Federal Law?
It Doesn't Apply in Buffalo!
In the last few months a Rural Development Grant, for improvements to Buffalo’s Municipal Pool, specifically regarding the fencing project, (for fencing around the remaining parts of the pool) was discussed at the Town Board Meetings. Buffalo Oklahoma’s Attorney, suggested that the Town get a letter from Rural Development indicating that the grant was being processed and was forthcoming.
Understand, please, we’re not talking about FEDERAL LAW (as in the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act)… - we’re talking about a $3,300.00 grant from our local government agency to be given to the Town for a perimeter pool fence. There’s already a fence in place. There isn’t a safety issue or a life threatening crisis of complacency. The letter request was about a decorative fence! YET, Buffalo’s counsel undeniably asked for a letter, on letterhead, about the funds becoming available. The Town attorney wanted a contract, an agreement that spelled out how they’d get their money back once spent, etc.
HOWEVER !! (two exclamation points for emphasis) when it comes to FEDERAL LAW, when it comes to the Virginia Graeme Baker Act – an act enacted into law in 2007, an act which is meant to save lives, assist in alleviating drowning and keep the Town of Buffalo from litigation resulting from a child’s death (or an adult) - Buffalo’s Trustees accept a letter, UNSIGNED, which, in point of fact, doesn’t come near to addressing the Town Manager’s, oops, our error, Town ADMINISTRATOR’S argument that the municipal pool doesn’t need any apparatus installed on Buffalo’s pool until next year.
The Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act was signed into law in December 2007 and gave public pool operators one year, until December 19, 2008, to comply with the new requirements.
AttorneyAtLaw.com Report on the Act
The letter we’re analyzing in this article arrived via FAX, meaning that it’s not a legal document, as it can easily be manipulated.
Try to ignore the obscure errors in syntax, grammar and spelling:
There you have it! This document is meant to reinforce discussions. It mentions the Virginia Graham Bell Act. This is our government agency at its best. Maybe the person who wrote this letter will visit Inside Buffalo for the FACTS next time, prior to penning an instrument such as this.
For those who wish to know: It’s NOT the: Virginia Graham Bell Act - It is entitled: The “Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act” - Please take special note of the spelling of the Act itself.
The Woodward Health Department is talking about, it appears, the “Alexander Graham Bell Act”, which allowed for telephone service all over the United States. The Alexander Graham Bell Act doesn’t require drain covers on municipal pools. However, it does require that if you use a telephone, you must say “hello” when you answer it. It also requires you to hold one foot in the air while balancing a popsicle stick on your nose while, at the same time, dialing your nearest relative.
Upon further examination, there is no date on the letter.
Conveniently the date has been left off the letter because Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876 and started Bell Telephone Company in 1877. The Alexander Graham Bell Act went into effect shortly thereafter. Evidently this letter, from the Health Department, is from the 1800’s era and is not applicable to Buffalo’s municipal pool and any Virginia Graeme Baker Act requirements. Using simple mathematics one can assume that Ms. Baker wasn’t born yet and, therefore, this letter can’t possibly apply to today in the century we call the 21st.
The letter continues:
Definition: intangle. Search dictionary for. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Intangle \In*tan"gle\, v. t. See Entangle ...
Can we all agree that the letter is supposed to say: Entanglement? …involving drownings?
Here’s the key: THIS IS A FEDERAL MANDATE
The remaining portion of this sentence can be ignored because the State Health Department already voted to place it into their rules and regulations for public bathing facilities, which Inside Buffalo reported about in this article: HERE
The writer of this letter should have known this as, according to the State Board of Health, the adoption of the new rules information has been in all the newspapers and forwarded to all the local agencies of the Health Department that deal with the Virginia Graeme Baker Act.
Some Oklahoma City pools still not up to code - News OK Article - Oklahoman
Let’s go on…
Yes, it is Con-Fussing. They have observably been fussing about this for a long, long time. At least since Alexander Graham Bell was on the earth. He died in 1922. What’s the fuss all about then?
