Angelfire by jennyyingdi

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 3

									(Published in the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News,March 7, 8, and 9 , 2001

The Ordinance
2/13/2003 Publications, Inc.)
Constitution of the State of Oklahoma,
 2/13/2003
 2/13/2003
Retherford 4/3/2003
 Urban TransfersDevelopment associated with 3d Penny Sales tax
 Urban& Economic & Economic Development
                             of
             & No. 20043 funds
OrdinanceEconomic Development
 e. Budget UrbanDevelopment making supplemental appropriations of $806,772.00 within
 h. Budgetamendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation
 Urban & Economic
    For these reasons
Article X, § 19. Specification of purpose of
 i.               amendment amendment20 of
                    h. Budget ordinance ordinanceGrant found.unencumbered and unexpended
           Displaying records 1 through transferring transferring unencumbered
balancesMiscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311)43 within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). the
                                                         records
                amendment ordinance departments                  Revenues and a $446,572.00 [UED
 j. Budgetof $258,654.00 between making supplemental appropriations oftransfer fromwithin
the DOT 4/8/2003                                      from

               the
submitted to of voters
"SECTION 118. PURPOSESof $111,643.00 between departments within the 2001 Sales
appropriation balances OF REVENUE
the DOT Date  Miscellaneous Grants appropriation
                   and
      4/10/2003 unexpendedDevelopment balances of $100,661.88
2001 02-657-3 & Economic Fund (#5311) from
2-11] Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 2-11] 02-657-6 Grant Revenues and a transfer from the


Diversion
               Urban
    - Devotion to another purpose.
taxThe third penny sales
Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 2-11] 02-657-7 the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008).
            Type
2001 Sales & between departments within
                    Economic Development 02-657-8
                             (#6008). [UED 2-11]
      Urban Tax Fund amendment ordinancechapter to provide revenues for the support of
         4/8/2003
               7. Budget
It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this&making supplemental
            Tulsa City Council Agenda Wording Results (if available)
 2/13/2003 02-657-10
      l. Urban of the municipal government within the FEMAappropriations of
              appropriations Development
the functions& Economic ordinance making the City of Tulsa; thirty-three and three-tenths
         Budget amendmentof $670,332.00 of supplemental Grant Fund (#5717)
“Every act enacted by the Legislature, and
 Urban & Economic Development
                   Discussion or Action
     $670,332.00Action the Meeting:At Meeting: the appropriations expended transfer
    Tax fund is unable to
percent Budget amendment all a Grant supplemental1996 Sales Taxof $1,034,494.00
         5. (33-3/10%) ofrevenues, revenues transferring from grant be Fund a by the
                                         ordinance derived        unencumbered and
              from Action At At FEMA transfer from hereunder shall revenues,
                    or within Meeting:
DiscussionWithout ordinance the Council (#5717)    Fund
does not describe with
 f. Budget amendmentany and
Discussion or grant objection, making
            4/10/2003 the City of Tulsa balances of $100,661.88 between departments
             the 1996 appropriation for 2001 Sales of Fund (#6008), c.,
governing DOT Miscellaneousfrom (#6007), a transfercapitalthe itemsSalesas hereinafter


Limited purpose
        unexpendedSales Tax Grants Fund (#5311) from Grant improvements, a transfer from
within the body ofa transfer Fund the the purposes Taxfrom Revenues and a Tax Fund
     fromComments:
              (#6007),Economic Development
Public Urban &the purposethereducing& Economic Development Committee
                                   to Tax
defined, andthe 2001 k.,(#6008).Urban (#6008). 02-657-10 trust authorities for which the
                   through Sales of Fund indebtedness of Projects Fund (#6041). [UED
every ordinance and resolution passed by
        within and afrom the from the Stormwater Capital theFund (#6041). 02-476-
    Meet its projects’ funding
the(#6008), Tax Fund
Public Comments: transfer Stormwater transferring stating she objected to the
Bernicetransfer amendmenton [UED 2-11] 02-657-4 k. any and all other and
            j. Alexander -8, for Atordinance Capital Projects
      2001 Sales
City is beneficiaryor Actioncapital improvements; and unencumbered revenues derived
        Discussion made Meeting: a. through k. stating she objected to the usage of all the
     4-8] 02-476-3 -
Discussion or Action
              3
                   for
                   on AprilAt 2003. Meeting: through
                Budget         spoke        items a.
                                                         Chair forwarded 2001
                                                                                  and

Berniceof all the funds and to new development.
             Alexander                  items
usage unexpended spoke onby thebalances of $100,661.88 between Oklahoma, for any
                             appropriation governing body presented Tulsa,
hereunder may be expended Finance Departmentof the City of this item. The City
any county, city, town, or municipal board or
specificity the purpose
        Pat Discussion or the
               Connelly
Public Comments: fromAt Meeting:
     Discussion or development.
funds and to new Action Action At Meeting:
    Needs and the City
tax funds for other
purposeAlexander funds mayon lawfully expended k. authorized opposed those of all the
            Alexander- spoke the 2001 Sales Tax stating she objected to the02-
                              spoke items a. e. through
Jamesdepartments- withinon be itemsthrough k.Fundstating he by the Charter of the City
Bernice for which spoke on itemsfrom FEMA that as (#6008). [UED 4-8] m. a 25%
                    4/3/2003                                         items City to put up
James Alexander$504,408 grant Finance Department presented this item. The
        receivedSullivan, from the e. through k. to requires the f. those items.
                       a -
     Moved byConnelly seconded byof Oklahoma. approveopposed through usage
              Pat
Councilorto newgave aEconomic Development regarding the items addressed by the
of Tulsa and the statutes a brief explanatory statement
                  Baker gave of the
funds and Baker development. state reach that match, money is coming from 3
           657-10
        match Urban & brief explanatory statement
local legislative body, levying a tax shall
Councilor (which is $165,924). To
     Roll Call: received a $504,408 grant from FEMA that requires the City
              City the speakers.
addressed byBudget amendmentthrough k. stating he opposed those items. to
                                                Medlock, stating he regarding the items
                                                                                             items.


