Below are key points raised by the candidates for mayor for the City of Tulsa at a NonDoc-sponsored debate at Cain’s Ballroom on Aug. 8. The debate was an opportunity for voters to learn more about the candidates prior to the election on Aug. 27.
Brent VanNorman
Background: VanNorman highlighted his extensive business background, positioning himself as a seasoned leader with substantial management expertise. He drew a parallel between the role of mayor and that of a CEO, arguing that his business experience equips him well to manage the city’s responsibilities effectively.
Controversial Views: Having lived in Tulsa for only three years, VanNorman has faced scrutiny over his past statements. Regarding marriage should be between a man and woman, on welfare reform and social services, he wrote, “Making families struggle together is healthy, both for the family and society.” Also, he mentioned in a speech that public officials should be Christian. He asserted that while his Christian values guide his compassionate decision-making, he does not believe that elected officials must adhere to his faith. Voters should consider how their personal beliefs and undertones might influence their governance.
Defense of Candidacy: VanNorman defended his relatively recent relocation to Tulsa by citing his longstanding ties to the city through family connections and community involvement. He stated that his business expertise and local engagement make him a strong candidate for mayor.
Karen Keith
Current Role and Achievements: As Tulsa County Commissioner, District 2, Keith has overseen the development of the Family Center for Juvenile Justice. Despite her pride in these achievements, she has received criticism over issues at the facility. Keith claimed that she was unaware of the problems until they were made public and is committed to resolving them and improving the facility.
Handling Criticisms: Keith responded to allegations about the juvenile center on her efforts to address the issues and her dedication to the children’s well-being. Voters should consider whether her actions to resolve these problems have been sufficient and whether she can effectively manage similar challenges in the future.
Campaign Focus: Keith presented herself as a candidate with deep community ties and extensive experience in local government. She said she will aim to build on the successes of the current administration while introducing her own initiatives for the city’s future.
Monroe Nichols
Legislative Record: Nichols emphasized his legislative experience, including his work on important bills and his role in addressing state issues. Although he has missed some votes, he attributes this to his dual responsibilities and underscores his commitment to his roles.
Criticisms and Responses: Nichols has been criticized for missing a significant number of votes and his handling of legislative duties. He defended his record by explaining his balancing of responsibilities and emphasizes how his experience translates into effective mayoral leadership. Voters should assess whether his explanations and experience justify his legislative performance.
Policy Focus: Nichols underscored his understanding of city issues and his readiness to lead from day one. He aims to be seen as a candidate with a clear plan and extensive experience in both local and state governance.
Overview of the Debate
The debate featured the top three mayoral candidates: Brent VanNorman, Karen Keith, and Monroe Nichols. Each was selected because the respective campaigns had at least $50,000 in reported and deposited funds or had achieved at least 10 percent support in an unaffiliated scientific poll. Candidates who did not meet the Aug. 1 deadline could respond in writing, with their answers to be published on NonDoc.com before the election.
The qualified candidates, each distinguished in their fields, addressed the local media, voters and their families, and Tulsans eager to learn about their voting options.
The debate was moderated by Tres Savage, editor-in-chief of NonDoc, and Erin Christy, a news anchor for KJRH Channel 2 (NBC). The candidates gave two-minute opening statements, answered three rounds of questions, and concluded with two-minute closing statements.
The two-minute opening statements provided an opportunity for each candidate to thank the audience and set themselves apart before the more intensive questioning.
VanNorman was the first to speak. He was asked what he envisions for Tulsa in five years. He sees the future of Tulsa as a place for new businesses, more jobs, and safe streets.
VanNorman also criticized his opponents, stating, “I believe it’s going to require a pro-business conservative leader. My opponents on this stage tonight are both liberal Democrats. They’re well-intended, but their policies will lead us toward being the next Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, or San Francisco. I’m different from that.”
He highlighted his experience as a CPA and his work with three businesses as crucial for public office, saying, “So the question comes, is it better to have a businessperson or a politician leading Tulsa into the future?”
County Commissioner Karen Keith began by expressing her love for Tulsa and her 26 years in broadcasting before working on Project Vision 2025, which helped revitalize downtown Tulsa and secure housing funds to convert old business buildings into apartments.
