The three leading candidates to be Tulsa’s next mayor two-stepped onto the Cain’s Ballroom stage Thursday night, throwing a few elbows over abuse allegations at the Family Center for Juvenile Justice, disagreeing about whether to spin on the topic of municipal jurisdiction over tribal citizens, and stepping on each other’s toes regarding their visions of the future.
While seven candidates are running in the race, three — County Commissioner Karen Keith, Rep. Monroe Nichols (D-Tulsa) and businessman Brent VanNorman — met a 10 percent polling requirement to qualify for the debate, which was co-hosted by NonDoc, 2 News Oklahoma and the Tulsa Regional Chamber. (While Casey Bradford, John Jolley, Kaleb Hoosier and Paul Tay did not meet the polling threshold, they are being offered an opportunity to answer questions in writing ahead of the Aug. 27 election.)
Asked about controversial court cases that have pitted the City of Tulsa against the Muscogee and Cherokee Nations, VanNorman and Keith said they would maintain the legal position of departing Mayor G.T. Gynum’s administration, which has backed the city’s continued prosecution of tribal citizens in municipal courts for citations such as traffic tickets. But Nichols said he would “drop” the city’s current position in pending lawsuits about what governments have authority to adjudicate — and collect fines from — tribal citizens who commit municipal offenses within the tribes’ affirmed reservation boundaries.
Candidates also pitched their plans to address homelessness in the city through partnering with nonprofits, streamlining the city’s permitting process and centralizing the city’s response in the mayor’s office.
While officially nonpartisan, references to “liberal democrats” and the “far-right” peppered the evening’s serving of public discourse. VanNorman, an attorney and businessman who defended his relatively short tenure in Tulsa, called his opponents “liberal democrats” in his opening statement and later found himself eschewing a “far-right” label.
The night’s most heated moments came during discussions of the Family Center for Juvenile Justice, a detention facility for youth in Tulsa County where former employees have drawn criminal charges and several have been named as defendants in a lawsuit alleging systemic abuse of detainees.
But the night’s debate — viewable on YouTube and set to air on KJRH Channel 2 at 9 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 15 — discussed more than litigation, permitting and partisanship with classic municipal issues such as stray dogs, broken street lights and fixing roads still finding their way into the conversation.
‘My plan for North Tulsa’
Asked about addressing inequities in North Tulsa — a historically Black section of the city still grappling with decades of under-investment 100 years after the Tulsa Race Massacre — Nichols advocated clearing the titles on blighted properties in the area, while acknowledging that a bill he had pushed to give cities more authority to take such action failed to complete the legislative process. A property without a clear title lacks a clear legal owner and could have competing claims of ownership.
“I remember when I was knocking doors in 2016, I would go and I would knock around the neighborhood, and I would notice there were some really nice — maybe kinda small — houses next to some blighted properties. These properties where the titles were unclear and it was not clear what we could do about it.,” Nichols said. “My plan for North Tulsa is to make sure we get that [legislative change made] and start to take control of these neighborhoods and revitalize them.”
Keith cited “low-hanging fruit” issues in North Tulsa that she said can be quickly fixed like broken street lights and catching stray dogs, as well as more complex issues like hiring additional police officers and finishing the Kirkpatrick Heights plan.
“All the dogs running wild in the streets where people are afraid to walk their neighborhood — we have to address that,” Keith said. “We’re 130 police officers short, and we want to make sure that every single neighbor has the coverage they need. But there is, you know, amazing things on the horizon. For instance, the Kirkpatrick Heights plan is out there, and I can’t wait to see that come to fruition.”
VanNorman cited his willingness to listen to community leaders from North Tulsa, criticized the city for using the area as a “dumping ground” for unwanted development and advocated using TIF districts to increase development in “Tulsa North.”
“North Tulsa has been the dumping ground of projects that are not wanted anywhere else, and that has to stop. It’s simply unacceptable,” VanNorman said. “But what we can do, there are great opportunities out there, there are things called TIF districts. There are some already in existence, but I’m for expanding those TIF districts.”
When creating a Tax Increment Financing district, cities designate anticipated increases in future sales tax and/or property tax revenues as collateral to borrow money for investment into development, typically in the form of incentives to developers and the construction of public infrastructure like sidewalks and streetscapes.
