Oklahoma’s Fields of Accountability — Day 5

Moore: Buck Thomas Park — When the Agreement Became the Question

October 11, 2026 | Moore, Oklahoma | Cleveland County | City-owned public recreation property

The City of Moore's record contains a 2023 discussion of problems complying with an earlier field lease, a detailed 2024 competition for youth-baseball programming, a 2024 statement that sports associations were back in compliance, and approvals of new agreements for 2025. What can those records—and a separate, independently calculated USSSA facility profile—tell taxpayers about access, affordability and the public return?

Research status: Documented municipal actions are distinguished below from staff statements, independent activity calculations, historical participant recollections, requests for information and conclusions. This article does not allege fraud, corruption, criminal misconduct or illegality by any organization or individual.

The facility and who is responsible

Buck Thomas Park is at 1903 NE 12th Street, Moore, Oklahoma. The City describes the park as approximately 128 acres. Moore Parks and Recreation administers park-related policy within a council-manager form of city government. The public park should not be confused with an independently owned sports venue merely because community associations operate sports programs there. [S7][S8]

As of the City's October 2026 youth-sports webpage, the City identifies the Moore Youth Baseball Association as its baseball contact and the Moore Girls Softball Association as its softball contact. These public listings identify program contacts; they do not themselves provide the executed terms of any particular lease or prove who collected any historical tournament proceeds. [S6]

This case study focuses on municipal decisions in 2022–2026 and uses an independent Hidden Valley facility analysis spanning Oklahoma USSSA seasons 2001–2026. Tournament data do not replace City contract or finance records.

Existing Historical Research — Buck Thomas Park

This Day 5 municipal accountability investigation builds on an existing Baseball Heaven research resource: Buck Thomas Park — Hidden Valley / Integrity of the Game. The established facility landing page is the starting point for reviewing the historical USSSA activity, methodology and linked supporting report. Readers should examine that research alongside—not in place of—the City of Moore’s agreements, Council minutes and financial records.

Explore the Buck Thomas Park historical research landing page →

Read the Buck Thomas Park Facility Activity Report (PDF) →

The report's 2001–2026 historical window is wider than the 2022–2026 municipal decision period analyzed in this article. Consequently, its calculated entry fees and team/game/official counts cannot be attributed to the current management arrangement, the 2024 Council action, or any single organization without date-specific reconciliation. The report measures reconstructed event activity, not audited receipts, City income, operator profit or evidence of misconduct. [S4]

A documented chronology: from lease questions to renewed agreements

The strongest feature of Moore's record is that these governmental actions can be located in official meeting minutes and City procurement documents. That allows meaningful comparison between the City's promised controls and records of its later oversight. [S1][S2][S3][S5]

December 18, 2023: what the Council actually voted on

The Council's approved minutes are unusually informative. Agenda Item 13 asked whether to authorize proposals for management and programming of recreational youth baseball at Buck Thomas during the 2024 league and tournament season. Parks Director Sue Wood said staff had experienced problems with compliance under the 2022 field lease and requested permission to solicit proposals for the management and reorganization of the Moore Youth Baseball Association program. [S1]

Councilman Blair asked whether a committee would review proposals. City Manager Brooks Mitchell explained that staff would review responses before Parks Board and Council consideration. The approved minutes also record remarks by Kenneth Crawford expressing interest in collaborating with Moore, and comments by Kacee Coberly, then a MYBA volunteer coordinator, who described communication and board-restructuring concerns. These are attributed meeting statements, not independently adjudicated factual findings about any participant. [S1]

Blair moved to authorize the solicitation; Councilman Williams seconded it. Griffith, Blair, Williams, Webb and Hunt voted yes; Lewis was absent. The motion carried. That vote authorized a process. It should not be mislabeled as a vote to award a contract to one particular applicant. [S1]

Accountability distinction: A department director raised an administrative concern. The city manager described the proposed process. Council members collectively approved a solicitation. The minutes do not establish that any particular individual committed a legal violation or that a specific proposal was rejected improperly.

RFP #2024-007: Moore's published operating standards

Unlike a general press release, the City's actual nine-page request for proposals can be examined as a governance instrument. It described the City's commitment to safe, community-based recreation while allowing higher levels of play. The RFP gave examples that included spring and fall youth baseball, tournaments, adult baseball and Courage or Adaptive Leagues. Mentioning adaptive programming in an RFP demonstrates an inclusive policy option; it does not prove that adaptive leagues subsequently operated. [S2]

The published requirements included:

• Organizational governance: Oklahoma nonprofit status, intended or existing federal 501(c)(3) recognition, published bylaws, elected boards, and a stated recreational focus.
• Safety: adult supervision, annual nationwide criminal background checks, approval by Parks and Recreation of background-check standards, and submissions identifying relevant staff and coaches.
• Program transparency: league and tournament formats, schedules, registration processes, participant fees, grievance procedures, and two years of annual financial reports if available.
• Operations: the organization would operate concessions, provide equipment, maintain playing surfaces and relevant supplies, clean restrooms, and remove trash.
• Financial control: the RFP specified an annual $6,800 lease fee, expected generally accepted accounting practices, and stated that income from City-owned or leased facilities was to be used for legitimate program costs and activities.
• Control of other operators: a selected baseball operator could not subcontract practices, leagues or tournaments without City approval.
• Agreement terms: a City-approved annual agreement, with an initial period described as ending November 1, 2024, and a stated thirty-day written termination provision.
• Selection: Parks Board evaluation and recommendation, followed by City Council approval of a user agreement.

