Introduction:
First, regarding his reply to me about the Great Facade fraudulent Special City Council Meeting at NSU-BA on 1/12 about the Mosque building permit vote, I will say this:
He does not deny the Council communicated FIRST with the main opposition group (Constitutional Grounds), as early as 12/30 two weeks before the meeting, saying they wanted to hear FIRST their critique of land use and infrastructure issues at the potential build site. “FIRST” before people of differing points of view can speak!!! City Manager Spurgeon never denied this statement by C.G., nor gave an alternative reading of it.
Second, he also admits that this group, and the Muslim group, were contacted in advance by the City, because the former was the applicant, and the latter the main known opposition group He insists this is not favoritism nor violates free speech.
Both groups were contacted in advance to sign up early. When I objected that they cannot be encouraged by the city to sign up earlier in the day or days before the meeting because that would create an unfair advantage over the general public, he DID NOT deny that exact point in his formal response, only giving a vague reference to the two groups being able to sign up early.
I also reminded him that the City video advertisement of the event only encouraged early sign up AT THE EVENT not earlier, and therefore the public would have arrived largely not earlier than 4 pm before the 6 pm meeting, while having others sign up FAR in advance, including days in advance, PRIVATELY contacted and encouraged by the City to do so, would therefore be afforded an unfair advantage, yet he neither denied nor addressed this point.
Ongoing Investigation:
When I emailed the City Clerk asking if he knew about this pre-event coordination by the City, and when exactly were these two groups allowed to sign up, and what time did city clerks make themselves available to sign people up OUTSIDE the only entrance locked until 5 pm, for the General Public, he did not answer my questions.
Instead, Spurgeon answered that legally they are not required to answer those kind of questions. That seems possibly true, yet that is still evidence of cover up. Those are normal questions. If you truly did nothing wrong, why not just answer a few plain, simple questions?
A jury is going to ask themselves that question.
Online Comments:
In several later exchanges on the City FB page, it now seems it was Spurgeon (and at times mayor Wimpee?) who kept condescendingly insisting I do not know how BA city government really works, at first because I objected to Bond propositions for spending that IS NOT strictly necessary (about half of the 455 MILLION DOLLAR BOND) in the April bond as a kind of PORK, he (or she?) insisting I said citizens only cast a singular vote for or against the entire bond package, when I literally said nothing remotely like that. Even after I reminded them multiple times I never said or implied that, but was making a general point, their comments went uncorrected.
A Series of Defensive Statements:
He also objected to me now calling myself a “mayoral candidate” in email signatures because “the citizens do not directly elect the mayor.” As if one necessarily means the other. I explained it would be to get the Council to vote for me, which is the current practice, but he still doubled down I need to learn what our form of government is.
He insisted online I was incorrect stating there are special interests truly in control of our government, namely political and big business interests, yet everybody knows this is true on some level.
He also insisted, replying that BA is “not a charter city,” objecting to my proposal to “amend the charter” to make the mayor someone The People vote into office vs. by a mere four other councilors voting for one of their own.
He was implying that is impossible since we have a “council-manager” form of government, completely ignoring my proposal to amend the local Law for a major constitutional change. So The People can elect the mayor, based on what is called a “strong mayor” form of municipal government.
In one of his last emails, he was forceful that my statements were false “perceptions,” while his statements were “the facts.” Which is classic gaslighting.
And also, for good measure, after my last criticism of Wimpee on FB, she made an illegal, harassing public threat to sue me for exercising free speech, press, and petition.
So there you go.
My Reply:
First, I detected in his emails a combination of ignorance, short-sightedness, and arrogance. His defensiveness and duplicity covering up for the 1/12 fraudulent behavior devolved at a later date into a well written, seemingly calm but obviously passive aggressive venting of anger.
Second, I caught him in a contradiction. In his final, formal response (see all below) on behalf of the City, he left out any statement about members of both groups being allowed to sign up days in advance AT city hall, but in his final emails days later he indicated they had.
That reads like at first being deliberately vague to avoid admitting that they allowed and enabled their preferred people to sign up days in advance, knowing the City on their website NEVER announced that possibility to the PUBLIC, when advertising the event.
Yet in one of his last emails to me, he says in a matter-of-fact way, as if he already told me (he hadn’t), that people were able to sign up days in advance. As if to say “the two groups were encouraged to sign up early,” but only when later pressed, he more clearly admitted “they signed up days in advance.” Why not say that in the beginning? Why are you so sure that is legal?
It’s not. Why? Because that creates an unfair advantage for the most interested individuals or groups, who can just sign up very early and dominate the speakers. And certainly the City CANNOT contact groups in advance to ENCOURAGE that, for them to sign up in advance at city hall, and still claim they maintained neutrality.
Hello.
It only takes common sense to see this amounts to favoritism, contrary to the First Amendment, but still he only needs to research Supreme Court decisions on a variety of similar incidents, clearly ruling that all levels of government, at any official event in which citizens are allowed to speak or participate, by no means whatsoever can government deviate from a neutral position in giving favor to a particular point of view
Obviously if you make arrangements and private communications for CERTAIN people to sign up in advance so they can speak FIRST, because you PREFER to hear their concerns FIRST, then that is by definition showing favor to certain points of view, NOT remaining neutral.
