TULSA CITY COUNCIL

January 28, 2010

Dear Mayor Bartlett -

As a City Councilor, an Attorney, a Republican, and a friend, I am writing to you to provide you theinformation which may aid you in making an informed decision regarding retaining a member ofyour staff. I am speaking about Mrs. Deirdre Dexter, your City Attorney. I cannot express the depthof my dissatisfaction with her services not only to the City Council, but to the City as a whole. Forthe reasons below (among others), I believe she is not competent in the field of municipal law. Sinceshe is appointed by the Mayor and not the Council, I feel I must provide you with information on herqualification and fitness to be City Attorney, so you may make an informed decision.

When I became a City Councilor for the City of Tulsa, I discovered that municipal law is a varied,vexing, and complex area of the law which many lawyers do not appreciate. If we could designatespecialties, it would certainly be one. A few areas a municipal lawyer must be able to address arecriminal law, contracts, workers' compensation, zoning, collective bargaining rights, litigation,bankruptcy, employment, condemnation, constitutional rights, and the interplay between local laws,state statutes and federal statutes. It certainly is more diverse and complex than I ever appreciated.

Oklahoma's Rules of Professional Conduct states, "[a] lawyer shall provide competent representationto a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, andpreparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Rule 1.1.

Over the two years, Mrs. Dexter has rendered inconsistent, inaccurate, and untimely advice to theCity of Tulsa. It is now evident, she did not have the background to be appointed as City Attorney,and was appointed for reasons I can only speculate about. She either knew or should have known shewas not qualified for the job. But once she accepted the job, she should have made efforts toresearch the specific areas of the law before rendering her "from the hip" opinions. Below I haveillustrated a few of the instances where I believe Mrs. Dexter's advice and actions did not reach thelevel of competence which the Oklahoma Bar Association expects of its members, nor the citizens ofthe city of Tulsa from its City Attorney.

1

175 EAST SECOND STREET, FOURTH FLOOR· TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103(918) 596-1990 • FAX 596-1964 • www.tlllsacolll1cil.org

1. Charter Amendment Election Date in Conflict with State Law.

At the City Council's request, Mrs. Dexter drafted and submitted for the Council's approval aproposed charter amendment which would alter the terms of office for the City Councilors from two(2) years to three (3) years. (Exhibit A.) It would also stagger the elections so three (3) Councilors

would be elected each year.

Mrs. Dexter's failure to consult with the election board or properly review the state statutes regardingdates in which elections could be held resulted in a charter amendment submitted to (and approvec1by) the voters that requires primary elections to be held in September of every year. This dale

conflicts with state law.

Title 26, . 'etion 3-101 sWc,.

L,cept as othe: .. '.':.'•.1" ,j ,;ued by law, no special election shalllJ.!'-.held bumSQunty,§.chool . districJ, (echnology center school district, municipality or other entity

!.mtJ.LQ!ized to call elections except on the second Tuesday of January, February, May,.;WW, July, August, September, October, November and December and the firstTuesday in March and April in odd-numbered years and the second Tuesday ofJanuary, February, May, and December, the first Tuesday in March and April. the lastTuesday in July. the fourth Tuesday in August, and the first Tuesday after the firstMonday in November of any even-numbered year; except in any year when aPresidential Preferential Primary Election is held in February, the date for the specialelections shall be the same date as the Presidential Preferential Primary Election.(Emphasis added)

26 O.S. 2005, §3-101 (Exhibit B).

Title 26 O.S. 2005, §13-10l.l states:

After July I, 2005, no county election board shall be required to conductelections for any municipality on a date other than an election date identifiedin subsection B of Section 3-10 I of this title ....