She also highlighted her achievements as Tulsa County Commissioner for District 2 since 2008.
“I have loved this job, and I’m proud of the work we’ve done to build the levees. In cooperation with the Chamber’s One Voice program, we secured $137 million in federal funds. This spring, with their help, we obtained another $50 million from the state. Working on the Gilcrease Expressway, a statewide project that included federal funds, exemplifies my ability to work across party lines.”
She envisions Tulsa with safe neighborhoods, well-maintained streets, and affordable housing.
State Rep. Monroe Nichols (Dist. 72), the third to speak, outlined four critical priorities for Tulsa’s future: ending homelessness, improving education, expanding the economy, and enhancing public safety.
“I believe that Tulsa has more potential than any other community in the country. I also know that potential will never be reached unless we address some of these challenges,” Nichols said. He, like the other candidates, validated his experience as a reason he would succeed as mayor.
“I’m ready to serve as mayor of the city. My experience includes eight years in the legislature, time with the mayor’s office, and work with the Tulsa Regional Chamber. I have the broad experience needed for this job and a clear plan and vision, unlike my opponents, for moving Tulsa forward,” Nichols added.
Question: Which aspects of Mayor G. T. Bynum’s tenure would the candidates would like to carry forward and what would they change?
Karen Keith praised Bynum’s leadership during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and his efforts to make Tulsa a welcoming city. She said, “We stood side by side during the flood in 2019, and then during issues with COVID. He was a good leader for us during that time period.”
Keith has committed herself to continue Bynum’s inclusive approach while implementing new policies.
Nichols acknowledged Bynum’s focus on family and his leadership. However, Nichols plans to address issues differently. He referred to the Tulsa Equality Indicators, a tool for tracking disparities.
“I thank Mayor Bynum for taking leadership and making sure Tulsa’s tracked where we are, but it’s time we stop admiring those problems and do something about it. My plan as mayor is not just about looking at those numbers but making sure we take daily actions to change them.”
VanNorman appreciated Bynum’s ability to bring people together but criticized his “welcoming city” stance, suggesting it could lead to a sanctuary city.
“We live in a constitutional republic, or something called a rule of law, and we have to follow the law. My understanding of a welcoming city is that we’re picking and choosing laws to follow.”
VanNorman prefers a focus on legal adherence and a different approach to city management.
Question: Considering your background and personality, what most qualifies you to be mayor of Tulsa, and secondly, what is the biggest challenge facing the city as a whole?
Nichols highlighted his extensive experience as his qualification for mayor of Tulsa. He has served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives for the past eight years, co-founded Impact Tulsa to enhance education in Tulsa County, led the Chamber’s Business Retention and Expansion program, worked on workforce investment at Career Tech, and served as chief of staff to the president of the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa. He also has previous experience in the mayor’s office. “I have experience at the state, city, chamber, and higher education levels. I’m the only candidate with such a broad background in this race,” Nichols said. He also addressed the city’s biggest challenge, homelessness, and is committed to eradicating it by 2030.
VanNorman used his business background to support his candidacy for mayor.
“I think having a 40-year business career in which I’ve had the opportunity to lead large organizations. I’ve had as many as 20 direct reports, and managed hundreds of people from time to time, (which) will serve the city well. My experience in accounting, as a pastor, and as an attorney, and having run organizations, I think will benefit the city.” Regarding the challenge of homelessness in Tulsa, VanNorman described it as “a huge issue” and believes the city needs “to become more business-friendly,” he said.
Keith, another candidate with notable experience, highlighted her accomplishments and the relationships she has built over the years with the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, city councilors, and the mayor.
“I have longevity in my jobs because I truly work at them and move the needle,” Keith said. She emphasized the importance of collaboration for problem-solving. “I know how to bring the best folks to mind,” Keith continued. “We need to address issues like permitting and homelessness.”
Question: What are the three most important duties of being the mayor of Tulsa?
VanNorman emphasized three key priorities: “One, being business friendly. Second, addressing public safety, and third, helping to come alongside our school system.” He also highlighted that the mayor functions as the CEO of the city and should manage these duties accordingly.
