Roundup of Oklahoma editorials

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers:

Tulsa World, Dec. 14, 2015

Don’t turn state Capitol project into money pit

The Oklahoma Legislature committed taxpayers to a 30-year, $120 million bond package last year, with the expectation money would help bring the nearly 100-year-old Oklahoma State Capitol “up to code” - making it functional, safe and sanitary for its occupants and the public visiting the symbol of state government.

“Tier 1” renovation of the $1.2 billion state asset that historians refer to as “artifact 1,” would address the basics - falling masonry, backed up sewer lines, heat and air conditioning, the electrical system, security and a deteriorating exterior.

No one actually expected that $120 million to cover all necessary repairs. But there was sticker shock last week when contractors told the State Capitol Expenditure Oversight Committee it will take another $122 million to finish renovation on the 1917 building. If additional lower-priority features ultimately are added, another $65 million would go toward a four-column arched World War I monument, reflecting pool, parking garage and so forth.

That last proposal understandably has some people upset, including several of the lawmakers who approved the original bond issue.

“What they presented is a beautiful plan,” said Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman who helped push through the controversial bond plan. “It is a Cadillac plan. We live in Chevrolet or Ford country over here.”

That may be too kind. Oklahoma actually is in donkey cart territory. State revenues, derived in large part from the struggling oil and gas industry, continue to plummet. Officials have told state agencies to expect at least an $800 million budget hole and yet another round of deep cuts to every agency.

Oklahoma has the lowest bond indebtedness of nearly any state and easily could seek a $122 million bond issue. But every dollar dedicated to paying off those bonds is a dollar the state won’t spend on educating kids or helping sick people, or myriad other high-priority needs.

Other states renovating aging Capitol buildings have run into trouble on costs. The price tag for renovating the Kansas Capitol building went from $120 million to $330 million and took 13 years. Oklahoma’s Capitol has suffered from decades of neglect and shoddy repairs and contractors so far have done a yeoman’s job in removing asbestos-laden materials, miles of bad wiring and ugly and nonfunctional additions covering up the original beauty of the structure.

A reasonable sum to complete essential repairs would be acceptable to most Oklahomans.

But the public relations war to secure additional funding next legislative session, which falls during an election year, won’t be won by proposals involving reflecting pools and columned monuments. That sends the wrong message at a time when the state is struggling mightily.

Low-priority additions to the grounds should be undertaken gradually, if at all. The possibility of eventually financing them with private donations, an idea entertained but abandoned several years ago when the Capitol dome was added, is worth exploring.

Some additional monies to complete repairs is in order. No one expected the $120 million to cover all essentials. But costs must remain reasonable. We’d be more comfortable if an outside perspective were brought to the table to vet the plans and the costs. It seems like an ideal job for state Auditor Gary Jones to us.

“Artifact 1” needs to be safe, sanitary and functional, but it doesn’t need to be transformed into the Taj Mahal.

___

The Oklahoman, Dec. 13, 2015

Justice indeed served with Holtzclaw verdict

Because he wasn’t convicted of all 36 counts, the verdicts in the sexual assault trial of former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw weren’t fully satisfactory for victims and their supporters. They were, however, a testament to the legal system.

Holtzclaw was charged with the most horrific of offenses - forcing poor and troubled black women from the northeast-side neighborhood he patrolled to submit to sexual abuse and rape in order to avoid further legal trouble. His 13 victims, many of them substance abusers, testified that they felt they had no choice but to consent.

One victim testified that after she was made by Holtzclaw to submit to sex acts, she walked back to a hotel where she was staying with her boyfriend. The boyfriend “told me to call police,” the woman testified, “and I said, ’He is the police.’”

One brave woman finally did go to the police in the summer of 2014, prompting an investigation that turned up accusers who said they were victims of offenses ranging from illicit touching over their clothes to forced oral sex and rape. Holtzclaw was fired in January, and ultimately convicted Thursday night on 18 counts, including four counts of first-degree rape. He could spend the rest of his life in prison.

There were concerns raised early on about the fact all the jurors were white. District Attorney David Prater said he would have preferred a greater cross-section of citizens, but that defense attorneys rejected the only jury candidates who were black.

Ultimately, skin color didn’t matter. Jurors spent weeks listening to testimony, and to Holtzclaw’s attorneys’ efforts to question the credibility of the victims by noting their criminal and drug histories. The jury then spent 45 hours, over four days, deciding what to do. The members of the jury deserve the community’s thanks for their work and their sacrifice.

The district attorney’s office and police department are to be saluted as well for their efforts. In some locales across the country, the voices of similar victims may not have been given as much credence. This case was hardly a slam dunk, but Prater and his staff pursued it vigorously and were rewarded.

Similarly, the police department under Chief Bill Citty acted forcefully by firing Holtzclaw, and Citty has worked hard to improve relations and lines of communication with residents and officials in northeast Oklahoma City.

That community deserves considerable credit. Several U.S. cities have been wracked by unrest and violence as a result of police actions involving black victims. There were no such incidents in Oklahoma City during the Holtzclaw case.

Protesters gathered occasionally outside the courthouse during the trial. These gatherings were always peaceful, and remained so after the verdicts were read in court. One of those on hand Thursday night was Robin Leake, an Oklahoma City resident who attended much of the trial. “I believe justice was served,” she said. “This is what we waited patiently for.”

This high-profile conviction can’t assuage all the concerns members of the city’s black community have about the police department and the DA’s office. Much work remains; that was evident Friday in remarks by victims’ attorneys and supporters.

Yet seeing Daniel Holtzclaw, former police officer, escorted from court in handcuffs for what he did to numerous black women should help this cause. We hope so.

___

Muskogee Phoenix, Dec. 14, 2014

Limit boards’ intent to curb competition

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin is right to require regulatory boards to submit proposals regarding licensing violators to the state Attorney General for review.

The move came in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that found the actions of a North Carolina board made up of mostly dentists violated anti-trust law when it tried to prevent competitors from other fields from offering teeth-whitening services.

Boards serve an important public safety function. Incompetent or unscrupulous practitioners in many professions can injure customers, spread disease or pests, or cause other harms that such boards can curb.

Public safety is the cause for which such boards are created, but too often anti-competitive regulation is the effect.

It is easy to see how it happens. Who better to know what standards an industry needs than those on the front lines of the profession? On the other hand, who has a greater conflict of interest tempting them to use the power of such boards to protect their interests?

Competition is generally good for consumers, and it pushes innovation that makes it good for industry. Professional boards by their nature act as a curb to competition.

We need to balance competition with consumer protection. We need to use the expertise of industry members while limiting their ability to abuse the power such boards give them.

Vetting regulation through the AG is a good first step.

A better solution in the long run is to balance the makeup of the boards by including those served by the industry and consumer advocates. We must act to curb regulations that seek to reduce innovation and competition.