26 O.S. 2005, §13-10l.l (Exhibit C). State law does not allow the County Election Boards toconduct municipal elections in September of even numbered years. As a result, the City of Tulsamust submit another charter amendment to the voters asking to change the date of the primaryelections in at least the even numbered years, or conduct its own elections.' Mrs. Dexter admittedher mistake stating: "It's just something that was missed," Dexter said. "1 have to fall on the swordon this one." (Exhibit D, City may get bill/or elections A proposed charter change clashes with statelaw, keeping the Election Boardfrom covering the cost.", Tulsa World, Sept. 3, 2009, PJ. Lassek.);

1 The City could conduct its own elections; however, it has not done so for decades; it does notpossess the required equipment, personnel, nor expertise to do so. It would be a very costly and timeconsuming endeavor.

2

Exhibit E, Deirdre Dexter, RE: Charter Election Proposition re: Staggered Terms, email

correspondence dated September 2,2009.

As a direct result of her incorrect advice, taxpayers will have to incur the cost of at least a special

election to amend the City Charter, or the expense of equipping and conducting its own elections.

2. Electioneering and Hatch Act

This issue arises out of a highly controversial series of conflicting opinions from Mrs. Dexter

regarding the extent an employee of the City of Tulsa may participate in the election of City of Tulsaofficials. Mrs. Dexter issued a series of oral and written opinions on the extent city employees could

particip3'.'. ,," partisan elecLhlS of the City of Tulsa.' Some said they could, others that they (;Quidnot. The vpinions plainly (;'..11Y1dicted each other and were issued without a basic understanding of

loca'. e, and federal la",

She ,;ho summarily overtumell 25 years of multiple City Attorney Opinions on the matter withouteve·' "eading the opinions. " .,

Further, she failed to review the "Hatch Act", a federal act which prohibits public employ(.f.~ fromusing their office or position to interfere with or affect the results of municipal partisan elections

when the positions are funded, directly or indirectly through a federal grant. As a result of heradvice, hundreds of Tulsa Firefighters publicly campaigned for several candidates in our municipal

elections. If they are found in violation by the Office of Special Council, the City of Tulsa will be

required to terminate the employment of every participating firefighter or forego twice their annual

salaries in funding, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars.

Her statements include clearly erroneous statements about the City Charter's inability to limit

election activities of its employees, saying the Charter is precluded by the employees' FirstAmendment constitutional rights. 5 There is a long line of clearly established law to the contrary.

Such a statement could not honestly be made by any lawyer, who had done proper research.

2 Exhibit F, Deirdre Dexter, RE: Employees and Elections, email correspondence dated February 4,2008; Exhibit F, Brian Barber, "Tulsafirefighters trying to oust three incumbent city councilors",Tulsa World, (August 12,2009); Exhibit G, Brian Barber, "Councilors lash back atfirefighters",Tulsa World, (September 02, 2009).3 Exhibit J, Deirdre Dexter, RE: On Another Matter, series of email correspondence last datedAugust 13, 2009.4 Exhibit K, Imogene Harris, Opinion No. 84-4, Political Activities ofCity ofTulsa Employees, March16, 1984; Exhibit L, Martha Rupp CarieI', Opinion No. 90-3, Political Activities, August IS, 1990;Exhibit M, Martha Rupp Carter, Supplement to Opinion No 90-3, September 10, 1991; Exhibit N,Martha Rupp Carter, Opinion No. 91-6, Political Activities, Feb. IS, 1991.5 Exhibit 0, I I O.S. §I3-109; I I O.S. §13-1 II; Exhibit P, United States Civil Service Commission etal., v. National Association ofLetter Carriers AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548, 93 S. Ct. 2880, 37L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)

3

The City Charter, the organic law of the city, specifically limits the ability of city employees to takean active part in any campaign for elected city positions to voting or privately stating a personalopinion6

• While a state statute allows greater latitude for public employees in general, Mrs. Dexter'slack of competence and failure to do proper research (or even read the previous City AttorneyOpinions), meant she did not have a basic understanding of the applicable law and understand theability of a municipal charter to override state statutes in items of local concern. Since she renderedopinions both ways on the issue, one will be right and one will be wrong.