Keith focused on improving employee-citizen interactions: “Working with our employees to make sure that they interface with you as the citizens to get the job done.” She aims to foster a “very positive workforce” and prioritize community engagement. “As the CEO of a city, you’ve got to engage with the community, and that means also listening to your city councilors,” Keith explained.
Nichols agreed that the mayor’s role is like running a large organization. “You also have to be a strong ambassador for this community, talking about not only the challenges but also the great things happening, and ensuring those positive developments benefit everyone,” Nichols said. He added that a crucial duty is to defend the community: “When somebody picks on your public schools or calls teachers terrorists, you defend your community and don’t make any apologies about it.”
Question: How do you convince Tulsa’s economic development community you are the partner they seek?
This question was a toss-up for any candidate to answer first if they were quick enough to respond. Keith jumped at the bite to be the first. “Because they know me. They Know that I will be at ready when they need me to go on some of these economic development trips,” Keith expressed. “This is what I like to do. I love to sell this city, because it is such an amazing place for us to be.”
VanNorman followed by talking about his background with an investment fund. “I literally went around, and I made presentations on the fund and raised over $100 million for the fund by giving road shows and presentations. I know that the chamber would love to have someone with a business background and business acumen to go out, because I know how to attract business.”
And lastly Nichols responded with a bold answer. “I think the business community would appreciate most about me is those four priorities. I’m going to end homelessness as we know it. I’m going to improve student outcomes for our workforce is strong. (I) want to make this the safest big city in the country. I’m going to make sure the economic development community in this city has something to sell for every business looking for a home, no matter where in the country they are today.”
Question: What is the first action you would take as mayor on the topic of homelessness?
On the issue of homelessness, VanNorman sees it more as a drug and mental health issue than housing. He referred to God’s Shining Life, a ministry that bought 109 room motel that he would work alongside to help solve homelessness. “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 responded by wanting to tackle permitting and inspections to get affordable housing development projects done in a “timely manner.” “It costs too much money, and it takes too long, so that’s an important piece for us to fix so that we can get more affordable housing out of the ground.” She says she would be working closely with mental health officials while celebrating the fact Tulsa firefighters are working with Family and Children’s Services to meet the homeless community on the streets.
Nichols answers by presenting a plan to end homelessness by 2030. “I don’t have to stand up here and try to make something up on the spot. But it starts with the mayor’s office becoming the chief convener and mobilizing our city-wide response to homelessness. It goes to us, making sure we are working every day to reduce convictions, building a strong, coordinated system of mental health and substance abuse supports, and finally, graphically increasing our formal housing stock. We have a plan to do 2000 units every year by 2028, so we make sure we get on top of this crisis.”
Question: Describe north Tulsa’s situation and tell us something you will do to address the vast inequalities and inequities separated by I-44?
This was an issue that is important for Nichols who has represented portions of north Tulsa for the last eight years. He noted how one thing he has already done to help in north Tulsa was pass a bill to expand the Affordable Housing Tax Credit. We start to take control of these neighborhoods to revitalize them, and we make what was once a blighted property into the cornerstone of revitalized neighborhoods, allowing us to meet our affordable housing needs, but also to close the economic gap.” Nichols mentioned how many people hold their wealth in their property value. “We’re going to make sure to level the playing field should I get elected.”
VanNorman said “North Tulsa has been the dumping ground of projects that are not wanted anywhere else, and that has to stop. It’s simply unacceptable. But what we can do there are great opportunities out there. There are things called TIF districts. There’s some already in existence, but I’m for expanding those TIF districts and real quickly.” A TIF district stands for Tax Increment Financing and that would allow for a person to take out a $50,000 loan to renovate a $50,000 property, its value can increase to $100,000. By paying taxes on the higher value, that person can repay the loan, and the city benefits from increased property tax revenue. “I would support expanding the TIF district program, and I think that’ll bring some economic development to Tulsa North,” VanNorman concluded.
Keith mentioned opening permitting as well as mentioning several issues she considers “low hanging fruit.” For example, solutions that could make a person feel safer when walking the neighborhood like loose dogs, broken streetlights, and having additional work force. “We’re 130 police officers short, and we want to make sure that every single neighborhood has the coverage they need.”
