Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Court Collections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council legal staff asks committee to reconsider municipal court collections ordinance for a drafting correction
Summary
City legal reported a drafting error in an ordinance amending Tulsa Revised Ordinances Title 23, section 116 (collection services for court penalties) and requested the council reconsider the ordinance because the word “adjudicated” was struck only once rather than twice; the mayor has not signed the ordinance, so reconsideration is possible.
City legal staff informed the committee June 18 that an ordinance amending Title 23, section 116 — governing collection services for municipal court penalties, costs, fines and fees where a defendant has failed to appear or satisfy a monetary obligation — contains a drafting error and requested the council reconsider the ordinance.
Legal staff (Sarah) said a single drafting error caused the word “adjudicated” to be struck only once when it should have been removed in two places. “That’s actually my error,” Sarah said, and noted the mistake was caught after the council vote on June 11 but before mayoral signature. She advised the council could vote to reconsider the item on their agenda that evening and then immediately re‑vote on a corrected ordinance so it could go into effect in time for the budget.
Why it matters: Technical drafting errors can create ambiguity in enforcement; city legal reported the error and recommended a reconsideration and corrected re‑vote to ensure the ordinance reads as intended.
What’s next: City legal recommended the council put reconsideration on its agenda that evening and re‑vote on the corrected draft so the ordinance can be finalized.