    Council seekspurpose for which said
           Discussion or Action At Meeting:
James Alexander - spoke on items e. ordinance making(see item #4), the 2001
                    j.
speakers. -- the Stormwater Capital Projects Fund supplemental
                        to delay
        places up aimprovements" as used herein is defined to comprehend all items and
     Christiansen Yea Neal Yea
               "capital on items f. and k. stating he oppossed item f. appropriates the
The termputspoke 25% match (which is $165,924). This itemand on item k. he

for which the tax is
Sam Berry - appropriations of $670,332.00 within the FEMA Grant through m.
           Moved by Sullivan, seconded by Medlock, the 1996 items
        Sales Tax Fund with this amendment), andto approveSales f. Fund (see
specify distinctly the
     WilliamsJustis, seconded Baker Yea Roop Yeain valuethat willTaxk. use,
articles nottheamount(viafunding -- FEMA the community with CDBG funds . inincluding,
             by Yea
Movedby consumed to Yea Neal, only to a transferthrough k. 1996 Sales
encourageJustis, Medlocksupport revenues, plus match -- a. theprolonged

purposes
Moved Roll Call: secondedgrant youth andapprove items

taxAll further spendingand collected
Roll Call:
speakers. Yea
Roll Call:
              total Council of use, but to approve items a.
             and
                   (#5717) Yea
butJustis Yea Patrickfrom is to be used for the voluntaryequipment, traffic control
        item #6). to, the a brief
           by Tax Fund
    is levied, and no tax levied
     Sullivan Roop Yea Councilor
        inYea Roop Yea
              the floodplain and
                                      by by Neal,
                                                   diminished
                                                                  from
      not limited The money explanatory statement regarding acquisition of property
Councilor Justis,gave purchase, lease or rental of machinery, the items addressed by the
              the voluntary acquisitionto approve itemsCity identifies properties in
                 Baker seconded by Neal, program. The a. through k.
Moved Christiansen Yea Neal Yea transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax Fund
                                                                       with
Roll Call: street lighting systems, furniture and fixtures; the acquisition of all real
devicesthe floodplain.(#6007), a Medlock asked if those Sales Tax packages
Baker Williams Yea Medlockapproaches homeowners who, if they volunteer,
Baker Yea the construction, transfer from the Stormwater Capital Projects
                                                                               be Fund
                                                                         through used

properties;Nays 0 Absent 0by Yea Baker Yea Roop Yea said they both had.
     Yeas get (#6008), and a reconstruction and repair of buildings, appurtenances and
for Thereon. shall ever be devoted to
Baker bysetbought out. There is to condemnation involved.
        had9 Roop seconded
                     aside                      use. Mr. Connelly
MovedYea Justis,Yea money for thisnoapprove items a. through k. Councilor

levied as required by
Christiansen Yea Justis Yea
Christiansen Yea(#6041). 02-476-3
improvements to real property;
Sullivan Yea Fund
    one purpose
Roll Call: Justis Yea Patrick
     Carried. Yea Justis if there are any geographical constraints on where
Christiansen Nealasked Yea
                           JustisYea Neal,
                         Yea
SullivanPatrickYeaYea and Actionincluding the acquisition Neal Yea Williams Yea District
highways Yea Neal Christiansen Yea Justis YeaSullivan Yea of rights-of-way and other real
                and/or streets or alleys, At Meeting:
           Sullivan Yea 2 Vacant
Williams Yea Discussion bought. Mr. Connelly said any property in a
Baker Yea Roop Yea
Sullivan property can be
               Yea Neal
                    District
                                     Yea the construction, reconstruction and repair of roads and


another purpose.”
                       District such construction; and Chair forwarded items c.,
Williams Yea Nays 0objection,   2 Vacant
property necessary forAbsent 0 the Council the construction, reconstruction and repair
Patrick Yeas 9
2 Vacant YeaWithout2 Vacant
Williams   Yea District
PatrickYea throughanywhere Urban City, related facilities, including the acquisition of
              floodplain,                  in the
of water Yea sanitary and storm sewers andis eligible. There were no further
              lines,
Patrick Carried.
statute.
Yeas 8 Nays 0 Absent 0 to the
              questions. 0 0
rights-of-way and other real property necessary for such construction.
Yeas 8 Nays 0 Absent
Yeas 8 Nays on April 8, 2003.
Carried.
Carried.
Carried.
                   0 Absent
                               k.,                & Economic Development Committee
4/8/2003
4/17/2003
6/17/2003
 Urban &
4/17/2003Economic Development

TheCOMPETITIVE BIDDING
    12/19/2002
4/15/2003
4/15/2003
    Third Penny Sales
 Urban & & Economic Development
 Urban & Economic Development
 Urban& Economic Development
 Urban & Economic Development
 4/24/2003 authorizing the issuance of notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the Metropolitan
 2. Resolution
    Urban Economic Development
Tulsa AUTHORITIES, BOARDS &6COMMISSION ITEMS the Tulsa Airports TRO, providing for
 9. ORDINANCES - SecondTitle issuance principal amount not 4, Section 406, Improvement Trust,
 Urban & EconomicBOARDS & COMMISSION ITEMSChapter to exceed $2,000,000.00 and providing for
    Ordinance amendingtotal aggregate of Department), Chapter 4, Section 406, TRO, the execution
                                       (Finance Trustees
 4. AUTHORITIES, Development
 2. Resolution approving the(Finance Department), of
     Resolution approving 6
 11.OrdinanceAuthority in Reading
 6. 3. Transit amending Title issuance by Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority of notes or other
Special Facility Revenue Bonds for the to effect saidpurchase and authorizing the negotiated Variable
of all related bidding; providing (Lufthansa/Bizjet issuance ordersformal written contracts; and
competitive instruments and documents issuance of International Sales and Support, Inc.) sale with
 4. AUTHORITIES, providing for the issuance of purchase orders and and formal written contracts;
competitive bidding; BOARDS & COMMISSION ITEMS
regard to saidindebtedness[Budget 1-7] 03-21for themarket quotations of the Tulsa Parking Authority
and amending subsection providingpurpose of competitive market quotations underthe Quincy
             of
evidence subsection 406.G,406.G, providing amount secondTrusteesof renovationcircumstances. to
amending 2003, in an aggregate principal
    a. Series approving the
RateResolution relating toissuance by for competitive Tulsato exceed $12,000,000; authorizing the
a. Resolution indebtedness. incurring of indebtedness by the
                                                                     phase under of notes or other
                                   for the Metropolitan not Transit Authority certain of certain
Tax Funds are being diverted
waiver of competitive Title 6exceedissuance by Parking not to of renovation 2003; Quincy
Building,of Clause) [UED 4-8] (Financeprincipal thereof by negotiation with Citigroup Global or
circumstances. by the not to original 98-855-8 amountRevenueexceed Series of thewaiving
(Emergency resolution approving $16,000,000 second phase Bonds, $250,000.00; of notes
   Amended an (Emergency 98-855-8
    be evidenced aggregate the purpose of the
evidence in amending bidding and placement Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authorityand
a. Ordinanceindebtedness forClause) Department), Chapter 4, Section 406, TRO, providing for
Markets, Inc.,bidding on the said the the purposepurchase to exceed $250,000.00; contracts; and
approving or Action providing forforthe bondsamountcompetitive bidding bonds at a discount;
competitive bidding; At Meeting: authority waiving not orders sale of03-310
Discussion the aggregateof sale
    competitive trustees original issuance of (Emergency Clause) renovation of approving
Building, in an of indebtedness related matters.authorizing the and formal to permit the
other evidenceand certain other of principal andof the second phaseof the written and the Quincy
Discussionor Actionpurchase sale of such indebtedness. (Emergency Clause) 02-475-2
negotiated or bond authorityagreement, competitivebiddingquotations the negotiated placement and
Discussion ofAction At Meeting: principal amount not to exceed $250,000.00; and approving