These are RFP requirements, not proof that every condition appeared unchanged in the final signed lease or that every requirement was satisfied in operation. The documents needed to test compliance include the executed agreements and the financial and program reports the City actually received. [S2]

A small but important document-version question

The City-hosted RFP lists the submission deadline as January 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. An archived BCM Sports applicant copy held in the research collection lists January 9, 2024. Without the City's solicitation-history and addenda, we should not assume which version each potential applicant received at a particular time or imply deadline manipulation. The final issued solicitation and all modifications should be placed in the evidence inventory. [S2][P1]

Researcher participation and full disclosure

Kenneth Crawford spoke during the December 2023 Council discussion and prepared a BCM Sports applicant response to the 2024 competition. The archived proposal described a possible model combining draft-based community play and USSSA-style competitive play, with differentiated weekday and weekend scheduling, safety procedures and affordability goals. It proposed substantial tournament programming. [S1][P1]

That applicant proposal is not a municipal approval, operational history or proof the proposed events occurred. The existence of competing ideas is relevant to evaluating the selection process, but no conclusion of unfair evaluation follows merely because the researcher was an applicant. The appropriate public-record questions concern uniform solicitation materials, evaluation criteria, the Parks Board recommendation, staff records, actual award documents and subsequent performance reports.

December 16, 2024: the City's compliance update and 2025 approvals

A year later, Parks Director Wood presented a different picture. According to the official December 16, 2024 minutes, she reported that all sports associations were now in compliance with facility, program and financial-recording requirements. She also said the associations had presented to the Parks Board and that the 2025 agreement terms would run January 1 through December 31, 2025. [S3]

This is material evidence favorable to the existence of oversight: staff publicly reported a compliance improvement. It would be misleading to quote the 2023 concerns but omit that subsequent statement. At the same time, a reported compliance status is not a substitute for the signed contracts, checklists, inspection records or financial reports needed to substantiate which criteria were checked.

The Council then approved separate agreements for the 2025 Moore youth baseball and girls softball programs at Buck Thomas. For baseball, Councilman Williams moved and Councilwoman Hunt seconded. For softball, Hunt moved and Williams seconded. Both passed with Griffith, Porter, Hunt, Williams, Webb and Mayor Mark Hamm voting yes; Clark absent. The City also approved related soccer and football agreements, but those are distinct programs and should not be treated as terms of a baseball or softball contract. [S3]

The City currently lists MYBA and MGSA as youth baseball and softball contacts. That fact supports that these groups are relevant contemporary program participants; it does not, on its own, reconstruct the entire 2024 evaluation or establish the unreviewed 2026 executed contract terms. [S6]

Hidden Valley: what the USSSA dataset establishes

The current, publicly accessible seven-page Buck Thomas Park Facility Report, part of Hidden Valley–Integrity of the Game, covers 2001–2026 research and separates stand-alone Buck Thomas events from multi-facility events. The distinction prevents the same combined event from being attributed in full to every location it named. [S4]

Direct stand-alone Buck Thomas Park activity

The strongest individually labeled direct season in the report is 2021, approximately $258,070 in calculated team-entry fees. The chart separately groups some years under “Others,” so that grouping must not be misread as one season. The facility profile includes baseball and softball, and its league subset shows why a tournament-only description would be incomplete. [S4]

Associated multi-facility records — NOT attributed entirely to Buck Thomas

The same report identifies a second population of events in which Buck Thomas appears alongside other facilities: $531,907 in calculated team-entry fees, 1,353 team entries, 4,715 minimum games and 9,185 minimum umpire assignments. Its broad combined footprint totals $2,731,135 in calculated entry fees, 15,850 team entries, 46,358 minimum games and 79,117 minimum officials. [S4]

Those combined figures describe events associated with the park, not activity exclusively performed there. The direct and associated categories are reported separately; they should not be duplicated when comparing sites statewide. Association is not allocation.

Calculation is not collection

Participating team entries × publicly listed event entry fee = Calculated Team Entry Fees. This is an independent historical analytical measure. It is not audited event revenue, City rent, a user group's bank receipts, net profit, director income, taxable income, concession sales, gate revenue or proof of misconduct. Records with a posted $0 entry fee can still reflect meaningful participation without supporting a revenue calculation. Refunds, waivers, cancellations and other variations may not appear in the source listing. [S4]

Version control: Some archived secondary summaries of Buck Thomas use different participation and officiating totals from the currently published seven-page report. This installment therefore uses the direct figures above from the source-linked report. The original event/division export remains necessary to reconcile earlier summary versions and establish a division-row count. We do not combine incompatible versions.