No lawyer can be right aU the time. But, her haphazardly rendered advice before she had a basicunderstanding of the underlying law, and the issues surrounding it placed the City of Tulsa insubstantial finamni l"~''''''rh'

The affected pan,'". nc 1ude: .<11 Councilors who had to compete against unlawful campaigning bylabor unions, the en',"e work ; of the City of Tulsa, citizens affected by the elections, the U.S.government, and the corporate, cl i.~nt "City of Tulsa", and the potential loss of hundreds of publicsafety positions.

3. Selection of Wrong Election for Petition Signatnres

A group of citizens wanted to allow the citizens of Tulsa to vote on whether or not to have partisanmunicipal elections. Because of incorrect advice from Mrs. Dexter, they collected an insufficientnumber of signatures to place the question on the ballot.

In violation of Rule 1.1 7, Mrs. Dexter incorrectly advised the City Clerk on the number of signatures

necessary to file an initiative petition to amend the City Charter for the City of Tulsa. Instead ofutilizing the last general election where all the voters of the city of Tulsa were eligible to vote (heldin 2006), Mrs. Dexter advised that a general election held in 2008, which did not include all of thevoters of the City of Tulsa was the proper election in determining the number of signatures necessaryto successfully file an initiative petition. This advice was rendered contrary to clear and longstanding Oklahoma Supreme Court case precedent.8

The City Clerk relied upon Mrs. Dexter's advice and determined the initiative petition was sufficient.Knowing the applicable law, I felt obligated by my oath as a City Councilor and as an attorney todefend the law, and filed an action contesting the sufficiency of the petition 9 Despite repeatedattempts to enlighten the City Attorney, she failed to understand the basic premise of the statute andthe clear case law. Ultimately, the district court determined she was incorrect and ruled the 2006general election as the proper election to use to determine the number of required signatures. As a

6 Exhibit Q, Amended Tulsa City Charter, 2008, Art. X, §I 0.1, Art. XI, §5.1.7 "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires thelegal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."

8 Exhibit R, Neidy v. City ofChickasha, 2008 OK 61, 188 P.3d 128, ~18, ~32; Belisle v. Crist, 1967OK 58, 425 P.2d 983, ~13-16.9 Exhibit S, Petition, Eagleton vs. City ofTulsa, CJ - 2009 -5920

4

direct result of her incorrect advice, a group of taxpayers and concerned citizens spent significant

time and money collecting the amount of signatures they were told were necessary to file a petition,

only have that time and money wasted. lo

The affected parties are the individuals wanting to bring the question to a vote of the people, the

District Court through its' waste of time, Me, through substantial loss of time and personal funds

spent defending the law, and all of the citizens of Tulsa who were denied the opportunity to vote on

the idea of non-partisan elections.

4. Failure to Provide Timely Advice Regarding Proposed Auditor Investigation

Ordinance.

In the midst of the City Auditor conducting an investigation ofthe Tulsa Fire Department, the City

Council was deliberating over an ordinance which would rtquire City of Tulsa employees to respond

to lawful questions submitted by the City Auditor as part of his duties. During the meeting, Mrs.

Dexter voiced her opinion that such an ordinance would probably violate employees' rights and

probably would not be upheld (depending on the factual scenario, of course.)

In response to her statement, I requested a written legal opinion from her on the issue. The ordinance

was pending, and she knew time was a consideration. On August 4, 2009, she responded that she

would have the legal opinion prepared for the next week's meeting, but "no guarantees." After five

(5) subsequent placements on the Committee agenda ll, and six (6) weeks later, on September IS,

2009, she finally rendered her opinion12. Her written opinion contradicted her verbal opinion given

six weeks earlier, and stated such an ordinance could withstand constitutional challenges within

certain parameters.