   SINCE the indebtedness
To pay for THE NEW MAYOR
amending in ansaid 406.G, providing for and projects agreement. (Emergency Clause) [UED 12-10 & PW
Building, subsectionAt Meeting:
    approving a aggregate original
the trusteesplacement and waiving competitive market to permit under certain circumstances.
John Ogren of said authority waiving
the Bill Cartwright fromPurchasing Department presented this item. He explained that this
(Emergency from the the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority was present. negotiated placement
saletrustees indebtedness. (Emergency Clause) [UED 4-15] 02-475-2
      of such
5/15/2003 Clause) [UED 4-8] 98-855-8 competitive bidding to permit the He explained that Tulsa and
Mr.12-17] 02-662
Mike Kier, Economic the Finance Department, presented Federal Government. Traditionally, Federal this
Transit every indebtedness. things the will make02-475-3
 Urban & Director of three (Emergency Clause) the purchasing process more efficient. Doing
ordinance proposesDevelopmentthatCity and from the this item. The goal is to reset the levels at which
sale of such or Action At Meeting:
Discussion year gets money from
funds areof theAction At Meeting: process. Mayor's Performanceit MTTA uses City funds to get them
Discussion or recommendations of February and Bill Cartwright,Review, although Purchasing
was onegoes through auntil the end from theTheITEMSMarch. Usuallyfor purchases above $2500; and
 5. City not available competitive of MTTA, City would still use Assistant General
theAUTHORITIES, BOARDS & COMMISSIONor early

   TOOK OFFICE THERE IS
Doran Barnes, General Manageridea. The ordinance calls for raising the thresholds Manager,
was the until the Action At Meeting: This year,$25,000. Purchases under $25,000 would still trigger
Publicuse the Action At Meeting:the
through original proponent of
would Comments: sealed-bid process above however, Congress hasn’t approved the appropriation
Discussion or or Federal funds arrive.                                                           for formal
Of Public Trusts, after
    Discussion formal
were heretheyrelating-to drawingdifferent forapprovefor above that competitivethe publication The
James byCommentsof for by Christiansen, to purchases ordinance.
competitive bidding, bids.when they’ll get this money.
a. Resolution don’t knowthe incurring
billPublic Justis, seconded
     yet, so   to present. opposed. up contracts, and MTTA is looking Councilis price quotes.to the
Moved Alexander, Jr.
written solicitations
                            Mr.What’s
                                 Cartwright indebtednessthean aggregate principal amount not to
                                               said that lastin requiring threshold allowedplan, in in
    Bernice Sullivan, available at the bids. Tulsa exhausted.
Federal      Alexander opposed.
                                                              October, the for a contingency MTTA case
borrowby newsfor remodeling1994, whentheFrom a Authority forstaff. was Kierto Oklahoma budget
Moved funds are last-raised inacceptingCity purchasingamendedThey’ve Mr. completed doesn’t
Roll Call:funds that the by the by Roop, to approve the resolution.Recovery of said he on National
exceed $7,500,000.00 City is whenthe Quincy Building. This project spokenEnergy (TARE); think
thresholds were notseconded by Neal, to funds arepractical standpoint,
daily legal Medlock, seconded Trustees of approve the had moreresolution.
Bank, the is Yea Neal bidding; centerthreshold for formal bidding its of ano fees required.
Christiansen willing asks
Roll on competitive loan raise the group rate. If the operates out list. leased building
First, whoproposal Theirto$2 milliontheprime currently loanhave on from $15,000 to $25,000. Mr.

    NOT ONE INSTANCE
Competitive Bidding has OF
and attracts many ‘new’ vendors thatapproving documents as may be necessary orwill be incurred. Mr.
waiving schedule. toYea call and at City doesn't already is not needed, Another amendment
that Call:
Ogren said that due to cash5-6]Yeais currently that used tothatunder $15,000 are(withand relocate
(EmergencyNeal, seconded by Baker, to items decent, and be the Quincya P.O. through the than
downtown.increase theinflation, many approve the portion ofis expected tobuilding some end of
ChristiansenClause) 's Yea statusfor requiring a formal contract rather than last now more
Williams Yea They Neal threshold Roop a second resolution.
    Moved to Yea propose
Cartwright said MTTA [UED to 03-223
proposes by Medlock Yea Baker remodel Yea
Discussion or MedlockThey would likeformal need something in expensive process that requires
that, whichlikeAction At Meeting: Yea Roopandbidding. This is an place before then. He assured the a
exceptions, meansperformance a tough spotwork
the call Patrick more items require to Yea
Justis Yea Yea if Yea Yea Baker
Williams but thenathey will be in bond is required.) with F & M Bank, who holds the current
February,center there.
    Roll Call:
MovedYeaMedlock, things considerably. Also Purchasing to pay for the $244,000 funds for urban
contract and delays seconded by Christiansen, to approve checked with 15 other cities and found
Justis by Patrick Absent gettingadditional funding, because Christiansen Yea
                       Yea
Councilors that MTTA will be get the Yea Baker Yea Roop the resolution.
Sullivan Yea to refinanceVacant Patrick federal loan moneyYea it is non discretionary project. Mr.
    Williams
mortgage, Yea District 2 and
      THE CITY TAKING
Roll our threshold was thehe Yea efficient to come aboth groups $25,000 or more. Second, theis
that 9 but theyAbsent have lowest. Most cities had threshold of
Been waived by City
Sullivan Yea0Sullivan 0 saidany is satisfied it willthe explanation and thinks it’s reasonable. Councilor
CouncilorAbsent it’s Yea
Yeas Call: Christiansen Neal idea when with have through.
    Justis Yea do not much more
areas, Nays
Cartwright said the one-time purchases for less than $100,000 require only purchase orders
Medlock asks that
proposal Nays Absent 2 0 is that with our budgetary crisis, to what degree are we removing controls that
        9
Yeas 7 Nays 0 Absent 0
Neal Yea Williams AbsentMedlock Yea Baker YeaRoop Yea Justis YeaPatrick Yea Sullivan Yea
    YeasNays 0 concern
Carried. 8said his Absent
and expensive than of spending analysis? crucial, if the funding comes verified the proper item has
lessnot formal contracts. lease timing is soAre we making that, once it'severy year. Mr. Cartwright said
Christiansen Yea asked why the
Carried. Sullivan
allow a greater control
Councilor
    Carried.
                                        costs.
                           the One-time purchases are those it more difficult for the Mayor’s office &
                                                                          in the same building, and it