Spurgeon is a very smart guy, so his stonewalling and gaslighting comes across as duplicitous rather than simply being misinformed. He finally insisted, the mayor and vice mayor cc’d to the email, that I was selectively misreading and misinterpreting different “statements” that were made. See below one Facebook link of one of those statements I initially drew to his attention.
Yet, neither did he actually respond to clear up my “misreadings” in his formal response, nor in his later emails that made that claim.
If you are right, you should be able to explain HOW you are right. Asserting that from a position of authority isn’t demonstrating or proving anything. It relies on an “appeal to authority” fallacy. The idea is it must be accepted as true because (erroneously) the person in authority necessarily knows the truth simply because they possess the authority, which is absurd.
That is pure arrogance.
Lastly, his implication in responding to me that the current council-manager format has to essentially be understood and accepted as un-amendable, that is that there will not be a directly or indirectly elected mayor, involving The People, is not only again arrogant, it is patently false.
And it is an attempt to chill free political expression and political action to justly and righteously amend the structure of government, which most would want. As I proposed before he corrected me the second time about this point.
Whether it is a charter, the ordinance, or another document is not the point. Whatever you want to call the document specifying our exact form of government, IT CAN AND SHOULD BE amended to make BA like most other cities in Oklahoma and the USA, in which The People can democratically elect their Mayor! That makes for a strong executive branch more answerable to The People, therefore more transparent, and therefore helps to reduce risks of cronyism, corruption, misuse or waste of taxes, redundancies, and government inefficiency.
Absolutely, we can amend the Law to elect the mayor once again (not allowed since 1956). It is desperate reasoning to chill a kind of legitimate political action that if successful would undermine his own authority.
If I was a doormat, I’d say “Ok you must be right, sorry,” and then just fade back into the shadows, but he is clearly underestimating this political unknown coming out of the shadows to take on government corruption.
THAT is not democracy. That is effectively dictatorship. And if Spurgeon doesn’t stop it, and his unbridled, progressivistic plan of never-ending expansion, of materialism and consumerism, he needs to go. Time will tell.
All of this goes before the court, and reported to the OK Attorney General.
By the way, Wimpee gets sued unless perhaps she retracts by this Wednesday. I'm not holding my breath. US Title 42 and Supreme Court decision New York Times vs. Sullivan, etc. both forbid government officials from retaliating with lawsuit threats against citizen’s exercising free speech critical of them.
——————————--------------------
EVIDENCE:
My complete investigation into the 1/12 Great Facade:
Original article raising the concern with photos:
Constitutional Grounds FB Statement, scroll down to 12/30 (when it talks about the Council wanting to hear first about land use issues)
My email to Spurgeon (emphasis mine):
2/17/26
Dear City Manager,
After careful research, I have determined that there was a certain pre-selected speaker order at the 1/12 dorsal meeting on the mosque vote. It appears certain people were actively allowed to speak critically focusing on land use issues, in addition to a chosen number of pro mosque speaks, while those speaking on other pressing issues related to the mosque were deliberately chosen to speak later after land issues were addressed.
This especially favored the Constitutional Grounds points of view and objections to the permit (Guillespie and Oldham, etc), while not observing the standard “first come first serve” approach in which the speaker sequence ought to have been determined by those showing up early to stand in line and sign.
The basis for my conclusion is online posts by Oldham stating they received communication from the Council they wanted this pre-determined sequence, and also photos I took of the front of the line clearly showing that about 40 out of 45 of the people who got to speak were not in the front of the line.
This all would violate the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, the First Amendment, and the trust of the prior of Broken Arrow.
I request a clear, direct explanation and apology.
Sincerely,
Chris Kennedy
Ward 1
Broken Arrow, OK
From his response:
From my reply:
Or I can come tomorrow to the clerk’s office to request and pay for a copy.”
His Final, Formal Statement on Behalf of the City:
On Friday, February 20, 2026 at 12:28:53 PM CST, Spurgeon, Michael <mspurgeon@brokenarrowok.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Thank you for your emails. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns regarding the public comment process at the January 12, 2026, Special City Council meeting. Please note that this response addresses and incorporates all of the points raised in your communications.
To begin, as City Manager, I am responding on behalf of the City Administration. The Mayor and Vice Mayor presided over the meeting in accordance with the City’s established procedures as set forth in The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Fourth Edition, as well as the City Council’s adopted rules. Direct responses from elected officials regarding administrative or logistical matters related to Council meetings are routinely coordinated through the City Manager or designated staff to ensure consistent, accurate, and efficient communication. This longstanding practice does not reflect an effort to avoid transparency or accountability. Additionally, all meeting videos, agendas, minutes, and related records are, and will continue to be, fully available to the public.
Next, your allegation that the City of Broken Arrow violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is unfounded. The procedures implemented for public speakers at the January 12, 2026, City Council meeting were formulated by the City’s experience at the December Planning Commission meeting on the same matter.