Nichols breaks from VanNorman, Keith on pending litigation
Both a state appellate court and a federal district court have pending cases over the city of Tulsa’s prosecution of tribal citizens in municipal court. Since the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision, tribal governments and the United States federal government have exclusive jurisdiction over prosecuting and adjudicating crimes committed by tribal citizens in much of Tulsa.
In the pending lawsuits, the City of Tulsa has argued it can continue to prosecute tribal citizens in its own municipal courts instead of forwarding the cases to tribal prosecutors.
Asked if he supported the Bynum administration’s current position in those lawsuits, VanNorman immediately said, “Absolutely. Yes.”
“To not do that is to invite chaos into the city. You can’t have people just because they have a different license plate be able to drive differently in the city and break the law,” VanNorman said. “Quite frankly, the tribes are not set up yet to be able to [handle cases]. One, they don’t have enough officers to enforce the law. Secondly, their court system isn’t set up yet with a robust enough system to be able to prosecute all those [cases].”
Keith initially touted her personal relationship with tribal leaders and mentioned the potential for a future “pan-tribal court” in Tulsa.
“I think my relationships with the nations will be helpful. We need to get on the same page,” Keith said. “If we build a new county courthouse — or when we do — I’ve talked with them about a potential tribal court, and Chief (Chuck) Hoskin (Jr.) called it a pan-tribal court, so I think there are ways that we can work together to make life better for all of the citizens.”
Asked again whether she specifically supported the current administration’s legal position, Keith answered affirmatively.
“Yes, I think we have the authority to do that,” Keith said. “But I want to sit down with our chiefs, with the nations, and talk about the best path forward, and I believe that we can come to some consensus and maybe get rid of that — the legal issue.”
Nichols was the only candidate to advocate that the city “drop the suits” and change the city’s legal position.
“Tulsa is the largest city in the country that’s all Indian Reservation, and what I know from my years in the Legislature and the attacks against tribes over those years, what I know is tribal sovereignty can’t be something you’re for when it’s convenient,” Nichols said. “It has to be something that you stand on all the time, and it’s been settled in law already.”
Candidates disagree on solutions to homelessness
The three candidates were asked to share what their first action as mayor would be to address homelessness. VanNorman answered first, emphasizing that he believes homelessness is “not primarily a housing issue.”
“It is a drug addiction issue, and it is a mental health issue, and while there is a housing component to it, people do have to have shelter or they won’t show up to appointments,” VanNorman said. “[God’s Shining Light] just bought a motel with 109 apartments. I would come alongside those. They’re going to house a lot of people. They’re going to give them counseling, and they’re going to bring people off the streets to become productive members of our society”
Keith singled out the city’s “permitting and inspection” process as the first housing-related issue she would tackle if elected to be Tulsa’s next mayor.
“Our developers working in the affordable housing space cannot get these projects done in a timely manner,” she said. “It costs too much money and it takes too long.”
Nichols touted his plan to end homelessness in Tulsa by 2030, saying his first step would be to appoint someone to lead a response from the city.
“It starts with the mayor’s office appointing somebody so we become the chief convener and mobilizer of our city-wide response to homelessness,” Nichols said. “It goes to us making sure we are working everyday to reduce evictions, build a strong coordinated system of mental health and substance abuse supports, and finally rapidly increasing our affordable housing stock. We have a plan to do 2,000 every year to 2028 to make sure we stay on top of this crisis.”
Nichols, VanNorman say Keith knew about juvenile center problems before public
The most heated moments of the Tulsa mayoral debate came when Keith was asked about the Family Center for Juvenile Justice, a facility near downtown Tulsa that is currently the subject of a federal lawsuit and criminal inquiries.
Asked about her reference to helping build the center at an Aug. 1 mayoral forum hosted by the Tulsa World, Keith said she was “proud” of the “world-class facility” the county built but was “appalled and heartbroken” to learn about the problems with staff at the facility. She also said there was “a lot of misinformation” about the center and that state law means the Board of County Commissioners did not have direct supervisory responsibility.
