News Analysis...Airport Bickering Continues
It is clear that three members of the Grove Municipal Airport Authority Board would rather fight than solve the current dispute over transferring title of airport property to the city, where it would be safe in case of a lawsuit against the authority.
At Monday's regular meeting of the Airport Board, the board voted 3-2 in favor of authorizing their attorney to file a declaratory judgment against the city "if deemed necessary," and ask Grand Savings Bank to reject full payment by the city of the $89,000 still owed on a note maturing in 2012. Payoff of the note is said to be necessary in order to transfer title of lands to the city.
Even the Board's attorney, David Jones, urged the board not to "pre-authorize" action but wait and see what happens at the next city council meeting. "At this time, we have not been asked to do anything by the city," he said. "All I know is what I have read in the newspaper."
Members voting for the legal action were Gary Trippensee, Bryant Chestnutt, and Max Schuermann, while David Adzigian and Harry Halterman voted nay.
Attending the meeting was like watching two prize fighters engaged in a battle with both knocking the other out, leaving the audience to pick up the mess.
After much posturing, a possible compromise was offered by Chestnutt but it had to be pulled out of him like a tooth, transferring all property to the city except for one parcel which would be titled jointly between the city and authority; lease agreements would not be changed, and trustees would not tolerate interference by the beneficiary (the city). But this was not allowed to be put into a motion "until we see what the response of the city council is to our motion regarding possible legal action."
Mayor Carolyn Nuckolls and City Manager Bill Galletly were both present at the meeting and took considerable heat. Galletly urged the board to not "rush to judgment…you are telling the council we are ready to go to war. We can work through this maze."
Nuckolls said "I'm willing to work out a compromise over joint ownership" and added that Galletly was not the one that put the item on the agenda at last council meeting dealing with breaking the trust…"it was a council member that told Mr. Galletly to put it on the agenda."
David Adzigian said "it does not make sense to perpetuate a fight if one is not necessary."
Halterman told the group that since being appointed to the board two years ago he had heard nothing but "bad things about our council and city manager from several airport board members, who have thumbed their nose at the city and acted like a bunch of kids and done nothing but talk, talk, talk." He added that he would not resign from the board.
Mayor Nuckolls agreed to put the joint ownership 50/50 proposal on the agenda for the next council meeting Feb. 21.
Board members were resentful that the city had placed a newspaper ad for an "airport manager" only hours after the last council meeting, after the city manager had stated that that "personnel and operations at the airport would remain the same, regardless of the status of the lease or the trust authority."
Nearly every agenda item posted for the meeting was tabled as the board pled "confusion" over the authority's status. However, attorney Jones said that until he hears otherwise, it is still business as usual at the airport. The board ignored him.
Galletly told the board members that the city would continue to pay for budgeted items for the normal operation of the airport and "bills that we pay directly to vendors will continue to be paid, but we will not cut a check to the airport authority for reimbursements."
Troy Kyman, an airport user, in a two-page statement, said his company would pay for sending delegates to the OAOA Conference March 12-14 in Oklahoma City, since the city would not. Kyman told the group he was there "to support the daunting task of saving the airport trust." He said "the city manager and council should be working to attract businesses to the industrial park rather than destroy what has been proven progress at the airport."
"Any deals Bill Galletly has made are hollow and should not be taken seriously…Galletly is talking out of both sides of the mouth depending on his audience at the time and cannot be trusted. Beware of the smoke screen politics. It is your obligation and duty to protect our airport and investment," Kyman said.
Not once did he mention the real issue…protection of the assets of the airport.
It was clear that some members of the airport community do not want any compromise and have influenced several board members into resisting it. It is also clear that the board majority will use the controversy to cause deliberate paralysis at the airport, despite Galletly telling them that "you are still in business."
Attorney Jones said the lease cannot be terminated unless the $89,000 debt is paid off.
"If the city does send a termination notice, the board can not recognize it and the city will go for forcible entry and detainer and the airport can default; or the authority could file declaratory judgment and ask in court if the city can terminate the lease. In one case we will be the defendant, in the other, the plaintiff."
There is still room for settlement on the issue, if both the council and authority will revisit the issue on a compromise offer of 50/50 ownership, backed by the Oklahoma Aviation Commission.
The vast majority of citizens would probably vote for a compromise settlement without spending a lot of money on attorneys. But this vast majority stays away from controversial meetings, in droves, and is largely unheard.
In order to understand the controversy, the following true or false test may be helpful:
1. The Airport Board believes the real reason for transferring property is to "break the trust." Without property, the trust is just a shell.
2. The City of Grove wants to change airport managers.
3. The City of Grove only wants to protect the assets of the airport and title them in the city's name.
4. The Airport Board sees the matter as a "loss of power."
5. The Airport Board and aviation users at the airport want to control the city, including replacing the city manager and council.
6. The Airport Board and aviation users are a "private club of aviators supported by the taxpayers of Grove" who see themselves as the tail wagging the dog.
7. Two current council members were elected in 2005 with the support of the airport users group. They almost always vote in tandem.
8. Loss of the Grand Lake Regional Airport on Monkey Island to a private citizen is what started the "risk" matter. It was not a catastrophic accident, but "lawyering" that broke the MIDA trust.
