000 pay increase for teachers and only gives the Department of Corrections enough supplemental revenue to operate for another 30 days.
“I think the taxpayers expect the Legislature to get up here and work,” he said. “They want lawmakers to take the time to get things done right. This bill doesn’t do that.”
Meacham said the bill’s flaws include:
• Not providing enough funds for school districts to fund last year’s teacher pay increase for those teachers who have a portion of their salaries funded by federal money — such as special education teachers. “That’s at least an $8 million problem,” he said.
• Not annualizing the pay increase so it includes teachers hired in 2007. “By the time schools would get their money, they would actually see a cut in their operations budget,” he said.
• Funding programs which have previously been eliminated. “Lawmakers put in money for the Stars program. But that program doesn’t exist any more.”
• Funding the state’s higher education system at a ‘stand-still’ level which would result in “big tuition increases.”
• Only providing the state Department of Corrections about $10 million when they need $40 million. “They need $40 million for operations to the end of the fiscal year,” he said. “But the legislature only provided them $10 million. That will only keep them operating for about 30 days.”
• Funding a pay increase for correctional officers twice — in the corrections budget and in the general appropriations budget.
But Meacham saved his harshest criticism for a $1 million appropriation to the Legislature’s joint staff, the Legislative Service Bureau.
“They (lawmakers) gave the Legislative Service Bureau $1 million to go and contract with somebody — and we don’t know who — to find out how much we should fund corrections,” he said. “Both the House and Senate have fiscal policy analysts, but instead they want to contract with someone else to find out how much money to appropriate to DOC.”
“Funding corrections isn’t hard,” he said. “It’s a function of the number of contract beds you’re gonna have to pay for through the end of the year, plus salaries you’re gonna have to pay for through the end of year. It’s funny, we’re able to figure out how much money they need, I don’t understand why they can’t. It’s not that hard.”
Because of the bill’s flaws, Meacham said he would ask Gov. Henry to use a line-item veto on “a majority” of the proposal and only endorse the bill’s supplemental appropriations.
“I think it’s important that Gov. Henry sign the supplemental section,” he said. “But he should take a hard look at vetoing all, or a part of the 2008 budget.”
Henry, Meacham said, almost needs to veto the whole general appropriation budget just to force lawmakers to start over. “Why not just run the supplemental bill,” he said. “We’ve got plenty of time to do the general appropriations measure.”
That idea probably won’t sit well with legislative leaders.
In a statement issued Thursday, Sen. Glen Coffee, the Senate’s co-president pro tempore, praised the proposal, calling it “historic.”
“The Legislature has made history by reaching the earliest agreement on the state budget since 1972,” Coffee said. “We have worked very hard to develop this carefully balanced bipartisan budget agreement. When Gov. Henry returns we are confident he will like what he sees in this historic agreement.”
The Senate’s Democratic leader, Mike Morgan, agreed.
“This measure represents the earliest budget agreement in more than three decades. For the first time, it will allow us to meet the ‘fund education first’ deadline we established in 2003,” he said. “Most importantly, the budget agreement will allow state agencies to continue to provide the services Oklahomans count on every day. It also makes good on all of the Legislature’s existing obligations.”
Meacham disagreed.
“We didn’t even get the bill until Monday afternoon,” he said. “And every day we find new problems. The bill is very flawed; the question is whether it is so flawed that you can give it life support and get it fixed, or whether it needs to die and start over — but that’s the governor’s decision.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said State Treasurer Scott Meacham, “where a deal just sorta’ emerged from the back room and then passed both bodies of the Legislature within a week.”
Meacham, Gov. Brad Henry’s Cabinet secretary for revenue and finance — and Henry’s chief budget negotiator — wasn’t allowed to participate in the House-Senate budget meetings which created the bill.
And that, he said, created problems.
“This is the type of product you get when three people get together behind closed doors and do a deal,” he said. “There’s a reason why the subcommittees exist. There’s a reason why we go through the appropriation process. There’s a reason you work together. You don’t get extra points for doing it fast, but for doing it right.”
And, so far, Meacham said, the Legislature gets very few points.