As you may recall, the Planning Commission meeting drew several hundred individuals, many of whom completed public comment forms and wished to address the Commission. That experience provided valuable insight into managing a significant number of speakers in a manner that is orderly, fair, and respectful of everyone’s time. Please allow me to share:
First, the City recognized that City Hall would not be a sufficiently large venue to accommodate the anticipated attendance. Accordingly, the January 12 meeting was scheduled at an alternative venue capable of accommodating all individuals who wished to attend.
Second, the City implemented specific procedures designed to ensure an orderly, fair, and efficient public comment period during the City Council meeting. These measures included the following:The City Clerk was directed to encourage all interested parties, whether in favor of or opposed to the application, to submit their requests to speak as early as possible; At my recommendation, the Mayor agreed that Broken Arrow residents should be allowed to speak first, followed by those residing outside the community; and The Director of Community Development Rocky Henkel directly contacted the applicant and advised them to submit their request to speak forms early, as we anticipated significant public interest. The same outreach was extended to those known to oppose the application, and they also submitted requests promptly.
Finally, your citation to online posts and photographs of the public standing in line to attend the public meeting do not reflect a violation of the Open Meeting Act or First Amendment. Everyone, either for or against this application, was provided the appropriate forms and encouraged to submit them well in advance of the meeting. The physical line at the meeting you cite as evidence of favoritism does not capture the early-submission process used to gather public speaker forms.
The City of Broken Arrow remains committed to transparency, fairness and upholding the trust of our residents. All speaker sign-in documentation and the speaker list are public records. Curtis Green, City Clerk, can provide those materials to you upon request. I am also available to discuss this matter further if you would like to schedule a conversation.
Thank you again for writing and we welcome your continued involvement in our community.
Respectfully,
Michael Spurgeon
City Manager
My Response:
First, to clarify, I was not (yet anyway) formally accusing in a definitive way, but qualifying my assertions as “it appears.” If I perhaps miscommunicated in any way giving the impression of a formal accusation, I did not intend that. I’m reporting facts and reporting an impression I have, to verify with the City.
A few questions:
1. Did the mayor, vice mayor, and/or other council members know that the interested parties (ie members of the Islamic Society of Tulsa, plus main CG opposition group) were communicated with by administration before the 1/12 meeting) were advised to sign up early? This is what I mean by “pre-arranged,” in the sense that doing so beforehand caused or enabled that arrangement.
2. The opposition group was criticizing land use issues. Clearly from Oldham’s statement (on the CG FB page I believe on 12/30), the City had communicated they wanted these land use issues addressed first. How is that not favoring a certain point of view? That is merely a subjective opinion. Many in opposition who signed up, and also didn’t get to speak having come first come first serve in the photos, never got to speak clear in the meeting video. They had other points of view clearly intentionally put before the CG land use objections in terms of speaker sequence. Again the evidence are the photos and Oldham’s written statement.
In other words, can you please clarify based on the above how the speaker sequence maintained neutrality?
3. Can you please tell me how, who, and where did the City tell the general public beforehand they can sign up early? The City announcement again did not say this.
Would you or the mayor be open to a discussion about these details and other issues with the meeting and City approach that is recorded that I can share on my local blog, or new local podcast?
Many people had/have the same observations and objections as I have who were there that night.
Chris
I sign a later email with:
“Mayoral and At-large Councilor Candidate (2027)
From his response:
My response:
Thank you! I’ll let the concerned party know. I hope the molester gets removed immediately. I’ll be on top of it.
——————-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re your comment about “our” form of government, The Council alone does not elect the Mayor. Ultimately The People do. This is the USA not Iran.
The Council is legally required to listen first and foremost to The People in voting on mayor. That’s how it is suppose to work contra cronyism. So I’ll be pointing that out and calling for a verifiable public mandate to the Council to elect me.
So you see I’m not the idiot you keep making me out to be how things work in “our” local government.
God willing they do, I will lead the charge of constitutional reform 1) amending the city charter to RESTORE true democracy to our city, by first restoring the office of mayor to be directly elected (Tulsa and all its suburbs do!) to lead and not mainly an unelected city manager. Too much risk of cronyism. In the end whoever is most qualified to elected mayor the better, as long as they are a patriot.
2) establish in BA a department like DOGE to investigate all waste, corruption, and inefficiency and cut it all out like removing a tumor.
3) Look at your $300,000 a year contract. The question will be: even if you disagree, are you willing to STOP your endless expansion projects and put The People first.
You are a brilliant city manager, maybe top ten in the US, as far as skills, but things need to change.
Sincerely,
Chris Kennedy
Mayoral and At Large Councilor Candidate (2027)
Make Broken Arrow Great Again Podcast
He Doubles Down:
Mr. Kennedy,
As you well know, in many of our previous communications, we have ended up debating your perceptions about how things operate versus the actual facts. I am not interested in engaging in that type of discussion. Instead, I prefer to focus on what the facts are.
I would encourage you to review the form of government used by Broken Arrow and the other municipalities in the Tulsa metropolitan area. Broken Arrow is not a charter city; we operate under a statutory council–manager form of government.
Respectfully,
Michael Spurgeon
City Manager
City of Broken Arrow
Sent from my iPhone