The ordinance passed. While an additional week or maybe two would have been understandable, her

delay in taking six times longer than she advised her client on a time critical issue, without providing

her client updates or a new timeline, is a violation of Rule 1.3 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional

Conduct. 13

Her delay affected the City Council, City Auditor, the passage of the ordinance, and the investigation

of the Tulsa Fire Department's medical training program.

10 Exhibit T, Order, Eagleton vs. City ofTulsa, CJ - 2009 - 5920II Exhibit U, City Council Committee Meeting Agendas; Exhibit V, video of City CouncilCommittee meeting, August 4,2009 (I: 12:00 into meeting).12In her opinion, she stated it was possible to have such an ordinance so long as the ordinancecomplied with federal law, specifically citing the Weingarten and Garrity cases.13 "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."

5

5. LED Billboard

Another issue arises out of legislation before the City Council. This was to allow L.ED. Billboards.

In this instance, Mrs. Dexter failed to provide competent advice either through insufficient research

or an inability to analyze the cases on point. She advised the Council that requiring participation in

an Emergency Broadcast System was defenseless, if challenged.

It is well established law that government may regulate or even prohibit billboards within its

jurisdiction.14 The City Council was weighing the merits of the L.E.D. Billboards by comparing the

various negative influences on public safety (distraction to motorists) versus the benefits of allowing

more speech. For some Councilors, one of the key points for balancing the two competing interests

was whether public safety messages could be required to be displayed in the event of an emergency.

(Amber alerts, tornado warnings, ....)

Mrs. Dexter advised that the City may not have the ability to regulate L.E.D. Billboards to include an

emergency notification requirement. She wrote me stating that:

I have attempted my own research and also have found nothing directly on

point, ... [T]hus, given the unique nature of the inquiry and issues involved,

there is no way to analyze the likelihood of success at trial if a lawsuit is filed

alleging a 'taking' of personal property. And, as City Attorney, I can't

recommend a course of action that would result in the City facing a case of

first impression without any true legal or factual defense.,,15

Her inability to address the emergency messaging issue is surprising. The issue is broken into two

areas. First, a First Amendment analysis, and second and more importantly is the property rights

issue of condemnation versus police power.

While First Amendment free speech rights are an important part of our constitutionally allowed

freedoms, they are subject to limitations. (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.) In regulated

industries, it is very common to have restrictions on speech, especially commercial speech. The

ability of the government to reasonably utilize regulated media to broadcast emergency messages to

the public has been well settled for years. (i.e. the Emergency Broadcast System.) Thus, in light of

Metromedia, the First Amendment issue only needs proper rules in place to govern its usage in light

of the public safety policy implemented by the ordinance.

A final small but significant insight into Mrs. Dexter's municipal law competence is given by her

question of:

... what test or method will be employed to determine when there is

an 'imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to any person or

14 Metromedia, Inc. v. City ofSan Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882 (1981).

IS Exhibit X, Deirdre Dexter, Sign Ordinance, email correspondence dated May 7,2008.

6

the public at large,' causes grave concern regarding the ability to

defend against a constitutional challenge.

The phrase "imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death" is a constitutional standard establishedby the United States Supreme Court in determining when a police officer may use deadly force. All

city attorneys in Oklahoma, and the nation should be very familiar with the phrase, its meaning, andits application.

Second is the property rights issue of utilizing private property for a public purpose. It is clear that in

the interest of public safety, the government may use private property for governmental use withoutcompensation.16 In fac'. The vary issue had been successfully litigated by the City of Tulsa in the

case of Brannon vs. eli) 'i"isa, 1996 Ok Civ App 145,932 P.2d 44. In Suntide, the Court alsosaid, "We have held th~' ., .. ' ,.; done in the proper exercise of the police power which merely impair

the use of the prope", ,,' i ,Ul \'onstitute a "taking". Suntide Inn Operating Corporation v. State, exrei, Oklahoma State Highway Cummission, 1977 OK 204, 571 P.2d 1207 (1977).