“ A.every year Absent imply any additional liability fromthe does hereby exist, whereby not ordinance
 COMPETITIVE BIDS IN ANY
that received, seconded
beenThe Justis,of not 1 Mr.the bottom that an and solemnly pledges to whereby the resolution
Yeas 8 by track do Tulsa hereby officiallyCity emergency same time, exist the citizensbe plus
Moved by City spending? by KierNeal,no, he an cash at the vendor. (Services would the of
Council to Medlock, seconded by said of that emergency does hereby but the problem here is
Moved Nays 0 they approach Christiansen, thedoesn’t think so. There’s still a requisition process,
shall take effect immediately by bids (eventhat emergencysealed). passing extensions,thequotes wants to
included.)Sullivan, secondedclarify thatif whatpublication.keepCouncilor exist,$250,000MTTAthe issue
Congress's Neal, wanted the asks that and
Moved by Third, the proposal appropriation an they'redoes hereby exist, add price resolution
Counciloreffectofsecondedto upon execution. emergency requiring multiplewhereby thethe shall
shall take Baker action on upon Roop, an bill. They for
Carried. byhead immediately by executionnot formallyjust doesfor is toMedlock brought up be
department lack approval, and Baker, that the threshold asking hereby whereby and to
    Moved
Tulsa:
$300,000 purchasestoapproved in October. Mr. Cartwright saidhere. said the City normally tries to
be take effect immediately said Again, inflation execution.
Roll Call: for worst $2500. you can’t find many under $25,000. Mr. Kier
RollCall: mortgage--effect immediately uponhas had its effects yes. Councilor Christiansen
raised from $1000
resolution shall takecase.
    prepared
of vehicle                 he upon
                         receivedexecution. So that purchase an emergency the hereby Cartwright
Mr. athis Christiansen an obviousthe City from that bidding in of asked if Mr. exist whereby
    That all ofYea Nealasked theseachanges would not negatively affect doesthe threshold anyway.
                fundsnot just whether there was competitiveprice would be over temporary sales
                                      by
1. Roll Call:then arguedYea oneby Christiansen, thatthe extensionthisour competitive process. He
Councilor sounds like that
saidOgrenMedlock, seconded at time. good idea. Councilor Patrick process. they payoff
Moved by Yea Neal Yea
Roll Call:
Christiansen cars,

    PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
Christiansen
buy group                                  and
said timetheMedlocktake Baker YeaYea two weeksYea law required this), but thatpotential the 31st
taxresolutionMedlock25Vacantloanthe Yeaisday ofexecution. 2001, to andadded lending agency
Williams YeaYea Neal Yea 10 years. 1st upon August,
the
Christiansen shall is Yea a immediately
Williamsthey District
clarifiedfor Yea loan
    Williams the
period                     including for Mr. Cartwright
             from andYea or Baker Roop Yea Yea (state said it’s 5 years. He includingthe saving
       thatYea did advertise effect Patrick Roopnow automated and on-line. Many no
                 City's procurement process Baker
                               for                                                           that suppliers
Justis reachedYeaSo
Councilor interest. once, beBaker Yea OK May 8,
daynot Yea Christiansenthe building) Medlock them. the future. The American withitems. He
Roll Call: SullivanYea to and voted frees up the process to purchaseYea Justis Yea Patrick Yea
can beYea Yea Medlock Yea changes kept aboutYea Baker YeaRoop spent ONLY for those said
Justis YeaPatrick noted Yea data is upon National. 2001, will be normally required Disabilities
    Roop July, at lease a
(by of having to asked who Absentsign off on a Purchase Order. Mr. Ogren said the purchasing
expressed Patrick AbsentWilliams
Williams Neal2006, MTTA approachedRoop Yea into
             Patricksaid he feelshas want to dealon the City because of the City will not process.
CouncilorSullivanpeople who don’t tocomfortable with this now, knowingits cumbersome be held In the
              Patrick
SullivanYea Sullivan Yea Yea more
Justis Yea andto Yea
CouncilorYeaChristiansen
    Justis Absent
that he’s Yea
                                            will go
                                                     with
Sullivan talked purposes set forth herein, including the repayment of indebtedness
projects off. On the other hand, a contract house the people who run it, soafter a lengthy
        CITY BUSINESS
       No Borrowing of Sales Tax Funds
                  MTTA 02 Carried. raises theacosts to City. This amendment Mayor, more efficiencies to
Act requires Absent provide lift service and can only be signed notthe will bring they would
agent7 Nays Mr.
YeasheNays that Cartwright said there’s still good chance they may by need this loan, but they want to
Yeas 9signs 0 Absent
accountable.
end, 8 Nays 0 probably
Sullivan Yea0 Absent 1 actually
          said
    Neal Yea
process8in case. any of
expended for Absent 0 such projects or purposes;..."
alwaysNays 0that expense.to Legal twice.) Councilor Patrick asked Mr. Ogren if he would be the
be Yeas haveprocess. 0
Carried.that involved going
Yeas 9 Nays Absent
theready
     purchase 0
Carried.
       expended only as accumulated
only one required to sign off on a tractor, for example. Mr. Ogren said yes, and noted that he is
There were no additional questions.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/resources/43e-tax.pdf
Carried.
    Carried.
licensed and bonded with 26 years experience with the City. …
Urban & Economic Development
4/3/2003 amendment Development transferring unencumbered and unexpended balances of $834,000.00
 Urban &
4/10/2003Economicordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriationappropriation balances of
f. Budget

Title 11, Okla. Statutes, Sec. 17-206
2/13/2003 amendment ordinance
 d. Budget

The special-purpose sales
 2/11/2003 amendment ordinanceSales Tax Fund (#6008). 02-657-2
 Urban departments within the 2001
between& Economic Development transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of
 f. Budget
$834,000.00 between departments within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [Budget 1-21] 02-657-2
 Urban & Economic Developmenttransferring2001 Sales appropriations of $806,772.00 within the DOT of
 j. Budget amendment ordinance makingthe unencumbered and (#6008). 02-657-3
 h. Budget amendment ordinance within supplemental Tax Fund unexpended appropriation balances
$258,654.00 between departmentstransferringunencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of
$100,661.88 between departmentsmakingGrant Revenues and a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax Fund
 5. Budget amendment ordinance within supplemental Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 4-8] 02-657-10
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from the 2001 Sales appropriations of $1,034,494.00 within the DOT
1/16/2003                                                                          02-657-10
Miscellaneous2-11] 02-657-6(#5311) from Grant Revenues and a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax Fund
(#6008). [UED Grants Fund
2/6/2003Economic Development
 Urban &
 1/23/2003

tax
(#6008). [UED 2-11] 02-657-4 transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of $348,681.49,
 Urban & Economic Development
 d. Budget Economic Development
 Urban & amendment ordinance
4/3/2003 amendment ordinance making supplemental appropriations
between departments within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 1-14] 02-33-4 of $1,034,494.00 within the DOT
 f. Budget
 g.Budget
4/10/2003 amendment ordinance making supplemental appropriations of $5,895,699.50 within the

 defines “NONFISCAL:
Miscellaneous Transportation Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from Grant the 2001 Sales Tax Fund
2/13/2003Economic Development from Grant Revenues and a transfer from Revenues, a transfer from
Department of Grants Fund (#5311)
 Urban &
1/14/2003 02-657-4
 2/11/2003 amendment ordinance
(#6008). Sales Tax Fund (#6007), making supplemental appropriations ofFund (#6008).within the FEMA
 Urban &
 j.
 l. BudgetEconomic Development
the 1996Economic Development
 Urban && Economic Developmentand a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax
                                                                                 $670,332.00 [Budget 1-21] 03-24