“The whole time we’ve been here, there’s always been this idea that the Legislature writes the budget and the governor’s job is to sign off on it,” he said. “I don’t think lawmakers fully understand that state government is a three-legged stool. It makes a lot more sense to participate from the outset.”
As it’s currently written, Meacham said the budget — contained in House Bill 1234 — is very flawed. So flawed, he said, that it funds some programs which no longer exist, doesn’t fully pay for last year’s $3,000 pay increase for teachers and only gives the Department of Corrections enough supplemental revenue to operate for another 30 days.
“I think the taxpayers expect the Legislature to get up here and work,” he said. “They want lawmakers to take the time to get things done right. This bill doesn’t do that.”
Meacham said the bill’s flaws include:
• Not providing enough funds for school districts to fund last year’s teacher pay increase for those teachers who have a portion of their salaries funded by federal money — such as special education teachers. “That’s at least an $8 million problem,” he said.
• Not annualizing the pay increase so it includes teachers hired in 2007. “By the time schools would get their money, they would actually see a cut in their operations budget,” he said.
• Funding programs which have previously been eliminated. “Lawmakers put in money for the Stars program. But that program doesn’t exist any more.”
• Funding the state’s higher education system at a ‘stand-still’ level which would result in “big tuition increases.”
• Only providing the state Department of Corrections about $10 million when they need $40 million. “They need $40 million for operations to the end of the fiscal year,” he said. “But the legislature only provided them $10 million. That will only keep them operating for about 30 days.”
• Funding a pay increase for correctional officers twice — in the corrections budget and in the general appropriations budget.
But Meacham saved his harshest criticism for a $1 million appropriation to the Legislature’s joint staff, the Legislative Service Bureau.
“They (lawmakers) gave the Legislative Service Bureau $1 million to go and contract with somebody — and we don’t know who — to find out how much we should fund corrections,” he said. “Both the House and Senate have fiscal policy analysts, but instead they want to contract with someone else to find out how much money to appropriate to DOC.”
“Funding corrections isn’t hard,” he said. “It’s a function of the number of contract beds you’re gonna have to pay for through the end of the year, plus salaries you’re gonna have to pay for through the end of year. It’s funny, we’re able to figure out how much money they need, I don’t understand why they can’t. It’s not that hard.”
Because of the bill’s flaws, Meacham said he would ask Gov. Henry to use a line-item veto on “a majority” of the proposal and only endorse the bill’s supplemental appropriations.
“I think it’s important that Gov. Henry sign the supplemental section,” he said. “But he should take a hard look at vetoing all, or a part of the 2008 budget.”
Henry, Meacham said, almost needs to veto the whole general appropriation budget just to force lawmakers to start over. “Why not just run the supplemental bill,” he said. “We’ve got plenty of time to do the general appropriations measure.”
That idea probably won’t sit well with legislative leaders.
In a statement issued Thursday, Sen. Glen Coffee, the Senate’s co-president pro tempore, praised the proposal, calling it “historic.”
“The Legislature has made history by reaching the earliest agreement on the state budget since 1972,” Coffee said. “We have worked very hard to develop this carefully balanced bipartisan budget agreement. When Gov. Henry returns we are confident he will like what he sees in this historic agreement.”
The Senate’s Democratic leader, Mike Morgan, agreed.
“This measure represents the earliest budget agreement in more than three decades. For the first time, it will allow us to meet the ‘fund education first’ deadline we established in 2003,” he said. “Most importantly, the budget agreement will allow state agencies to continue to provide the services Oklahomans count on every day. It also makes good on all of the Legislature’s existing obligations.”
Meacham disagreed.
“We didn’t even get the bill until Monday afternoon,” he said. “And every day we find new problems. The bill is very flawed; the question is whether it is so flawed that you can give it life support and get it fixed, or whether it needs to die and start over — but that’s the governor’s decision.”
Future of budget deal in doubt
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The future of the current version of a quickly passed omnibus budget bill is bleak, a spokesman for Gov. Brad Henry's chief budget negotiator said Monday.
"The FY 2008 budget will not be what is currently in House Bill 1234," said Tim Allen, Oklahoma Treasurer Scott Meacham's spokesman. "There will have to be changes made."