While opposing attorneys may differ on whether the facts of requiring L.ED. Billboards toparticipate in an emergency message system is a compensable taking or not, a quick survey of the

law shows beyond a doubt that there is case law addressing the issues, and that it is not "a case offirst impression without any true legal or factual defense." Again, Mrs. Dexter provided her client

with inaccurate and incomplete advice. She failed to provide her client with the level of competency

required by the Oklahoma Code of Professional Responsibility. And her failure impaired thelegislative process of her client, the City of Tulsa.

Her actions adversely affected the City Council, and all citizens that would have benefited fromL.E.D. billboards providing public safety information in times of crisis.

6. Allowing a Collective Bargaining Agreement in Violation of City Ordinances

On June 28, 2007, the Tulsa City Council passed an ordinance limiting the ability of the Mayor to

allow employees to have take-home vehiclesY The Mayor signed the Ordinance on July 30, 2007,and Mrs. Dexter signed the ordinance prior to its publication on August 3, 2007.

On July 26, 2007, based on the advice of Mrs. Dexter, the City Council passed a second ordinancel8

amending the June 28th ordinance to claritY that the amendment would not be effective againstprovisions of collective bargaining agreements between the City of Tulsa and Fraternal Order of

16 Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1423 (loth Cir.,1986); Agins v. City of

Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260,100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980).

17Exhibit Y, Ordinance No. 21588, amending 12 Tulsa Revised Ordinances ChapJ, effect. Aug. 4,2007.18 Exhibit Z, Ordinance No. 21587, amending 12 Tulsa Revised Ordinances Chap.3, effect. Aug. 4,2007.

7

Police, and International Association of Fire Fighters until July I, 2008. The Mayor signed theOrdinance on July 30, 2007, and Mrs. Dexter signed the ordinance prior to its publication on August

3,2007.

Subsequently, the City of Tulsa entered into a collective bargaining negotiation with the police andfire collective bargaining units. The subsequent collective bargaining agreements (CBA) containedprovisions which violated the orditlance. 19

,2o

As City Attorney, she knew of the ordinance, she knew of the CBA, and knew of the conflict

between them. She should I) have brought the conflict to the attention of the elected officials priorto the CBA negotiations; 2) informed the elected officials it was a violation of the law for the CBA to

contain the drafted take-home \"':1ic!e provision; 3) defended the city ordinances by court action ifnecessary; and 4) notified the City Council of any adverse arbitration action in sufficient time they

could cal: for a vote of the people as provided by law. Her failure to do so, is a clear violation of atleast Rulr 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 1.4 (Communication).

Alternatively, if the ordinance would not be enforceable under Oklahoma law, she should have

advised the City Council of such prior to their passing the initial ordinance. Doubly so before

advising them to pass a second ordinance which specifically exempted existing CBAs from the

ordinance, and giving the City Councilors the indisputable impression, the ordinance would beenforceable against future agreements.

7. Owen vs. City of Tulsa Settlement Conference

Again, a case of Mrs. Dexter's failure to communicate with her client, and competent legal

representation. Affected parties include the City Council, the attorney's hired by the City as outside

counsel, the plaintiffs attorney, and a U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge.

The City of Tulsa is a named defendant in the case of Owen vs, City of Tulsa, et al. (08-CV-159

GKF) before the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. One of the three

charter amendments placed before the voters of the City of Tulsa on the November 10,2009 ballotwas to require Council approval of any settlements over One Million Dollars. (It was ultimately

approved.) Prior to the charter amendment, the Mayor of the City of Tulsa had sole settlementauthority for the City of Tulsa. Mrs. Dexter drafted and approved the proposed charter amendment

language, and advised the Council as to the potential ramifications of the proposal if it was sent to thevoters and approved.