Question: Tribal Sovereignty: Will your administration continue to pursue criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens in Tulsa?
VanNorman answered yes, he will continue to pursue criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens. “To not do that is to invite chaos in the city. You can’t have people just because they have a different license plate be able to drive it differently in the city and break the law.” He mentioned how the tribes are not set up to enforce the law. “Their court system isn’t set up yet with a robust enough system to be able to prosecute all of those, so we have to work together now. We do need to sit down. We need to communicate with each other. The tribal leaders need to communicate with the city, and the city needs to communicate with them,” he continued. “There’s no reason why someone can be treated differently under the law.
Keith tiptoed around the answer by first addressing her relationship with the tribal nations saying, “we need to get on the same page.” She respects their leadership and proposes a potential tribal court that could be included in a future county courthouse in Tulsa. Finally, Keith did a solid yes, “Yes I believe we have the authority to do that, but I want to sit down with our chiefs, with our nations and talk about the best path forward.” She would continue the current administration’s authority to pursue criminal jurisdiction.
Nichols gave a direct answer of no, the opposite of his rivals. Citing “Tribal Sovereignty can’t be something for when it’s convenient. It has to be something that you stand on all the time, and it’s been settled in law already,” referring to the 2020 McGirt case. He talked about his campaign to co-govern with the tribal nations. “That starts with the appointment of the first ever director of tribal policy and partnerships that will have a role in the mayor’s office.” A move he says it is not something to be made up when we get there.
“It’s what we’ve been talking about since we started this campaign not because I simply like the tribes but because it is the law. We’re going to make sure we get on the business of building a community where the city and the tribes are on the same page with somebody in the office who’s going to ensure that we always are.”
Question: What do you think about the Tulsa Police Department’s new Incident Response Team, which includes mental health professionals? Do you believe the benefits of having these specialists on call 24/7 outweigh the potential significant costs of this expanded service?
Keith says it would be a top priority to have the program be 24/7. She remarked how it just makes sense not only for helping individuals experiencing homelessness who may need the help but for the firefighters who are called out on these issues as well. “Can you imagine that we’re sending fire trucks on these calls. The problem with that is its wear and tear on our roads. It’s wear and tear on these super expensive engines, and if there is a fire and that engine is needed, it cannot leave until that issue is resolved. So, I am 100 and 1,000% in favor of expanding.”
Nichols agreed the risk outweighs the cost, “I think the cost of not doing is one thing we can’t tolerate.” He remarked how not every call requires a police officer and how it’s important when a person calls “they get the help that they need not the help we feel like sending.”
VanNorman also believes the benefits outweigh the cost to go 24/7, but his full answer could be summarized by a no. VanNorman mentioned that for efficiency’s sake that we evaluated those expenses in what he called “a walk before your run approach,” where he would have mental health professionals on call rather than being paid full time when they are not necessarily needed. “I would start off with an on-call process to allow people to call in, assess that and determine if this is needed on a full-time basis, otherwise they feel like we’re wasting taxpayers’ money by having people available that aren’t responding to a crisis.”
Living on campaign time – Specific questions to the candidates
This segment of the debate was the most intense, with questions specifically designed for each candidate. It gave the audience a chance to see how each candidate responded, while also allowing the other candidates to follow up and engage in some sharp exchanges.
VanNorman was the first. The moderators brought up his recent move to Tulsa only three years ago, which set VanNorman up as an outsider. Next several of his conservative Christian biases were presented. In 2013, he ran for the Virginia House of Delegates as a conservative independent whose campaign website said marriage should be between one man and one woman. When it came to welfare reform and social services, he wrote “making families struggle together is healthy, both for the family and society. In a speech this year at Sheridan Church, he said he saw a need to get back to the idea that public officials must be Christian. VanNorman was asked what is his response to people thinking you have not lived here long enough to lead the city, and that some statements may carry questionable undertones of biases?