And while Meacham -- the governor's cabinet secretary for revenue and finance -- Henry and Rep. Danny Morgan held a press conference Monday to discuss their concerns about the proposal, Henry spokesman Paul Sund confirmed the governor will sign the bill's supplemental appropriations for the departments of education and corrections.
"The governor will defenitely sign the education supplemental and the corrections supplemental," Sund said. "He'll sign the education supplemental so school districts can get money needed for the teachers' pay raise, and he'll sign the corrections supplemental because the state's prisons need the money."
However, Henry said he would "closely look at" the remainder of the bill, including sections which cover the state's $7 billion 2008 budget.
"My staff and I will begin a line-by-line review of the 49-page, omnibus bill and pass final judgment when the review is completed," Henry said.
The governor has until Wednesday to take action on the proposal.
Last week, Henry and Meacham complained that they were left out of budget negotiations. "I'm deeply disappointed in the way budget negotiations were conducted and the manner in which the vast majority of the 149-member Legislature and the executive branch were denied input in the process," Henry said.
However, on Monday, House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah, denied that Henry or Meacham were excluded from budget hearings.
"We started budget meetings in January," Cargill said. "Those were open committee hearings. That's inaccurate (for the Gov. and Meacham to say) they weren't included."
Earlier this year, Cargill said, he wrote a letter to Henry inviting him to conduct weekly meetings with legislative leaders.
"I wrote Gov. Henry a hand-written letter and invited him to have weekly meetings with legislative leaders," Cargill said. "The governor declined those meetings, saying he only wanted to meet as needed. It's very ironic for him to now say we excluded him."
Yet while Cargill urged Henry to sign the full proposal and described the budget as "a positive achievement for the state" he did leave room for negotiation.
"This bill isn't set in stone," Cargill said Monday afternoon. "We still have a reconciliation process. This is just a safety net. It's not the final product or end game of the Legislature."
Sill, both Henry and Meacham described the current proposal as "flawed."
"The flaws in this process and the $7 billion budget bill have been well documented by the executive branch and members of the House Democratic Caucus," the governor said.
Cargill countered, saying HB 1234 is "a historic measure" which represents "the first time the state has met" its "fund education first" deadline.
"The only substantive claims made by the state treasurer have been refuted point by point," Cargill said. "For example, the Stars program, that's wrong. That program is an ongoing program."
Last week, Meacham said the bill didn't fully pay for a $3,000 pay increase for teachers, and only gave the Department of Corrections enough supplemental revenue to operate for another 30 days. Meacham said he urged Henry to veto "almost all" of the bill's 2008 general appropriations budget.
Should that happen, Cargill said, House leaders "would have to look" at the governor's action. "A veto would certainly not be in best interest of the state," Cargill said. "This bill was done in a bipartisan fashion."
Henry, Cargill said, also would have a hard time sustaining his veto.
"We're pleased that a majority of the House Democratic caucus voted for the measure," he said. "I think it's very difficult for those who voted for the budget to turn and now flip-flop because the governor told them to.
"The FY 2008 budget will not be what is currently in House Bill 1234," said Tim Allen, Oklahoma Treasurer Scott Meacham's spokesman. "There will have to be changes made."
And while Meacham -- the governor's cabinet secretary for revenue and finance -- Henry and Rep. Danny Morgan held a press conference Monday to discuss their concerns about the proposal, Henry spokesman Paul Sund confirmed the governor will sign the bill's supplemental appropriations for the departments of education and corrections.
"The governor will defenitely sign the education supplemental and the corrections supplemental," Sund said. "He'll sign the education supplemental so school districts can get money needed for the teachers' pay raise, and he'll sign the corrections supplemental because the state's prisons need the money."
However, Henry said he would "closely look at" the remainder of the bill, including sections which cover the state's $7 billion 2008 budget.
"My staff and I will begin a line-by-line review of the 49-page, omnibus bill and pass final judgment when the review is completed," Henry said.
The governor has until Wednesday to take action on the proposal.
Last week, Henry and Meacham complained that they were left out of budget negotiations. "I'm deeply disappointed in the way budget negotiations were conducted and the manner in which the vast majority of the 149-member Legislature and the executive branch were denied input in the process," Henry said.