Funds are required to be
 Urban
 5. Budgetamendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances ofa transfer from
 i. Budget amendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and Sales Tax Fund (#6007), $348,681.49,
Grant Fund (#5717) from grant revenues, a transfer from the 1996 unexpended appropriation balances of

“…D. Encumbrances for funds
2/6/2003 Sales Tax within (#6008),Sales a transfer from theTax Fund (#6008). [UEDappropriation balances of
theBudget amendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended 2-11] Fund (#6041). [UED
 6. 2001
between departments Fund the 2001 and Tax the 2001 Sales Stormwater Capital Projects 02-657-7
$111,643.00 between departments within Fund (#6008). 02-33-4
$201,693.00 between departments within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 2-11] 02-657-5
 Urban & Economic Development
4-8] 02-476-3
476-3
 1/21/2003
                                                                                                                02-

 h. Budget amendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of
1/9/2003

NONFISCAL— is to account for
 Budget

whose sole purpose
 Urban & Economic Development
 2/13/2003 amendment ordinance within supplemental Tax Fund (#6008). 02-657-5
$201,693.00 between departmentsmakingthe 2001 Sales appropriations of $5,895,699.50 within the
 3. Budget
 d. Budget amendment ordinance transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of $348,681.49,
 2/11/2003
4/8/2003 Economicwithin the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). 02-33-4
 Urban &               Development
2/13/2003 of Transportation Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from Grant Revenues, a transfer from
Department
         departments
between& Economic Development
 Urban & Economic Development
2/6/2003 Sales Tax Fund (#6007), making supplemental appropriations ofFund (#6008).within the DOT
 j. Budget
 Urban
the 1996 amendment ordinance and a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax $446,572.00 03-24

grants and capital projects and/or
 7. Budget amendment ordinance making supplemental appropriations of $806,772.00 within the Fund
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from Grant Revenues and and unexpended appropriationTax DOT of
 Urban & Economic Development transferring unencumbered a transfer from the 2001 Sales balances
 e.
 5. Budget amendment ordinance
Miscellaneous2-11] 02-657-8(#5311) from Grant Revenues and a transfer from the 200102-657-3 DOT
(#6008). [UED Grants Fund
 1/9/2003 amendment ordinance making supplemental Tax Fund (#6008). 02-657-10 Sales Tax
$100,661.88 between departments within the 2001 Salesappropriations of $806,772.00 within the Fund
 i. Budget
$258,654.00                                                                        [UED 2-11]
          [UED 2-11] 02-657-6(#5311) from Grant Revenues and a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax Fund
(#6008). Economic Development
Miscellaneous Grants Fund
 Urban &
 g. Budget amendment
(#6008). 02-657-6 ordinance making supplemental appropriations of $300,000.00 from trade-in of existing helicopter

any unexpended appropriationbe
 1/21/2003
within the 2001 Five-year Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [Budget 1-7] 02-657

That means they cannot
 4/8/2003
 2/13/2003
 Budget
 2/11/2003
2/6/2003 Economic Development transferring unencumbered and unexpended appropriation balances of
 Urban & amendment ordinance
 5. Budget
 1/7/2003& Economic Development making supplemental appropriations of $670,332.00 within the FEMA
 Urban

balances may be considered
 f. Budget amendment ordinance ordinance transferring unencumbered 02-657-2
 7. Budget amendment amendmentwithin supplemental Tax Fund (#6008).and unexpended appropriation
 e. Correction: Budget ordinance
$834,000.00 between departmentsmakingthe 2001 Salesappropriations of $1,034,494.00 within the DOT
 8.Budget amendment ordinance departments unencumbered a transfer from the (#6007), a balances of
 j. Budget amendment ordinance transferring Revenues and Sales Tax Fund appropriation balances
balances of $258,624.00 grant revenues, a transfer from 2001 and unexpendedappropriation Tax Fund of
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from Grantwithin the the and Sales Tax Fund 2001 [UED 2-11] 02-657-9
Grant Fund (#5717) frombetween transferring unencumbered1996 unexpended (#6008). Salestransfer from
 Budget
$111,643.00.002-11] Funddepartments within 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [UED 2-11] Fund (#6041). 02-
$111,643.00 between departments within thethe 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008).Projects 02-657-7

Subjected to the normalthe
(#6008). Sales between (#6008), and a transfer
the 2001[UED(Co-Chairs: Roop, Baker, Patrick, Neal) from the Stormwater Capital 02-657-7
 11:30 Budget - Tax 02-657-4
476-3

nonfiscal and excluded from
 1/16/2003
1. Budget amendment ordinance making supplemental appropriations of $300,000.00 from trade-in of existing helicopter
2/11/2003
2/6/2003 Economic Development
 2/11/2003
 Urban &
within the 2001 Five-year Sales Tax Fund (#6008). [Budget 1-7] 02-657
 Urban & Economic Development
2/13/2003Economic Development making supplemental appropriations of $5,895,699.50 within the
 Urban & amendment ordinance
 d. Budget

Budgetary process body…”
 9. Budget amendment ordinance
4/3/2003 Economic Development making supplemental appropriations Grant Revenues, a transfer from
 k.
Department of Transportation Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from $446,572.00.00 within the DOT
 Urban &

budget by the governing
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (#5311) from Grant Revenues and and unexpended appropriationTax Fund of
 12/19/2002EconomicFund (#6007), transferring unencumbered a transfer from the 2001 Sales
 4.
theBudget amendment ordinanceand a transfer from the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). 03-24 balances
 Urban & Sales Tax Development
 g. 1996
(#6008). Economic Development
 Urban & [UED 2-11] 02-657-8
          02-657-8
                                                                               of $446,572.00 within the DOT

$201,693.00 between departmentstransferring unencumbered and (#6008). [UEDappropriation balances of
$258,654.00
 h. Budget amendment ordinance within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund unexpended 2-11] 02-657-5        02-657-3
 e. Budget amendment ordinance making supplemental appropriations of $300,000.00 from trade-in of existing helicopter
$100,661.88 between departments within the 2001 Sales Tax Fund (#6008). 02-657-10
 Equalization of California, 110 S.Ct. 688
  (1990).
                                                 6-60
         Freedom of Religion
 When a state denies the receipt of a benefit because of
  conduct mandated by religious belief, a burden on the
  exercise of religion exists. Not only is it apparent that
  Hobbie's declared ineligibility for benefits derived solely
  from the practice of religion, but also the pressure on her
  to forego that practice (not working on her Sabbath) is
  unmistakable. The First Amendment protects the free
  exercise rights of employees who adopt religious beliefs
  or convert from one faith to another after they are hired.
  The timing of Hobbie's conversation is immaterial to our
  determination that her free exercise rights have been
  burdened. Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals of Florida,
  107 S.Ct. 1046 (1987).