VanNorman responded that he knows Tulsa due to coming here since his son attended Oral Roberts University in 2008. It is a place where he wants to retire. He said his position on officials must be Christian was out of context. However, he said his Christian values inform who he is. VanNorman did not want to be painted as a far right “crazy” person but will bring those Christian values to everything he does. But for the comments on same sex marriage or his quote on making families struggle, he did not try to refute.
Keith responded by saying she thinks VanNorman has “some pretty good ideas” and is happy his family is here.
While Nichols mocked VanNorman’s recent move by saying “It’s a great indication that if you move to Tulsa, very quickly, you can be a part of the decision-making tree here in this community.” He also remarked on VanNorman’s refuting of the label of being a far-right conservative. “Sometimes it’s tough when you start a debate and you call somebody a liberal Democrat, and then you say, I’m not a far-right guy. And I’m not saying that’s what he is, I’m saying we have to be careful about that.” Nichols did end with saying that he is glad VanNorman is here.
VanNorman had a chance to respond and took that time by attacking Oklahoma City’s mayor. “So, if you look at Oklahoma City, they have a weak mayor and they have a city manager. That’s the CEO city in Oklahoma City. If Oklahoma were looking for a new city manager, which would be their CEO? They wouldn’t necessarily look for someone that was in the city for 25 or 30 years. They would do a nationwide search and find the best person capable.” He related this to how Tulsa’s mayor is the city manager from the city in Tulsa, again using CEO as the term. “So why would you not pick someone that has that experience in order to run the city?”
Keith was then the second on the hot seat about her involvement with the Family Center for Juvenile Justice. The center is facing scrutiny over alleged systemic abuse of children. Despite Keith’s claims of being surprised by these issues, she and other county commissioners highlighted the building of the center as a major accomplishment at a recent forum.
“On the one hand, it seems like you want some credit for building the facility. On the other hand, you suggested that a district judge, state agency, and even the legislature may have had more responsibility to know about the problems than you. So, what do you say to voters who might think that you’re trying to have it both ways?” asked moderator Tres Savage.
Keith tried answering the question by acknowledging the issue but tried to claim, “I think you should also know that we found out about this at the same time you did,” Keith claimed.
Keith cited long-standing oversight by district judges and the state Office of Juvenile Affairs and reassures that OJA continues to monitor the facility closely. She refuted claims of political opportunism, stressing her dedication to improving the situation.
Nichols responded by criticizing the lack of early intervention by OJA and questioned the timing of responses from Keith and other officials. He argues that the issues were known earlier and suggests that a lack of compassion from leaders contributed to the ongoing problems.
“I know they did make the commissioners aware two years ago. I know they made them aware about things a year after that. But I also know when you’re mayor, you can’t wake up and say something’s not your job. And so, at one point, when it was convenient,” Nichols remarked. He also mentioned that Keith nor any other commissioner has come out and said anything compassionate about what those kids experienced.
VanNorman accuses Keith and others of failing to address long-standing problems and suggests that the knowledge of the issue predates recent discoveries. He criticizes the handling of the situation, emphasizing the need for accountability. “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. Even as mayor, I think you take responsibility for something that’s in your territory. No more excuses,” VanNorman took a strong stance on this.
Keith got a chance to respond to her critics on the stage. She defends her actions by citing the facility’s probation status and ongoing monitoring by OJA. She disputes Nichols’ claim of delayed action, accusing him of using the situation for political gain, “He found out at the first of the month, and it was three weeks later when he had his appointment with the OJA. But what did he do the day before he met? He issues his manifesto, then meets with OJA before he finds out the real facts. They gave him some ideas and things to follow up on regarding his inquiry. They never heard from him again. He just got his political talking points, and that’s what he wanted.” Keith stresses her active role in addressing the issues and improving conditions at the facility.
Nichols argues that despite the delay in his actions, he responded more quickly than the commissioners stating, “I did have time in between, if it was three weeks, that is a lot shorter than two years.” He stresses that ongoing issues at the facility indicate a deeper problem and expresses frustration with the lack of adequate responses from officials.
Keith reiterates her commitment to improving the facility and expresses confidence in returning oversight to district judges once conditions stabilize. She emphasizes her direct involvement and the positive feedback from recent monitoring.