However, on Monday, House Speaker Lance Cargill, R-Harrah, denied that Henry or Meacham were excluded from budget hearings.
"We started budget meetings in January," Cargill said. "Those were open committee hearings. That's inaccurate (for the Gov. and Meacham to say) they weren't included."
Earlier this year, Cargill said, he wrote a letter to Henry inviting him to conduct weekly meetings with legislative leaders.
"I wrote Gov. Henry a hand-written letter and invited him to have weekly meetings with legislative leaders," Cargill said. "The governor declined those meetings, saying he only wanted to meet as needed. It's very ironic for him to now say we excluded him."
Yet while Cargill urged Henry to sign the full proposal and described the budget as "a positive achievement for the state" he did leave room for negotiation.
"This bill isn't set in stone," Cargill said Monday afternoon. "We still have a reconciliation process. This is just a safety net. It's not the final product or end game of the Legislature."
Sill, both Henry and Meacham described the current proposal as "flawed."
"The flaws in this process and the $7 billion budget bill have been well documented by the executive branch and members of the House Democratic Caucus," the governor said.
Cargill countered, saying HB 1234 is "a historic measure" which represents "the first time the state has met" its "fund education first" deadline.
"The only substantive claims made by the state treasurer have been refuted point by point," Cargill said. "For example, the Stars program, that's wrong. That program is an ongoing program."
Last week, Meacham said the bill didn't fully pay for a $3,000 pay increase for teachers, and only gave the Department of Corrections enough supplemental revenue to operate for another 30 days. Meacham said he urged Henry to veto "almost all" of the bill's 2008 general appropriations budget.
Should that happen, Cargill said, House leaders "would have to look" at the governor's action. "A veto would certainly not be in best interest of the state," Cargill said. "This bill was done in a bipartisan fashion."
Henry, Cargill said, also would have a hard time sustaining his veto.
"We're pleased that a majority of the House Democratic caucus voted for the measure," he said. "I think it's very difficult for those who voted for the budget to turn and now flip-flop because the governor told them to.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
House passes bill to expand OHLAP
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Less than a week after the Oklahoma Senate passed legislation to provide a stable revenue source for a popular scholarship program currently out of money, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 75-25 to expand that same program.
Both measures -- one by a Republican House member and the other by the Senate's Democratic leader -- come on the heels of an announcement made earlier this month saying the scholarship program had exhausted its funding.
Originally known as the Oklahoma Higher Education Access Program (OHLAP) and now called "Oklahoma's Promise," the program pays the tuition of college students from families earning less than $50,000 per year. To quality, a student must take a rigorous college curriculum, maintain a 2.5 grade point average and exhibit good behavior.
However, the scholarship's popularity has proven difficult for lawmakers.
Growing from just a few hundred students in the early 1990s, OHLAP is expected to cost $18 million for the 2006-07 year and more than $41.7 million by 2007-08. By 2010 program costs are expected to exceed $60 million per year.
Currently, about 15,000 students are attending college on Oklahoma's Promise scholarships. More than 30,000 middle and high school students have enrolled in the program.
Earlier this month, state regents warned lawmakers of a potential funding shortfall for the current semester and temporarily suspended "any further payments of claims for spring semester scholarship awards."
Following the regents' announcement, Senate Pro Tempore Mike Morgan, D-Stillwater, pushed legislation through the Senate to create a permanent funding source for the program.
Senate Bill 820 requires the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to certify the amount needed to fund the program in the coming fiscal year each November. The funds would then be set aside when the State Board of Equalization meets in December and February.
"This legislation will assure that every student who qualifies for an Oklahoma's Promise scholarship will receive their scholarship," he said.
In addition, Morgan said lawmakers would work to ensure the program is funded for the current year.
"I am confident the Legislature will provide a supplemental appropriation and these students will receive their scholarships. Passage of this legislation will mean we won't have to have this discussion in the future. Oklahoma's Promise scholarships will get funded first," he said.
Morgan's measure passed the state Senate 47-0.
On Monday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives expanded the program.