                                                        6-61
      Freedom of Religion

 A Connecticut statute which provided
 Sabbath observers with absolute and
 unqualified right not to work on their
 Sabbath, violated the establishment
 clause. It imposed on employers and
 employees an absolute duty to conform
 their business practices to a particular
 religious practice of the employee by
 enforcing observances of the Sabbath the
 employee unilaterally designated.
 Thornton v. Caldor, 105 S.Ct. 2914 (1985).
                                         6-62
   Freedom Of Press
 Generally, No Prior
 Restraints (Censorship)

 Not Absolute
 • (e.g. Obscenity, Defamation,
  National Security)
                                  6-63
   Freedom Of Speech
 Covers both verbal & written communications

 Symbolic Speech
   • (e.g. Picketing, Flag Burning)

 Commercial Speech
   • Historically Less Protected, but more protections
     since the 1970’s
   • Protects Corporations
   • Protects Listener & Speaker
   • Includes Freedom Of Information (FOIA)
                                                     6-64
     Freedom Of Speech
• A local ordinance in Forsyth County, Ga.,
 required permit applicants to pay fees of as
 much as $1,000, based on the estimated police
 and administrative costs associated with their
 protests or marches. The Forsyth County
 ordinance violated the First Amendment
 because it gave officials considerable
 discretion to set permit fees based on how
 much opposition a demonstration is expected
 to stir up. Forsyth County v. Nationalist
 Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992).
                                              6-65
     Freedom Of Speech
• A St. Paul ordinance made it a crime to burn a
 cross or do other acts that can arouse "anger,
 alarm or resentment" on the basis of race,
 religion or gender. The law wrongly singled
 out for censorship the expression of particular
 ideas. However objectionable those ideas
 might be, "The First Amendment does not
 permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions
 on those speakers who express views on
 disfavored subjects." R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 112
 S.Ct. 2538 (1992).
                                              6-66
   Freedom Of Speech
 Overbreadth Doctrine
  • Overly broad restrictions usually prohibited
   • A Missouri statute that prohibits the display, rental, or sale to minors
     of video cassettes that appeal to a "morbid interest in violence," or
     that depict violence in a manner that is "patently offensive" by
     "contemporary adult community standards." (Video Software
     Dealers Association v. Webster, 773 F.Supp. 1275 (W.D. Mo. 1991).
     Unlike obscenity, violent expression is protected by the First
     Amendment. Therefore, any regulation must be justified by a
     compelling interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
     The legislature's failure to articulate precisely the type of violence it
     considers to be detrimental to minors makes it virtually impossible
     to determine if the statute is narrowly drawn to regulate only that
     expression. The words "morbid interest in violence" and
     "contemporaneous adult standards" do not express with clarity what
     the legislature was attempting to regulate.
                                                                         6-67
   Freedom Of Speech
 Overbreadth Doctrine
  • Overly broad restrictions usually prohibited
   • The University of Wisconsin's student conduct code calls for
     disciplining students who engage in discriminatory speech or other
     expressive conduct. The rule seeks to eliminate "racist or
     discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive behavior
     directed at an individual" if such comments "demean" the race, sex,
     religion, or other attribute of an individual and create an
     "intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment." Speech can be
     regulated only if it threatens to incite an immediate breach of the
     peace. The trouble with the challenged rule is that it applies to many
     situations where a breach of the peace is unlikely to occur. Speech
     that creates an "intimidating" or "hostile" environment may tend to
     stifle rather than provoke immediate reaction. The UWM Post Inc. v.
     Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 774 F.Supp.
     1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991).
                                                                      6-68
   Freedom Of Speech
 Overbreadth Doctrine
  • Overly broad restrictions usually prohibited
  • The Los Angeles International Airport
     commissioners banned all "First Amendment
     activities" within the "central terminal area." The
     resolution was facially unconstitutional under First
     Amendment overbreadth doctrine, regardless of
     whether airport was considered a nonpublic forum,
     because no conceivable governmental interest
     could justify such an absolute prohibition of
     speech. Airport Com'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for
     Jesus, 107 S.Ct. 2568 (1987).
                                                      6-69
Commercial Speech
• SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v.
    WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, 122 S.Ct. 1497 (2002)

• FACTS: The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act
    (FDAMA) of 1997 allows drug compounding and allows the
    advertisement of such services. However, this law prohibits the
    advertising or any other promotional announcement that a specific
    compounded drug is available. Pharmacists, fearing their
    promotional materials related to drug compounds might be found to
    violate the FDAMA, sought a declaratory judgment that this law’s
    prohibition on advertising specific compounded drugs was
    unconstitutional.

•    ISSUE: Does the FDAMA unconstitutionally infringe upon the
    pharmacists’ right to engage in commercial speech?
                                                                  6-70
Commercial Speech
• SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v.
  WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, 122 S.Ct. 1497 (2002)

• DECISION: Yes. The Supreme Court reviews the four tests
  established in Central Hudson. The compounding of drugs, as
  practiced by the pharmacists involved in this case, is a lawful
  activity. The government’s interests in limiting the availability of
  compound drugs, which are not thoroughly tested by the FDA, are
  significant and substantial. The ban on advertisement of specific
  compound drugs does directly relate to the government’s interest
  stated above. However, the Court discusses numerous examples
  how the FDA could meet its interest without resorting to a restriction
  on commercial advertisement. Since the FDA didn’t show why these
  less restrictive examples weren’t feasible, the Court affirms the lower
  courts’ decisions that the FDAMA violates the First Amendment’s
  Free Speech clause.
                                                                    6-71
  Commercial Speech
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks to
  prohibit the advertising of lotteries by radio and television
  stations in Louisiana since these ads may be heard or seen in
  neighboring Texas and Arkansas where lotteries are illegal. The
  Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association seeks to have
  the FCC restrictions declared in violation of the First
  Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. Issue: Are the
  FCC restrictions sufficiently narrow in scope to meet
  constitutional requirements? Held: No. The Supreme Court
  reaffirms the four-step analysis announced in Central Hudson.
  The Court rejects the FCC’s argument that its restrictions on
  lottery advertising are sufficiently narrow. The advertiser and
  the listening/viewing public, not the government, should be
  allowed to assess the value of accurate and nonmisleading
  information about lawful conduct. Greater New Orleans
  Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States, 119 S.Ct. 1923
  (1999).