“For 50 years, the district judges have run our facility under the supervision of another state agency, the [Office of Juvenile Affairs], and we found out about those latest allegations at the same time that you did. And I will say this, we got a letter from the judge saying, ‘I don’t want to do this anymore,'” Keith said. “We have taken it over, and it’s not something we want to do forever, but we have to do what is in the best interests of the children. OJA is there with us every day, and just yesterday we got a report they are very pleased with how things are going.”
Nichols pushed back on Keith’s claim that she learned about these problems as the same time as the public and criticized all the county commissioners’ responses to the scandal as dispassionate.
“I know they did make the commissioners aware two years ago. I know they made the [OJA director] aware about things a year after that, and what I also know is when you’re mayor you can’t wake up and say something’s not your job,” Nichols said. “Since this started, there’s not been one time any county commissioner — including Commissioner Keith, who I like very much — who has said anything compassionate about what those kids went through or told us what they were gonna do about it at any point in time, and I think that is a real tragedy in this situation.”
VanNorman said he also believes the county commissioners knew about the problems at the center before the public and encouraged people to read information chronicled by the group Oklahoma Appleseed.
“I think what you will find is there was knowledge a long time before the rest of us knew about it and that this egregious situation continues. They locked up the sex offenders, but they left everybody else in place that was still there abusing those kids. I think it’s egregious,” VanNorman said. “As mayor, I think you take responsibility for something that’s in your territory. No more excuses.”
Keith pushed back on the criticism, arguing that voters should “go back to the facts.”
“Last year the Juvenile Center was put on probation, and OJA was in there monitoring day after day, month after month. In December, OJA said everything is good and we are turning it back over to the bureau. And at that point, we were relying on a state agency to say that things were good,” Keith said. “A few months later we find out the issues. They’re just horrific. They are horrific — if these allegations prove true. So we are doing our best.”
Keith then offered her own critique of Nichols.
“We’re doing the hard work to try to make things right, and we have somebody who’s a state representative who decided — he says, ‘I was there immediately when I found out.’ Well, he found out at the first of the month, and it was three weeks later when he had his appointment with the OJA,” Keith said. “But what did he do the day before he met? He issues his manifesto, then meets with OJA before he even finds out the real facts. They gave him some ideas of things to follow up on. They never heard from him again. He just got his political talking points, and that’s what he wanted.”
Follow @NonDocMedia on:
Facebook | X | Text or Email
VanNorman calls opponents ‘liberal Democrats,’ denies ‘far-right’ label
A few partisan jabs also made their way into the Tulsa mayoral debate. In his opening statements, VanNorman contrasted himself as a “pro-business conservative” running against “liberal Democrats.”
“They’re great people. They’re wonderful to be around. They’re well intended,” VanNorman said. “But their policies will lead us toward being the next Seattle, the next Portland, the next Minneapolis or the next San Francisco.”
But VanNorman received criticism during the debate for only relocating to Tulsa in 2021, with Keith at one point telling voters they should select a mayor who “doesn’t need training wheels to find their way around.”
Asked about the length of his tenure in Tulsa and controversial statements he has made — including website posts during his 2013 race for a Virginia House of Delegates — VanNorman said he began coming to Tulsa in 2008 and that he does not believe public officials should be required to be Christian.
“That would be crazy,” VanNorman said. “What I do believe is that my Christian values inform who I am, and they allow me to make good decisions that are compassionate, that are loving, that are caring and that are in the best interest of other people. And so to paint me as that far-right crazy person is just inappropriate. I’m a business person.”
Nichols, who also received criticism from Keith for missing a significant number of votes this session while campaigning for mayor, pushed back on VanNorman’s sudden retreat from partisanship after labeling the two Democrats in his opening statement.
“I think it is sometimes tough when you start a debate and you call somebody a liberal Democrat and then you say, ‘I’m not a far-right guy,'” Nichols said. “I’m not saying that’s what he is, but I am saying that’s why I’m careful about that.”
During his own closing statement, Nichols poked fun at VanNorman’s relatively recent move to Tulsa, which drew a laugh from the audience and VanNorman himself.
“I’ve almost been running for as long as Brent’s been in town,” Nichols quipped.
(Editor’s note: NonDoc co-hosted the Tulsa mayoral debate described above in partnership with 2 News Oklahoma and the Tulsa Regional Chamber. Charitable sponsors of NonDoc’s 2024 public debate series include AARP Oklahoma and the State Chamber of Oklahoma.)