House members voted 75-25 for House Bill 1299, by Rep. Randy Terrill, which adds students schooled at home to those eligible for an Oklahoma's Promise scholarship.
Terrill estimated the cost of adding home schooled students to the system at $69,000 for the next fiscal year, and $348,000 by FY 2010.
"It's only fair that all Oklahoma students have the chance to apply for these scholarships," Terrill, R-Moore, said. "There's no reason to discriminate against any qualified student and every new college graduate we generate in Oklahoma is a key component of future economic growth and job creation."
Still, lawmakers remain concerned about expanding the program further.
Earlier proposals to increase the program's income level from $50,000 to $75,000 have failed to make it to the governor's desk.
"I don't think anyone knows how it will go," said Robin Maxey, a spokesman for Morgan. "All of those things will come down to finding the money. There are a number of issues like that around here right now, and it will all depend on budget negotiations."
While Maxey said Morgan will "look at all options" to send more Oklahoma kids to college, the state's budget is limited. "Again, it's all about priorities," he said.
Members of both houses have until this Thursday to act on legislation originating from that house. Next week, Terrill's bill will go to the Senate for action, while Morgan's proposal will be reviewed by House members.
Both measures -- one by a Republican House member and the other by the Senate's Democratic leader -- come on the heels of an announcement made earlier this month saying the scholarship program had exhausted its funding.
Originally known as the Oklahoma Higher Education Access Program (OHLAP) and now called "Oklahoma's Promise," the program pays the tuition of college students from families earning less than $50,000 per year. To quality, a student must take a rigorous college curriculum, maintain a 2.5 grade point average and exhibit good behavior.
However, the scholarship's popularity has proven difficult for lawmakers.
Growing from just a few hundred students in the early 1990s, OHLAP is expected to cost $18 million for the 2006-07 year and more than $41.7 million by 2007-08. By 2010 program costs are expected to exceed $60 million per year.
Currently, about 15,000 students are attending college on Oklahoma's Promise scholarships. More than 30,000 middle and high school students have enrolled in the program.
Earlier this month, state regents warned lawmakers of a potential funding shortfall for the current semester and temporarily suspended "any further payments of claims for spring semester scholarship awards."
Following the regents' announcement, Senate Pro Tempore Mike Morgan, D-Stillwater, pushed legislation through the Senate to create a permanent funding source for the program.
Senate Bill 820 requires the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to certify the amount needed to fund the program in the coming fiscal year each November. The funds would then be set aside when the State Board of Equalization meets in December and February.
"This legislation will assure that every student who qualifies for an Oklahoma's Promise scholarship will receive their scholarship," he said.
In addition, Morgan said lawmakers would work to ensure the program is funded for the current year.
"I am confident the Legislature will provide a supplemental appropriation and these students will receive their scholarships. Passage of this legislation will mean we won't have to have this discussion in the future. Oklahoma's Promise scholarships will get funded first," he said.
Morgan's measure passed the state Senate 47-0.
On Monday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives expanded the program.
House members voted 75-25 for House Bill 1299, by Rep. Randy Terrill, which adds students schooled at home to those eligible for an Oklahoma's Promise scholarship.
Terrill estimated the cost of adding home schooled students to the system at $69,000 for the next fiscal year, and $348,000 by FY 2010.
"It's only fair that all Oklahoma students have the chance to apply for these scholarships," Terrill, R-Moore, said. "There's no reason to discriminate against any qualified student and every new college graduate we generate in Oklahoma is a key component of future economic growth and job creation."
Still, lawmakers remain concerned about expanding the program further.
Earlier proposals to increase the program's income level from $50,000 to $75,000 have failed to make it to the governor's desk.
"I don't think anyone knows how it will go," said Robin Maxey, a spokesman for Morgan. "All of those things will come down to finding the money. There are a number of issues like that around here right now, and it will all depend on budget negotiations."
While Maxey said Morgan will "look at all options" to send more Oklahoma kids to college, the state's budget is limited. "Again, it's all about priorities," he said.
Members of both houses have until this Thursday to act on legislation originating from that house. Next week, Terrill's bill will go to the Senate for action, while Morgan's proposal will be reviewed by House members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