                                                             6-72
   Commercial Speech
• The State of Rhode Island allows advertising of alcoholic beverages
  prices only in the stores where the alcohol is sold. State law bans such
  advertising “outside the licensed premises.” 44 Liquormart, Inc., a
  licensed retailer, ran a newspaper ad stating the low prices at which
  peanuts, potato chips, and Schweppes mixers were being offered,
  identifying various brands of packaged liquor, and including the word
  “WOW” in large letters next to pictures of vodka and rum bottles. As a
  result of this ad, the Rhode Island Liquor Control Administrator
  assessed 44 Liquormart a fine of $400. Liquormart paid the fine and
  sought a declaratory judgment in Federal District Court that the Rhode
  Island law prohibiting off-premise advertising was in violation of the
  First Amendment’s free speech protection. Issue: Is the Rhode Island
  limitation on alcohol pricing advertisements unconstitutional? Held:
  Yes. Rhode Island failed to produce credible evidence that its
  restriction on advertising of alcohol prices reduced consumption of
  alcohol. There are other, perhaps more effective, methods of regulating
  the use of alcohol. A ban on truthful, nonmisleading commercial
  speech is not supported under these facts. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v.
  Rhode Island, 116 S.Ct. 1495 (1996).
                                                                     6-73
   Commercial Speech
• The Federal Alcohol Administration Act prohibits beer labels
  from displaying the alcohol content. Coors proposed to include
  such content on its label, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
  and Firearms refused to grant Coors's application for this label.
  Issue: Is this restriction a violation of Coors's First Amendment
  rights? Held: Yes. To regulate commercial speech that is
  truthful and not misleading, the government's interest must be
  substantial and directly related to the interest being sought.
  Here, the government's concern to limit "strength wars" between
  breweries is substantial; however, restricting the contents of the
  labels on beer cans will do little good when the breweries are
  allowed to advertise the alcohol content of their beer in other
  ways. Thus the label restrictions are in violation of the First
  Amendment. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 63 U.S.L.W. 4319
  (1995).


                                                                 6-74
         Due Process
 Due Process
 • Procedural- Proper Notice
   & Hearing
 • Substantive-
   Property/Rights Affected
   By Gov’t Action
 • 5th Amendment- Federal
 • 14th Amendment- Extended
   to State Local
                               6-75
         Due Process

5th Amendment “no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due
process of law.”
Due Process includes both
Procedural and Substantive
issues.

                                     6-76
         Due Process
 Procedural Due Process
 • Procedures depriving an
   individual of her rights must
   be fair and equitable.
 • Constitution requires adequate
   notice and a fair and impartial
   hearing before a disinterested
   magistrate.
                               6-77
                  Due Process
 Procedural Due Process
  • National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Albright,
    p.86
      The U.S. policy for determining if a foreign entity is a
       foreign terrorist organization violates procedural due
       process of law. The U.S. did not provide the court with
       any interests that would support failure to provide notice
       and a hearing before designating an entity as a terrorist
       organization. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist
       attacks, this case has taken on added importance.


                                                                  6-78
           Due Process
 Substantive Due Process
 • Focuses on the content or substance
   of legislation.
 • e.g. Laws limiting fundamental rights
   (speech, privacy, religion) must have a
   “compelling state interest.”
 • e.g. Laws limiting non-fundamental
   rights require only a “rational basis”.


                                       6-79
              Due Process

 Due Process requires that criminal
 statutes be clearly worded (so that they
 put an ordinary person on notice).
  • Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 1999.
      The Court finds The Court finds Chicago’s
       Gang Congregation (Anti-loitering) Ordinance
       which was passed to help control street-gang
       activity and thereby decrease the murder
       rate, unconstitutionally vague and gives the
       police officer too much discretion.
      Note: In Chicago v. Youkhana The Court
       found that the freedom to loiter for innocent
       purposes is part of the constitutionally
       protected liberty interest.
                                                       6-80
                    Due Process
 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
    v. CAMPBELL, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003)
 FACTS: The Campbells had their car insured with State Farm. The
    Campbells were involved in a car accident and were sued. A State
    Farm representative told the Campbells that their insurance would
    protect them and that they did not need their own lawyer. The
    Campbells were found liable for an amount greater than their
    insurance coverage. The Campbells then sued State Farm claiming
    the company’s bad faith misrepresentations resulted in the
    Campbells’ damages. Using evidence that State Farm had been
    involved in similar claims throughout the United States, the
    Campbells won a jury verdict of $2.6 million in compensatory
    damages and $145 million in punitive damages. The trial judge
    reduced the compensatory damages to $1 million and the punitive
    damages to $25 million. Following appeals, the Utah Supreme Court
    reinstated the $145 million in punitive damages. State Farm asked
    the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that these punitive damages
    violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
                                                                  6-81

                     Due Process
 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
    v. CAMPBELL, 123 S.Ct. 1513 (2003), p.164

        ISSUE: In this factual situation, does the Due Process clause
    prohibit this level of punitive damages?

         DECISION: Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court reviews the principles
    established in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore. The Court
    expresses concern that the degree of reprehensibility of State Farm’s
    bad faith is unreasonably increased by the evidence from cases
    outside of Utah. In addressing a proper ratio of punitive damages to
    compensatory damages, the Court seems to want to limit such ratio
    to a single digit. In light of Utah’s civil sanction for State Farm’s bad
    faith being limited to $10,000, the Court finds the $145 million in
    punitive damages is unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional
    under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

                                                                        6-82
                          Due Process
   .

 Dr. Ira Gore purchased in Birmingham, Alabama, a new BMW automobile for
    $40,750.88. After nine months, Dr. Gore noticed that the paint was flawed. He
    was told by the proprietor of “Slick Finish” that his car had been repainted.
    Upon inquiring at the BMW dealership where he purchased the car, Dr. Gore was
    told that his car had been repainted prior to its sale. BMW acknowledged that it
    had a nationwide policy that if the cost of repairing damages done during
    manufacturing or transportation did not exceed 3% of the retail value, the car
    was sold as new. If such repairs exceeded the 3% figure, the car was used by
    the company for a period of time and then sold as a used vehicle. The actual
    cost of repairs to Dr. Gore’s car was $601.37. Since this was well below the 3%
    stated in BMW’s policy, the car was sold as new, and Dr. Gore was not informed
    of the repairs. Feeling that he had been defrauded, Dr. Gore filed a lawsuit
    against BMW. A jury awarded Dr. Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4
    million in punitive damages. BMW appealed the award of punitive damages and
    argued that this amount was constitutionally excessive. The Alabama Supreme
    Court reduced the punitive damages by half but upheld an award of $2,000,000.
    Issue: Is this award of punitive damages unconstitutional? Held: Yes, this
    award violates the due process clause. There are three standards that apply to
    ensure that a defendant is properly notified of the magnitude of a possible
    sanction. These standards include (a) a reasonable relationship between the
    potential punitive damages and the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s
    action; (b) an appropriate ratio between the punitive damages and the actual
    harm caused by the defendant; and (c) a reasonable comparison among the
    punitive damages awarded and comparable sanctions in similar cases. Under
    these standards, the Alabama courts’ award is unconstitutionally excessive.
    BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996).

                                                                                6-83
              Due Process
 An Oklahoma law required contract creditors
 of deceased persons to file claims within 2
 months of the publication of a notice advising
 creditors of probate proceedings. Issue: Is
 this State action a denial of due process?
 Held: Yes. Creditors who are either known to
 the estate or whose identities are reasonably
 ascertainable are entitled by the Due Process
 Clause to receive notice by mail or other
 means certain to assure actual notice. The
 claim is a property interest and the probate
 procedures are state action. Tulsa
 Professional Collection Services v. Pope, 108
 S.Ct. 1340 (1988).
                                            6-84
     Equal Protection
 Prohibits Arbitrary Discrimination

 Tests
   • Minimum Rationality Test – Rational connection to a
     permissible state purpose

   • Strict Scrutiny Test- Compelling State Purpose. Applies
     where a suspect class or fundamental right is involved.
     Generally applied in cases involving race, voting, etc.