On November 10,2009, at 4:29pm (election day), Mrs. Dexter sent an email to Mr. AndrewRees (the Council Attorney) advising a settlement conference had been scheduled in Federal Court

19 Exhibit Z2, Collective Bargaining Agreement between City ofTulsa, Oklahoma and Lodge #93Fraternal Order ofPolice, effective July 1,2008 through June 30, 2009.20 Exhibit Z3, Memorandum of Understanding between the City ofTulsa, employer and FOP LodgeNo. 93, Bargaining Unit, June 25, 2009.

8

on the morning of November 12,2009 for the case of Owen vs. City a/Tulsa, et aI., the Plaintiffs

last offer exceeded One Million Dollars21 She stated that if the Charter Amendment passed, theCity's Outside Counsel, Plaintiffs Counsel, and the Magistrate Wilson would have a conference call

Wednesday, November 11,2009, and determine which City Councilors the magistrate judge would

order to attend the settlement conference on behalf of the City. City Offices were closed onNovember 11, 2009, in celebration of Veteran's Day. No Councilors were previously informed of

the scheduled se,ttlement conference, the status of the case, nor events in the case since the Council

authorized representation of city employees at the onset of the case.

On November 11,2009, at 9:10 am, Mrs. Dexter sent an email stating the Plaintiff reduced hissettlement "fj:~r below One Million dollars, so the Councilors would no longer be required to

appear.22 On November 12, 2009, at 10:47am, Mrs. Dexter sent another email stating:"[A]pparrently I received bad information about the application of the new Charter Amendments, ...

[I]n any event, pummnt to Oklahoma law, the Charter amendments do not become the law of theCity of Tulsa until ...." She went on to state: "As a result, the e-mail string regarding the settlementconference in Owen was premature.,,23 Essentially, she provided bad advice which was against clear

Oklahoma statutes.

Some of the applicable provisions of the Oklahoma Code of Professional Responsibility include:

Rule 1.1 (Competent advicei 4, Rule 1.3(Diligencei 5

, and Rule 1.4(Communicationi6.

21 Exhibit Z4, Deirdre Dexter, Settlement Conference an Thursday, email correspondence datedNovember 10,2009.22 Exhibit Z5, Deirdre Dexter, Owen v. City a/Tulsa, et aI., email correspondence dated November11,2009.23 Exhibit Z5, Deirdre Dexter, Charter Amendments, email correspondence dated November 12,2009.24 "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation

requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for

the representation."25" A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."26 "(a) A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance withrespect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule l.O(e), is requiredby these Rules;

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which theclient's objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer'sconduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by theRules of Professional conduct or other law.

9

In this instance, Mrs. Dexter provided incorrect legal advice to her clien! to outside counsel,plaintiffs counsel, and th~ };.~dcral Court, when she advised that the Charter Amendment becameeffective the day after i.he vGte.

As a result, an additional hearing was established by the Court to determine which City Councilorsshould attend as the City's repr~sentatives. Mrs. Dexter has been acting or appointed City Attorneyfor the City of Tulsa. for ove, ~hree years. An attorney with even a rudimentary understanding of

election law, and the charter amendment / election process would know her statements were

incorrect. Even cursory research would have revealed the steps necessary after a vote for a charteramendment to become effective. (i.e. II O.S. \3_107)27.

Mrs. DeXlet admL she gave the incorrect advice, though it was from relying on "bad information".

As the (',(; AttonJe) and the lead attorney in the charter amendment process, she either knew orshould have known the Charter proposal would not be effective until the statutory process was

complete.

Under Rule lA, an attorney is required to "keep the client reasonably informed about the status of thematter." Informing a client that they must attend a Federal Settlement Conference for a lawsuit

i

which may settle for more than One Million Dollars with only four (4) business hours notice is

absolutely unacceptable!

None of the City Councilors were reasonably informed of the current status of the case, the strengths

and weaknesses of the Plaintiffs claims, nor the City's defenses. The City Council had not evenbeen introduced to outside counsel, nor explained the extent of the outside counsel's representation.

