REESE RESPONDS TO SCURRILOUS, BASELESS ATTACK

Labor Commissioner Candidate
Rebukes Opponent for
Distracting from Issues

Labor Commissioner candidate Jason Reese responds to a report on Oklahoma Political News Service concerning an alleged campaign finance infraction.

One day after Reese publicly questioned the OK House Leadership - which includes his primary opponent Rep. Tad Jones - on a matter of policy concerning Oklahoma's small businesses and economic growth, an anonymous attack was levied against the Reese campaign.

Reese wondered about the motivation of the attack,

“I find the timing of this baseless attack very interesting, given our press release yesterday. Nonetheless, had they bothered to inquire with us directly, we could have easily supplied them with copies of the correspondence with the Ethics Commission Executive Director in which she expressly authorizes the contribution in question.”

Reese continued, “Frankly, we're not surprised by this attack and expected it at some point in the campaign. But we'd prefer our opponent stick to the issues at hand and that are of great interest to the voters rather than try to distract them with a political sideshow."

Reese is a Republican candidate for Labor Commissioner, a statewide elected post that is involved in the enforcement of workers’ compensation laws. He is also an Oklahoma City attorney who represents small and medium-sized businesses in Oklahoma with employment issues.

Gifts to lawmakers exceed $200,000

Gifts to lawmakers exceed $200,000
By Michael McNutt
Capitol Bureau

Lobbyists spent more than $200,000, mostly on meals, gifts and tickets for legislators in 2007, a 28 percent increase over the previous year, state Ethics Commission records show.

Most of the money, or about 66 percent, was spent during the first half of last year when legislators were in session and before a new law took effect that limited the amount companies that hire lobbyists can spend.

A big chunk of the money during the last six months of 2007 was spent on season football tickets at the state's two largest universities, commission records also show.

A law that took effect July 1 states lobbyists can spend only $300 a year on an elected state official or legislator from each client they represent and limits companies that hire lobbyists to spending $300 a year on an elected state official or legislator, regardless of the number of lobbyists they have. Ethics concerning lobbying will again be an issue this legislative session, which starts today.

More than half the money spent in 2007 on legislators went to Republicans.

Republicans control the House of Representatives, 54 members to 47 members. More than $92,000 was spent in 2007 on House Republicans compared with more than $38,000 spent on House Democrats, according to lobbyist reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.

Republicans and Democrats are evenly split in the Senate. More than $33,000 in gifts was given by lobbyists to Senate Republicans compared with more than $27,000 given to Senate Democrats, according to lobbyist reports filed with the state Ethics Commission.

New rules proposed

The Ethics Commission has proposed a rule that would drastically cut the maximum amount of money lobbyists could spend on each legislator.
The proposal would reduce from $300 to $100 the amount spent on elected officials during a calendar year by companies or associations that hire lobbyists. Those companies also provide the money to buy meals and other gifts for legislators.

The proposal also would require lobbyists to disclose gifts after spending more than $10 on a state official or aide during each six-month period. Lobbyists now are required to report gifts costing $50 or more.

Both proposals will take effect July 1 if legislators take no action on them by the time the session ends in late May. The House and Senate both have to pass a resolution to kill the proposals; the governor can veto the resolution.

How much was spent?

The money spent by lobbyists on legislators in 2007 is an increase of more than $40,000 over 2006, when lobbyists spent $161,552, records show. Lobbyists gave legislators $175,780 in gifts in 2005 and $125,000 in gifts in 2004, records show.

Rose State College professor John Wood submitted a report to the Ethics Commission that said companies employing lobbyists have an advantage over most Oklahomans, mainly because the average Oklahoman cannot afford to hire a lobbyist.

The typical annual income from lobbying in Oklahoma is $86,525, Wood said. Nearly 40 percent of Oklahoma lobbyists make more than $100,000.

Term limits in the state Legislature have increased lobbyists' relative power to legislators who are overall less experienced and have less institutional memory compared with legislators who have been in office longer, Wood said.

How funds are spent

Most of the money spent on legislators in 2007 was for meals, ranging from $6 breakfasts to $210-a-plate dinners.
Lobbyists also bought gifts and tickets, such as to concerts or to sporting events.

Season tickets to Oklahoma State University and University of Oklahoma football games made up 24 percent of the $207,784 spent on legislators last year.

OU gave 92 legislators season football tickets at a cost of $27,600, records show.

Legislators have the option to receive one OU discounted season football ticket, said Catherine Bishop, vice president of public affairs at the university.

The season ticket costs $379, with OU paying $300 and each legislator paying $79, Bishop said. The most OU or any group that hires lobbyists legally can spend on each legislator each calendar year is $300.

