Blatant, Verifiable Violation of Tulsa Ethics Ordinances in TMUA Chloramination Proceedings and Related Matters:

Known Facts and Areas Meriting Further Investigation

Summary
Due to either gross negligence or in exchange for 2009 campaign contributions and other support, Mayor Dewey Bartlett has allowed blatant, verifiable violations of Tulsas Ethics Ordinances in the proceedings of Tulsa Metropolitan Utlity Authority (TMUA)of which he is a member and appointerregarding approval of the chloramination process and his administration may be responsible for quashing ethics investigations into the matter (though the latter claim will require additional investigation to verify.) 2011 Vice-Chairman/Chairman of the TMUA (and current Chairman) Richard Hudson, contributor to Mayor Dewey Bartletts election campaign and owner of a company that he has repeatedly publicly acknowledged to supply chloramine-resistant materials, should (according to the 2005 Tulsa Ethics Ordinance) have recused himself of all proceedings related to the matter due to this potential conflict of interest, but instead not only continued to be involved in the matter, but publicly advocated chloramination to the City Council and openly resisted and (based upon the TMUAs action) defied a formal City Council request to briefly delay approval of chloramination so that a distinguished, nationally recognized expert on the subject, Bob Bowcock could speak to the TMUA on the matter, thus stymieing public discussion of the issue. The fact that the majority of the TMUAs board members are on record as having financially contributed directly to Mayor Dewey Bartletts 2009 election campaign, coupled with his mayoral seat on the board raises serious questions as to whether he intentionally allowed these ethics violations to take place. Just as concerning is the fact that the departments responsible or investigating ethics complaints have apparently not responded to numerous complaints regarding this matter, after two years suggesting the highly concerning possibility they may be complicit in this affair.

Richard Hudson, Corporate Background

Originally appointed to the TMUA in 2006, Richard Hudson is the owner and CEO of RL Hudson, a Tulsa-based international industrial materials supplier that, among other products, supplies chloramine-resistant materials. Richard Hudson is clearly personally aware that his firm supplies these products based upon his comments during his October 27, 2011 address to the Tulsa Council Meeting defending the chloramination. (His acknowledgement is at 02:46:20 of this TGOV video of the City Council meeting.) An article by RL Hudson featured on their company website titled CHLORAMINE RESISTANCE: More Aggressive water disinfectants may precipitate sealing changes not only notes that they can help you find compounds that will withstand chloramines, but also that Though they are safe for consumption in drinking water (digestion neutralizes them before they enter
the bloodstream), other forms of intake can be dangerous. Chloramines interfere with oxygen absorption if taken directly into the bloodstream and thus cannot be present in water used for kidney dialysis. Similarly, chloramines are toxic to fish (freshwater and saltwater), reptiles, and amphibians. .chloramines do indeed pose a significant threat to many of the most widely used elastomeric materials.*

Therefore, Richard Hudson was quite obviously aware at the time of his address to the Tulsa Council Meeting that his company had a vested interest in increased adoption of chloramination, especially in Tulsa, where his well-established relationships in the Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce (which, in 2003 honored him as Tulsas Small Business Person of the Year, according to his managerial profile on RL Hudson company website) would likely grant him access to a large immediate client-base for industrial applications.

* No sources are cited in the document, so the assertions made regarding the effects of chloramine should be taken as those of RL Hudsons own conclusions and thus are not necessarily authoritative.

Tulsa Ethics Code and Richard Hudsons Violations Thereof

The Tulsa Code of Ethics (available here) states that
"Except as otherwise permitted under applicable federal, state, and City laws and policies, no City official [Defined: 'every City of Tulsa elected official, officer, or employee; member of a City of Tulsa Board, Authority, Commission, or Committee; or Trustee appointed by the City to a public trust with the City of Tulsa as a beneficiary' (Sec 601, Par 3, Lin 1-3, emph. added)] shall participate in any City business in which they have a related personal, financial, or organizational interest. Such City official shall not discuss the matter with a City official who is participating in the action other than to state his disqualification. The possibility, not the actuality, of a conflict shall govern. (Sec 603, emph. added.)

And "A. A City official who may receive some benefit not shared by the general public, to a personal, financial, or organizational interest as a result of an item before the individual in their capacity as a City official or the public body to which the individual has been elected or appointed shall disclose the interest to their supervisor or their authority, board, or commission, or file a written disclosure with the City Clerk. The reasonable possibility, not the actuality, of a conflict shall govern. (Sec 604A, emph. added.)