Furthermore, the letter says:
This letter must be quite aged, because the writer doesn’t know that the Act HAS INDEED been adopted by vote of the State Board of Health. Again, you can read about its adoption: HERE
Here is a RECCOM-DATION - a recommendation:
FIND OUT IF THE CURRENT POOL IS FAULTY FROM THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S STAND POINT sic’ (standpoint) to determine if there are design flaws in the current pool system.
The remaining scrap of the letter says:
Inside Buffalo is happy the fussing is over and the confusion can begin.
If there are any questions you should feel free to contact him. PROBLEM!? It is difficult to contact the writer of the letter when it’s unsigned. Buffalo’s Town Administrator, Joe McVicker took the liberty of signing it with the alleged writer’s initials G.R., purportedly with his permission.
ONE MORE TIME
HERE IS THE KEY:
“...YET BE IN VIOLATION
OF A FEDERAL ACT”
View the Unsigned Letter: HERE
Beaver Oklahoma, a town, according to the latest figures, of only a couple hundred more residents than Buffalo, has already, in their proactive way, complied with the Virginia Graeme Baker Act by installing the correct drain covers. Inside Buffalo wants to know: How is it that a Town, relatively the size of Buffalo can have leaders who are willing to comply with FEDERAL LAW, but Buffalo doesn’t have those type of leaders?
This can be found on the Beaver Oklahoma Website:
Motion was made by Berry and seconded by Janko to accept the bid from Paddock Pools in the amount of $3,800.00 to repair 30 feet of overflow that is deteriorating and failing on the swimming pool and replace the main drain frame and grates conforming to flow requirements of the Virginia Graeme Baker Act. Any additional repair is at a rate of $45.00 per foot. Motion carried.
Beaver's Board Minutes April 2009
This is about human lives! Life! This is about safety and concern for our children! This shouldn’t be about money or time. If there was a funding issue, why not approach Rural Development about a grant for the necessary equipment to follow Federal Law. Why not ask for the proper equipment to be installed and take on the project concerning a decorative fence next year?
Truth is – there is no money problem. The Town of Buffalo Treasurer has projected a SURPLUS of funds again this year. Buffalo has the money in their budget. Budget
They have the CASH available to fix the municipal pool and follow the Federal Law.
The Town of Buffalo, led by a new group of elected Trustees, simply choose not to. They made this choice based on the ramblings of a Town Manager, excuse us for the mistake once again, a TOWN ADMINISTRATOR - who has no concept of following protocol. Protocol? What’s that? Laws? Rules? They’re all made to be broken. When our Town Administrator refuses to follow these “trivial” things like Laws and Rules, taxpayers have to step up and cover the $23,000.00 in fines Buffalo has had levied against it as a result of numerous DEQ violations and now, the purposeful breaking of Federal Law.
Our Trustees should be ashamed for allowing the Town Administrator to sway their decision to break Federal Law.
The UNSIGNED letter says nothing about whether the Town can, legally, avoid following Federal Law. Of course there isn’t any reference to a legal position because, we opine, the Town of Buffalo doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
It would be apparent to even the small children attending the pool this summer; the Town of Buffalo has chosen to ignore Federal Law.
It’s not a decision made lightly! The Trustees and Town’s counsel could have requested a letter, SIGNED, from the Department of Health, stating, in certain guaranteed terms, that there would be no repercussions, no corollary ramifications, no lack of a permit to open the pool, no fines or problems whatsoever as a result of not following the Federal Law. But they didn't get that did they?
The Town of Purcell, Oklahoma is not opening their pool as it is expensive to comply and rather than face, one can surmise, Federal Law violations and possible fines they have closed it this year:
View Report Here
Not following the Law? A great example the Town of Buffalo, Oklahoma is setting for their tax paying citizenry.
With this kind of example, can the Town expect the enforcement of its ordinances and other issues of legality to be endorsed by Buffalo citizens?
Why do we, the residents of Buffalo have to abide by the laws of the State and Federal Government when our own Town, our ELECTED officials and the Town’s employees don’t need to abide by the Law?