If you answered "True" to most of these questions you probably have a good understanding of the issue. Hopefully it can still be resolved without resorting to lawsuits which will drag out for a couple of years.
At Monday's regular meeting of the Airport Board, the board voted 3-2 in favor of authorizing their attorney to file a declaratory judgment against the city "if deemed necessary," and ask Grand Savings Bank to reject full payment by the city of the $89,000 still owed on a note maturing in 2012. Payoff of the note is said to be necessary in order to transfer title of lands to the city.
Even the Board's attorney, David Jones, urged the board not to "pre-authorize" action but wait and see what happens at the next city council meeting. "At this time, we have not been asked to do anything by the city," he said. "All I know is what I have read in the newspaper."
Members voting for the legal action were Gary Trippensee, Bryant Chestnutt, and Max Schuermann, while David Adzigian and Harry Halterman voted nay.
Attending the meeting was like watching two prize fighters engaged in a battle with both knocking the other out, leaving the audience to pick up the mess.
After much posturing, a possible compromise was offered by Chestnutt but it had to be pulled out of him like a tooth, transferring all property to the city except for one parcel which would be titled jointly between the city and authority; lease agreements would not be changed, and trustees would not tolerate interference by the beneficiary (the city). But this was not allowed to be put into a motion "until we see what the response of the city council is to our motion regarding possible legal action."
Mayor Carolyn Nuckolls and City Manager Bill Galletly were both present at the meeting and took considerable heat. Galletly urged the board to not "rush to judgment…you are telling the council we are ready to go to war. We can work through this maze."
Nuckolls said "I'm willing to work out a compromise over joint ownership" and added that Galletly was not the one that put the item on the agenda at last council meeting dealing with breaking the trust…"it was a council member that told Mr. Galletly to put it on the agenda."
David Adzigian said "it does not make sense to perpetuate a fight if one is not necessary."
Halterman told the group that since being appointed to the board two years ago he had heard nothing but "bad things about our council and city manager from several airport board members, who have thumbed their nose at the city and acted like a bunch of kids and done nothing but talk, talk, talk." He added that he would not resign from the board.
Mayor Nuckolls agreed to put the joint ownership 50/50 proposal on the agenda for the next council meeting Feb. 21.
Board members were resentful that the city had placed a newspaper ad for an "airport manager" only hours after the last council meeting, after the city manager had stated that that "personnel and operations at the airport would remain the same, regardless of the status of the lease or the trust authority."
Nearly every agenda item posted for the meeting was tabled as the board pled "confusion" over the authority's status. However, attorney Jones said that until he hears otherwise, it is still business as usual at the airport. The board ignored him.
Galletly told the board members that the city would continue to pay for budgeted items for the normal operation of the airport and "bills that we pay directly to vendors will continue to be paid, but we will not cut a check to the airport authority for reimbursements."
Troy Kyman, an airport user, in a two-page statement, said his company would pay for sending delegates to the OAOA Conference March 12-14 in Oklahoma City, since the city would not. Kyman told the group he was there "to support the daunting task of saving the airport trust." He said "the city manager and council should be working to attract businesses to the industrial park rather than destroy what has been proven progress at the airport."
"Any deals Bill Galletly has made are hollow and should not be taken seriously…Galletly is talking out of both sides of the mouth depending on his audience at the time and cannot be trusted. Beware of the smoke screen politics. It is your obligation and duty to protect our airport and investment," Kyman said.
Not once did he mention the real issue…protection of the assets of the airport.
It was clear that some members of the airport community do not want any compromise and have influenced several board members into resisting it. It is also clear that the board majority will use the controversy to cause deliberate paralysis at the airport, despite Galletly telling them that "you are still in business."
Attorney Jones said the lease cannot be terminated unless the $89,000 debt is paid off.
"If the city does send a termination notice, the board can not recognize it and the city will go for forcible entry and detainer and the airport can default; or the authority could file declaratory judgment and ask in court if the city can terminate the lease. In one case we will be the defendant, in the other, the plaintiff."
There is still room for settlement on the issue, if both the council and authority will revisit the issue on a compromise offer of 50/50 ownership, backed by the Oklahoma Aviation Commission.
The vast majority of citizens would probably vote for a compromise settlement without spending a lot of money on attorneys. But this vast majority stays away from controversial meetings, in droves, and is largely unheard.
In order to understand the controversy, the following true or false test may be helpful:
1. The Airport Board believes the real reason for transferring property is to "break the trust." Without property, the trust is just a shell.
2. The City of Grove wants to change airport managers.
3. The City of Grove only wants to protect the assets of the airport and title them in the city's name.
4. The Airport Board sees the matter as a "loss of power."
5. The Airport Board and aviation users at the airport want to control the city, including replacing the city manager and council.
6. The Airport Board and aviation users are a "private club of aviators supported by the taxpayers of Grove" who see themselves as the tail wagging the dog.
7. Two current council members were elected in 2005 with the support of the airport users group. They almost always vote in tandem.
8. Loss of the Grand Lake Regional Airport on Monkey Island to a private citizen is what started the "risk" matter. It was not a catastrophic accident, but "lawyering" that broke the MIDA trust.
If you answered "True" to most of these questions you probably have a good understanding of the issue. Hopefully it can still be resolved without resorting to lawsuits which will drag out for a couple of years.
posted by Editor | 2:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home