Thus, given the very reasonable possibility of Richard Hudsons financial and organizational interest in Tulsas chloramination, shouldat the very leastdisclosed this interest to his supervisor (Mayor Dewey Bartlett) and/or written a disclosure to the City Clerk. Furthermore, (barring an applicable federal, state, or City law or policy of which we are unaware at this time, but which would seem unlikely), Richard Hudson should have recused himself from all City business related to the matter, including refraining from discussing it with other City officials except to state his disqualification. Instead, he would seem to have verifiably violated the code in the following ways: Acted as Chair during the TMUAs decision to approve of chloramination (as he stated during 2:41:00 of the Oct 27, 2011 City Council Meeting) and participated in analysis thereof Addressed the Tulsa City Council on October 27, 2011 on the matter, stating th at we feel that this is the right move for the city of Tulsa. We dont feel that its gonna harm

our citizensAs God as my witness I feel like Im doing the right thing(02:50:02), while acting as Vice-Chair It is also reasonable to suspect that his participation as Vice-Chair of the TMUA may also have had an influence in the TMUAs decision to ignore the Councils (7-2) formal request to delay the final chloramination decision so that Bob Bowcock (whose presence had been specially requested by citizen-group Tulsans Against Chloramine) could present to the TMUA, but the minutes for the relevant meeting are not currently accessible, so this cannot be verified. This inference is granted some credence by his repeated reiterations to the City Council the TMUA, and not the City Council, was responsible for making the decision regarding this matter, and his general resistance to the City Councils formal request to delay final approval of chloramination until after meeting with highly nationally regarded water expert Bob Bowcock could speak with the TMUA about the dangers of chloramination. One example of this resistance is his repeatedly defiantly stating of statements such as This is our [the TMUAs] decision on whether to do it. You cant tell us to do it (as in 02:57:55), and noting that the TMUA is not directly subject to the Councils jurisdiction.

Thus it would seem that Richard Hudson verifiably violated the citys ethical code on multiple counts and it is highly plausible that he violated it even further in favor of the interests to his company. At the very least he acted in such a way as to present the appearance of impropriety, which itself is prohibited by the code (Sec 600, Par 1, Lin 9-11).

TMUA Composition
At the time of the adoption of chloramination in 2011, the majority of the TMUA board (whether counting Dewey Bartlett himself or not), including Richard Hudson, had contributed financially directly to Dewey Bartletts 2009 election campaign, as referenced in the table below: October 2011 TMUA Voting Composition Board Position Most Recent $ Contributed Appointment (as of Oct Directly to 2011) Campaign Dewey Bartlett Mayor 2009 (election) $5000 Lauren Brookey Chair 2009 Richard Hudson Vice-Chair 2010 $1000 Jim Cameron Member 2008 $250 R. Louis Reynolds Member 2008 Jack Neely Member 2010 $600 Richard Sevenoaks Member 2011 $250 Please note that this does not take into account non-monetary donations to Dewey Bartletts campaign (such as volunteering and/or pro-bono consulting ) or financial donations to Bartlett-sympathetic PACs. Member

While hardly conclusive, the extent of these campaign contributions raise the concerning possibility that Mayor Dewey Bartlett failed to act on the blatant violation of the Citys Ethics Code, not because of simple negligence and failing to keep track of the proceedings due to his non-attendance, but by willingly turning a blind eye out of gratitude for their political supportwhich itself creates the appearance of impropriety.

Hudson Ethics Investigation

We are currently awaiting verification that formal complaints regarding the ethics of this matter were lodged to the City Clerk, as per Title 12, Chapter 6, Section 609B. Given that nearly two years have passed, one would imagine that these complaints would have been investigated and resolved at this point, especially considering the firm evidence cited above in Tulsa Ethics Code and Richard Hudsons Violations Thereof. However, not only has Richard Hudson not been subject to any apparent disciplinary action, as per Sec 609A of the aforementioned document, but in fact he is once more the chairman of the TMUA according to its page on the City of Tulsa website. If indeed these complaints have been lodged and not acted upon or acted upon ineffectively, it would suggest either that partys responsible for responding and investigating are either themselves very ineffective orworsecomplicit in covering up this matter. Whichever the case it would seem that the parties tasked with investigating such matters should themselves be investigated closely, as this could be the tip of the iceberg. Researching this and other ethics investigations is complicated by the fact that all records related to ethics complaints and the investigations thereof shall be released to the public only as required by law or court order (Sec 609D, Lin 2), so it will require parties lodging the complaint to voluntarily come forward.

Areas for Further Investigation

The information referenced above suggests a number of additional areas to be investigated further: High Priority o Whether Richard Hudson filed a disclosure to the city clerk regarding the reasonable possibility of his organizational interest in Tulsas chloramination o Whether any federal, state, or City laws or policies would permit Richard Hudson to participate in the chloramination matter o The names, contact information, and stories of those who have lodged ethics complaints against Hudson, other members of the TMUA, or the TMUA as a whole Moderate Priority o Non-monetary support of Dewey Bartletts 2009 mayoral election campaign or of sympathetic PACs by the TMUA members o Current support by members of the TMUA of ANY of the current mayoral candidates, especially Richard Hudson Low Priority o Determining who is responsible for investigating ethics complaints in matters such as these o Verifying Hudsons relations with other city council members and other officials o Campaign contributions of TMUA members to other campaigns