Essentially, the City's elected officials were going into a federal settlement conference involvingallegations of the deprivation of an individual's civil rights "blind".

I do not know the date the settlement conference was set; however, I suspect it was several weeks, if

not months before November 12, 2009. Mrs. Dexter originally believed if the charter amendment

was approved, Council involvement would be required. Yet, she did not provide any advancednotice or communication of the conference other than a last second e-mail. This is unprofessional

and unacceptable. It is a gross violation of Rule lA, and if the Councilors were required to

participate in the settlement process, it would have placed the City of Tulsa in a substantiallydisadvantageous position to negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers.

8. Great Plains Settlement

This issue arises out of Mrs. Dexter's failure to properly advise or defend her client regarding thelegal defenses and issues surrounding a lawsuit. Due to lack of competent counsel, the City of Tulsasettled a lawsuit against it for over seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00).

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clientto make informed decisions regarding the representation."27 ExhibitZ7, II O.S. §13-107.

10

Defenses for the City of Tulsa included statute of limitations, governmental tort claims act, and

common law. These defenses were either not explained with sufficient clarity for the City to make aproper decision, not pursued wit!l due diligence, or if explained to the Mayor (a recent board member

of the de facto Plaintiff), Mrs Dexter was under an obligation to notifY other elected officials of theMayor" specific intent to pay the plaintiff regardless of the law on the issue.

Since Mayor LaFortune refused to agree to the same settlement, presumably because he believed itwas an unlawful and completely defensible. Mrs. Dexter was under a duty to notify the Council ofthe Mayor's conflict of interest and receive their input as well, before settling a 7,000,000.00 case

without a fight.

As a result, th,: "',,~ day tl tl1aintiff filed an amended petition naming the City of Tulsa as adefendant, the City suh..,itted i", Answer.28

,29 The next day a joint motion for approval of settlement

was submitted, partiesPr,,~ared before the judge, and it was approved.30

Mrs. Dexter's inability to properly advise the Mayor or the Council of the legal defenses and theweight to be given to each, caused the taxpayers of the City of Tulsa to pay a judgment they had little

or no legal responsibility for. There is currently a qui tam action pending as an attempt by sometaxpayers to recover the monies paid to the plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

These instances are but a few of the constant items the City Council and citizens of Tulsa are forced

to endure, and demonstrate a conclusive pattern or practice of her lack of ability and fitness to be the

City Attorney for the City of Tulsa.3! Mrs. Dexter is simply not competent in the field of municipal

law. Her repeated mistakes, failure to properly research, and failure to properly communicate with

elected officials, places the City of Tulsa in difficult positions, is unprofessional, and violates the

standards of practice established by the Oklahoma Bar Association.

I cannot express the depth of my dissatisfaction or disappointment in Mrs. Dexter's performance.

believe many of my fellow Councilors share my concerns and feelings and have lost confidence inher ability to represent the City of Tulsa. Some have spoken of a formal vote on the matter. I hope

you can address the situation before it is placed on an agenda and places the entire matter in the

public eye, which serves no one's best interest, including Mrs. Dexters'.

28 Exhibit Z 7, Docket Sheet, Tulsa Industrial Authority vs. Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, et al.,Dist. Court for Tulsa County, CJ-2004-6124.29 Exhibit Z9, Second Amended Petition, Answer of City of Tulsa, Tulsa Industrial Authority vs.Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, et al., Dist. Court for Tulsa County, CJ-2004-6124 (June 25,2008.)30 Exhibit ZIO, Joint Motion to Settle, Journal Entry of Judgment, Tulsa Industrial Authority vs.Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, et aI., Dist. Court for Tulsa County, CJ-2004-6124 (June 26,2008.)

3! Recent advice given to TARE represents yet another controversial reversal of position which haseroded confidence in her abilities.

11

I appreciate your time and efforts in addressing these unfortunate events. If I can be of anyassistance, please contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

John M. Eagleton

12