Legislators also have the option of buying up to one additional season football ticket at the public rate, which for 2007 was $370, Bishop said.

"Their visits give us the chance to make them aware of our academic and research programs, which are of great benefit to our state,” OU President David Boren said. "These tickets are paid for through athletic department funds, which come from ticket revenues.

"We do not use appropriated funds or funds designated for academic programs,” Boren said. "We remain one of the very few universities in the nation where the athletic department makes subsidies to academic budgets each year instead of the academic budget subsidizing athletics, which is true for most universities.”

About $1 million comes from the athletic department each year to support OU's library, Boren said.

OSU gave 80 legislators season tickets valued at $288 each for a total of $23,040.

"Football games are a great opportunity to have Oklahoma leaders visit our campus and get an update on what OSU is doing to fulfill its land-grant mission of teaching, research and outreach,” said Gary Shutt, OSU's director of communications.

Each legislator has the option to receive one season ticket at no cost because it is under the $300 limit and the option to buy as many season tickets as they want, Shutt said.

Next year, however, a season ticket will cost more than $300 because OSU is playing an extra game, he said. Legislators receiving a free season ticket would pay the amount over $300, he said.

The $50,640 in OU and OSU season football tickets to legislators made up about 72 percent of the $70,414 in gifts given to legislators by lobbyists from July 1 through Dec. 31, records show.

Who got the most gifts?

Rep. Dennis Adkins, R-Tulsa, received the most in gifts during the last six months, according to available Ethics Commission reports. He received $1,733.

Five others received more than $1,000 in gifts during that time period: Reps. Mike Thompson, R-Oklahoma City, received $1,175 and Tad Jones, R-Claremore, received $1,070; Sens. Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow, received $1,040, Owen Laughlin, R-Woodward, received $1,032 and Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, received $1,028 in the last six months of 2007.

Fourteen of the state's 101 representatives and two of the state's 48 senators received no gifts during the last six months of 2007, reports show.

During the last six months of 2007, Republicans received 61 percent of the money given to House members. House Republicans received $26,761 in gifts from lobbyists while House Democrats received $17,295, reports show.

In the Senate, Republicans received 58 percent of the gifts given, with GOP members getting $15,369 and Democrats receiving $10,991, reports show.

The exact amount given to legislators is unknown. Lobbyists only have to disclose gifts after spending more than $50 on a state official or aide during each six-month period.

Some miss report deadlines

About 100 of the state's 389 registered lobbyists had failed to file spending activity reports by the Jan. 22 deadline, according to the Ethics Commission. Fifty-six had failed to file reports through Jan. 31.
The $207,784 figure was obtained by checking paper spending activity reports filed by lobbyists through Jan. 31 with the Ethics Commission. About a dozen lobbyists filed online, a new option this year.

However, those reports were difficult to track because a new format for the commission's Web site showing lobbyist gifts is still being developed. One option showing lobbyists' expenditures for the year doesn't list specifically how the money was spent and another reporting option does not list the expenditures by lobbyists.

The state's Web site provider is designing the reporting site. Marilyn Hughes, executive director of the Ethics Commission, said she hopes the information can be displayed correctly in the next month or so.

Wood, the Rose State College professor, said Oklahoma compares poorly with other states in terms of lobbyist disclosure.

In 2003, Oklahoma ranked as the 42nd best state and in 2006 lobbyists themselves felt "there are as many shady deals and underhanded tactics in Oklahoma as there ever were,” according to a study, Wood said.

However, the Ethics Commission "has gained great strides” in putting lobbyist expenditures, names and employers online since 2005, he said.

"Interest groups are strong in the state, but face some limitations with the strength of the governor and Legislature,” Wood said. "However the business and oil interest groups in the state are very powerful coupled with a weak two-party system and term limits.”

TPS' lawsuit plan is under fire

TPS' lawsuit plan is under fire
By NORA FROESCHLE World Staff Writer
12/20/2007

Lawmakers and charter school officials question the district's motive.

Two Oklahoma legislators say Tulsa Public Schools' planned lawsuit over the state's charter school law reveals the district's dislike for charter schools, not its concerns that the law violates the state's constitution.

The school board voted Monday night to authorize a lawsuit against the state Department of Education regarding the 1999 Oklahoma Charter School Act.

The lawsuit is the only venue through which the law's constitutionality can be determined, according to the school district's attorney, Doug Mann, and school board member Matt Livingood.

TPS will contend that the law violates the provision in the Oklahoma Constitution against "special" or "local" laws because it applies only to school districts in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties.

Several lawmakers strongly disagree, however.

Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore, chairman of the House Education Committee, said Monday, "I'm extremely disappointed in the Tulsa school board for challenging this bill, especially since it helps address the constitutional concerns that they raised last year."

Supporters of the legislation say the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in a 2006 case -- City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board -- that a population restriction is constitutional.

Rep. Jabar Shumate, D-Tulsa, said he is appalled by the school district's pursuit of litigation to settle a matter on which he and others worked hard to find a compromise.

"TPS is wrong, and their attorneys are not being fair," Shumate said.

"Our Supreme Court stated as early as a year ago that the Legislature can pass laws that are population-oriented and not specific to a particular city."

The change made this year in the law says that counties that contain districts with at least 5,000 students can sponsor charter schools, Shumate said.

Charter schools receive public funding through a sponsoring school district but are governed by an independent board. Tulsa has three charter schools: Deborah Brown Community School, Dove Science Academy and Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences.

Livingood has said those schools are not the intended target of the lawsuit, although they could be affected.

Shumate said the charter schools in Tulsa are making a difference where the public schools have failed.

"The reason why there's a fight here is because those (charter) schools are showing that kids can learn no matter how they look, where they come from," he said. "They can learn if we put the resources into reaching kids where they are."

Harold Roberts, director of development for the Deborah Brown school, said the school wants out of its charter with Tulsa Public Schools and never has received support from the district.

"We think the actions of TPS" on Monday evening "are indicative of their attitude about charter schools," he said. "They have basically been anti-charter schools."

Roberts said Deborah Brown officials have battled repeatedly with TPS on nonsubstantive issues regarding its contract renewal.

The recent change in the original charter school law enables universities to sponsor charter schools, and Roberts said Deborah Brown is eager to end its relationship with TPS and enter a new sponsorship with Langston University.

He said the school sent a letter Oct. 23 to TPS Superintendent Michael Zolkoski asking to be released from its contract. The district has yet to respond, Roberts said.

"The fact that the law allows higher education to consider charter school sponsorship, that's what's giving them heartburn, because we don't have to go to them anymore," he said.

TPS officials said they did not receive the letter, although Roberts said it was sent by certified mail.

Roberts said Tulsa Public Schools receives 5 percent of the state funding for his school, which amounts to about $100,000 a year.

"The response we're now getting is they're obviously not planning to release us from the contract," he said. "If you could get $100,000 a year for doing nothing, (why not) keep getting it?"

Langston University President JoAnn Haysbert said the university wants to sponsor the Deborah Brown school and has told Tulsa district officials of its interest in doing so.

Haysbert said she wrote to Zolkoski in October requesting that the district transfer the Deborah Brown school's charter to Langston.

"The students and the record of the Deborah Brown school speaks for itself," she said. "If we're going to sponsor a school, it would certainly be one that is carrying out the teaching an learning process."

Haysbert said she has not received a response from TPS but continues to be interested in sponsoring the school.

Dove Science Academy Principal Fevzi Simsek said in an e-mail that he has received many inquiries about the issue from parents.

"We believe that the Charter School Act is constitutional," he wrote. "We think it is wasting public money to challenge Charter School Act."

Nora Froeschle 581-8310
nora.froeschle@tulsaworld.com


Charter fight: Can't beat 'em? Sue 'em
Thu December 20, 2007

The Oklahoman Editorial

We don't buy the idea that Tulsa school officials were thinking about Oklahoma children when they decided this week to sue over the state's charter school law. As with many lawsuits, this one's about money and power.

The 1999 law has long bugged a few Tulsa officials. It allows for charter schools at only a few districts in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitan areas. Districts have little authority to say no to schools seeking a charter as long as they meet the state-mandated criteria.

Charter schools receive public funds but are free of much of the red tape common in traditional public schools. Funding has been a major concern in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, with worries from school officials that charter schools are siphoning off too much money. School board members also have complained that they don't have enough authority over charter schools.

The Tulsa school board's primary contention is that the focus on only a few districts makes the law unconstitutional. Those who disagree include two Democratic state lawmakers from Tulsa. Rep. Jabar Shumate said the district is wasting money with a lawsuit; Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre called the litigation a "smoke screen” to hide failures in north Tulsa schools.

The point of charter schools is to offer competition and help take ideas that work and replicate them in traditional public schools. Instead, we hear a lot of complaining about money and grumbling about why tactics that work in charter schools can't be duplicated.

The lawsuit is a shameful waste of taxpayer money — much more shameful than using it for charter schools that are succeeding with ways to make sure all children get a quality education.

Tulsa school officials can keep saying they're concerned about children who don't get a chance at charter schools. But anyone who's been paying attention knows that couldn't be further from the truth.