   • Quasi-Strict Scrutiny Test –Substantially related to an
     important state purpose. Often applied in “gender” cases.

   • Note: Which test the court chooses to apply often determines
     the outcome of the case                                     6-85
      Equal Protection
 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, p. 91
   • The Supreme Court enjoined enforcement of the Child Online Protection
     Act. The statute, which was designed to shield minors from harmful
     speech, could not pass the strict scrutiny test. Specifically, the Court
     believed there to be less restrictive alternatives to the statute. Strict
     scrutiny places the burden on the government to demonstrate that its
     actions are furthering a compelling interest in a manner that intrudes on
     protected rights no more than is absolutely necessary. Compelling
     interests are objectives that are just as important as the fundamental
     rights that are abridged by a statute. First amendment rights are
     considered one of our most fundamental constitutional rights and are,
     therefore, accorded strict scrutiny.



                                                                           6-86
     Equal Protection
 Mainstream Marketing Services v. Federal Trade
  Commission, p.93
  • Congress enacted a do-not-call registry that created a list of
     telephone numbers of people who do not wish to receive
     unsolicited calls from commercial telemarketers. The court
     upheld the registry, concluding that its restrictions on
     commercial speech passed the intermediate scrutiny test. Not
     only does the registry protect the privacy rights of
     individuals and protect against fraudulent and abusive calls,
     but it does not suppress and excessive amount of speech.
     Commercial speech is less protected than noncommercial
     speech. Talk them through the four-step test and contrast it
     with the strict scrutiny test used for restrictions on
     noncommercial speech.                                     6-87
    Equal Protection
• ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995)
• FACTS: Mountain Gravel & Construction Company was awarded the prime
    contract for a highway construction project in Colorado. Mountain Gravel
    then solicited bids from subcontractors for the guardrail portion of the
    contract. Adarand, a Colorado-based highway construction company
    specializing in guardrail work, submitted the low bid. Gonzales Construction
    Company also submitted a bid. Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to
    Gonzales since Gonzales qualified as a minority contractor and Adarand did
    not. The prime contract’s terms provide that Mountain Gravel would receive
    additional compensation if it hired subcontractors certified as small
    businesses controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged
    individuals.” After losing the guardrail subcontract to Gonzales, Adarand
    filed suit claiming that the race-based presumptions involved in the use of
    subcontracting compensation clauses violate Adarand’s right to equal
    protection. The District Court granted the Government’s motion for
    summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

•     ISSUE: What is the standard review when considering race-based
    actions by governmental units?
•

                                                                           6-88
 Equal Protection
• ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA,
 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995)

• DECISION: Applies Strict scrutiny. The
 Court examined its various decisions
 addressing this issue, including Bakke
 (1978), Fullilove (1980), Wygant (1986),
 Croson (1989), and Metro Broadcasting
 (1990). To clarify the various holdings, this
 Court reached a majority opinion that all
 racial classifications, imposed by any level
 of government, must be analyzed by a
 reviewing court under strict scrutiny.      6-89
  Equal Protection
• The State of Iowa passed a law allowing slot machines to be
  placed on riverboats. The proceeds from these machines
  were taxed at the rate of 20%. Subsequently, Iowa permitted
  slot machines to be placed at race tracks. The proceeds from
  these machines were taxed at a rate as high as 36%. The
  race tracks owners filed suit arguing that the higher tax rate
  on their slot machines denied them the equal protection of
  laws. Issue: Does the existence of two tax rates on similar
  slot machines violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
  Fourteenth Amendment? Held: No. The Supreme Court
  holds that Iowa is regulating economic activities in this case.
  Therefore, the test of equal protection is based on minimal
  scrutiny. Since a rational basis can be found (such as not
  wanting to encourage as many slot machines at race tracks
  as on riverboats), the two tax rates are upheld. Fitzgerald v.
  Racing Association of Central Iowa, 123 S.Ct. 2156 (2003).



                                                             6-90
         Equal Protection
 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
  Inc. 473 U.S. 432 (1985)

 Facts: Respondent Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC), which anticipated
  leasing a certain building for the operation of a group home for the
  mentally retarded, was informed by petitioner city that a special use permit
  would be required, the city having concluded that the proposed group
  home should be classified as a “hospital for the feebleminded” under the
  zoning ordinance covering the area in which the proposed home would be
  located. Accordingly, CLC applied for a special use permit, but the City
  Council, after a public hearing, denied the permit. CLC and others (also
  respondents here) then filed suit against the city and a number of its
  officials, alleging that the zoning ordinance, on its face and as applied,
  violated the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents.



                                                                        6-91
         Equal Protection
 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
   Inc. 473 U.S. 432 (1985)

 Procedural History: The District Court held the ordinance and its
   application constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that
   mental retardation is a “quasi-suspect” classification; that, under the
   applicable “heightened-scrutiny” equal protection test, the ordinance was
   facially invalid because it did not substantially further an important
   governmental purpose; and that the ordinance was also invalid as applied.

 Holding: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding mental retardation a
  quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial
  review than is normally accorded economic and social legislation.
 2. Requiring a special use permit for the proposed group home here
  deprives respondents of the equal protection of the laws, and thus it is
  unnecessary to decide whether the ordinance’s permit requirement is
  facially invalid where the mentally retarded are involved.
                                                                         6-92
 Some Equal Protection Issues
1. Legislative     5. Voting
   Apportionment      Requirements
2. Real Estate-    6. Welfare
   Racial             Residency
   Segregation     7. Rights Of
3. Rights Of          Aliens
   Legitimates &   8. Property Tax
   Illegitimates      To Finance
4. Jury Makeup        Schools
                                6-93
  Constitutional Interpretation
 Should the Constitution be
 interpreted according to its
 “plain meaning” or is the
 Constitution a “living” or
 “evolving” document whose
 meaning changes according to
 the times?
                               6-94
 Constitutional Interpretation
 Its primary architect, James
  Madison, said that “(If) the
  sense in which the
  Constitution was accepted
  and ratified by the Nation …
  be not the guide in
  expounding it, there can be
  no security for a faithful
  exercise of its powers.”
  (The Writings of James
  Madison, ed. G. Hunt,
  p.191)
                                 6-95
 Constitutional Interpretation
 Former Harvard Law
 Professor and Supreme
 Court Justice Joseph Story
 said, “A constitution of
 government is addressed to
 the common sense of the
 people, and never was
 designed for trials of logical
 skill, or visionary
 speculation.” (Commentaries
 on the Constitution of the
 United States, 3rd ed.
 (Boston, 1858))                  6-96

								
To top