For Nichols, he was questioned about his high percentage of missed votes in the legislature and how this might reflect on his potential performance as mayor. Nichols had the third highest rate of missed votes, missing 36% of votes.
Moderator Erin Christy asked, “What do you say to voters who worry you might seek an even higher office and be absent 1/3 of your time as mayor?”
Nichols explained his missing votes were due to balancing multiple responsibilities and asserts that he remains committed to his roles. One reason given was running his campaign or working on his other job, StriveTogether. He emphasizes his active participation in legislative work and his ability to manage both his legislative and mayoral responsibilities effectively. “It’s not because I’m out doing something that’s fun. … I’m out every day representing people, whether it be as a state representative, whether it be on the campaign trail, or whether it be in my role at StriveTogether. We’re working every day to have 4 million kids in this country on a road to economic mobility.”
VanNorman mentions his own balancing act with part-time jobs and emphasizes the importance of being present and accountable as an elected official. Stating if you’re missing votes, you better have a good reason for it.
Keith discusses her busy schedule balancing county commissioner duties and community engagement, highlighting her commitment to addressing complaints and implementing solutions. From both Keith and VanNorman, there was not much push back on Nichols voting record.
Nichols joked saying let’s talk about the time he was in the legislature. Reflecting on his accomplishments, he co-authored the bill that brought $50 million of funding to Tulsa for the levy. He contrasted his experience with his opponents. He stressed the need for a mayor who can immediately address challenges and emphasized his readiness to lead.
Closing Statements
VanNorman emphasized his business experience and contrasted his approach with what he sees as increasing government size by his opponents. He underscored his vision for a streamlined, free-market approach and appealed to voters to consider his business acumen when making their decision. He closed with this question to voters, “your task is to find the next CEO of the city. Who would you trust leading? Would you trust a seasoned professional that’s had over 40 years of business experience that’s meaningful and that’s real world? Or would you trust a Democratic politician?”
“Or would you want somebody who has experience, doesn’t need training wheels to find their way around?” Keith began by following up from VanNorman’s question. Keith highlighted her experience, relationships, and commitment to advancing the city’s projects. She stressed her readiness to lead and invited voters to engage with her through various channels.
And last, Nichols expressed his extensive experience and commitment to addressing issues effectively. He contrasted his qualifications with those of his opponents and underscored the need for a mayor who is prepared to tackle the issues on day one, “We have to elect a mayor who’s ready to meet them as soon as they get into office, and I’m ready to meet them.”
Tulsa’s general election for mayor is Aug. 27, with a runoff election scheduled for Nov. 5. To view the recorded debate hosted by NonDoc, visit KJRH Channel 2 at https://www.kjrh.com/
Below is post-debate commentary
I think St. Rep. Monroe Nichols came out looking the strongest. He not only offered his vision but plans he would implement as soon as he is elected. When he was questioned by the moderators on his voting record in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, where he missed 30% of the floor votes, Nichols accounted his time for the other jobs he holds. He spoke about his education and role with his projects as key indicators of what sets him apart from the others.
VanNorman used the phrases, CEO, business, and business friendly frequently. Setting himself apart from the politicians, even calling them liberals and how their policies would lead to Tulsa being a sanctuary city for the homeless. His strong conservative values and views for the future of Tulsa focused on less of a “bloated” government and more on a government that is streamlined. His biases came out (how he said marriage should be between a man and woman, in Virginia saying families who should suffer together to grow stronger, how those in public office should be Christian) and he only commented on his Christian faith. Nothing wrong with a politician’s religion but he made no indication that it would not affect his judgement, nor did he disavow his past comments.
Keith was fast, vibrant, and eager. Her voice was strong throughout the night when presenting her past successes in a long career in Tulsa’s community. Her support from the firefighters and Fraternal Order of Police is another testament to her campaign. And her selling point was a proven track record and the person everybody knows. She would work over party lines to get the job done. However, she looked her weakest when asked direct questions on issues such as enforcing law on tribal members in Tulsa despite the McGirt case. She did not adequately respond to the criticism and her involvement with the Family Center for Juvenile Justice scandal when it was discussed. The other candidates challenged her involvement and integrity.