Taxpayer investment: parking, softball improvements and restrooms

Facility governance cannot be assessed from user-group financial statements alone. Taxpayer capital expenditures and City maintenance costs must be measured separately.

At the same December 18, 2023 meeting that authorized the baseball solicitation, the Council also approved a budget amendment whose agenda description included increasing a softball improvements budget to use prior-year collections. The minutes establish the action but do not establish the final improvement costs or how any specific revenue source was distributed. [S1]

At the December 16, 2024 meeting, Council approved an estimated $958,899.80 parking-lot improvement package involving both northwest Buck Thomas Park and Kiwanis Park, under an existing public works maintenance contract. The minutes linked the expected funding approach to a quarter-cent sales-tax renewal. Because the approved item covered two parks, the whole $958,899.80 cannot responsibly be presented as Buck Thomas expenditure without the project-level breakdown. [S3]

Later City procurement materials concerning Buck Thomas Park Restroom Facilities, Project/Bid 2026-003, describe construction of two new restroom buildings with men's, women's, family and electrical facilities. The document establishes a project design and invitation-to-bid stage; it does not, by itself, establish a completed building or actual final cost. [S5]

These are examples of evidence that should be integrated into a municipal “facility report card”: annual taxpayer spending, user-group obligations, fee schedules, accessibility improvements, usage, preventive maintenance and capital needs.

How Public Decisions Shape a Healthy Community-Based Program

Affordability

The RFP's $6,800 annual lease requirement and operator responsibility for materials, maintenance and concessions imply real operating costs. Those costs may affect fees, but no published document examined here establishes a precise causal increase in family registration prices. The City should compare published youth-baseball and softball fee schedules, scholarship availability, gate charges and ordinary household cost over time. [S2]

Local league stability and player development

A reliable community program needs fields for regular-season play, beginner instruction, team practice and development—not only weekend tournament bookings. The RFP emphasized recreation while allowing higher-level competition. That is a constructive design goal. The relevant outcome data are local-player enrollment, games guaranteed, waitlists, weather rescheduling, retention and access for children joining without a preassembled travel team. [S2]

Volunteers, screening and safety

Volunteer coaches and board members are essential to local programs. Moore's RFP required supervised play and background checks. This is an identifiable protective standard, but implementation should be demonstrated through appropriately redacted compliance summaries rather than disclosure of individual screening results. An enforceable safety plan should include incident reporting, field-condition inspections and accessible restrooms. [S2][S5]

Equitable access and competition

Access should include girls, recreational players, travel teams, independent tournament operators and children with disabilities. The City's RFP recognized possible adaptive leagues and imposed a rule against unauthorized subcontracting. How were field schedules and opportunities allocated? Were independent proposals evaluated using common criteria? Were softball and baseball scheduling needs balanced? These questions require reservation logs, comparison rules and program data—not speculation about motives. [S2]

Transparency and public accountability

Moore documented a public solicitation and later association approvals. That is meaningful transparency. The next step is to connect those decisions to accessible signed agreements, contract-specific reporting and performance results. An annual summary could report participation, field dates, user fees, concession arrangements, public costs and material improvements without disclosing private information about children. [S1][S2][S3]

Reinvestment and sustainability

A sustainable arrangement allocates maintenance duties, public capital spending and reserve planning predictably. The City's parking and restroom records show planned public improvements, while the RFP anticipated private operational responsibilities. The question is not whether one side pays more in isolation; it is whether the combined model maintains safe facilities, affordable access and predictable finances over time. [S2][S3][S5]

Governance distinction: Council votes are collective policy or approval actions. Department staff and the city manager perform administrative and evaluation roles. Associations perform contractual or program roles. The general challenge of allocating scarce fields across recreational and tournament demand is a structural condition. Responsibility for a specific result should be assigned only where the governing documents and performance record actually support it.

Facts, calculations, allegations and unanswered questions

Established public-record facts: The December 2023 solicitation vote and named votes; the published 2024 RFP criteria; Parks' December 2024 reported compliance status; Council's 2025 baseball and softball agreement approvals; City-published current league contacts; City park/procurement materials. [S1][S2][S3][S5][S6][S7]

Research calculations: The Hidden Valley stand-alone and associated USSSA measures, derived from public event and team-fee listings. Their correct interpretation is activity scale, not revenue ownership. [S4]

Attributed statements: In 2023 Parks staff described issues with compliance under an earlier agreement, and a MYBA volunteer described internal communication concerns. These statements are part of minutes; the minute entry is not an independent ruling on a dispute. [S1]

Unanswered questions: What exact provisions of the 2022 lease drew concern? What corrective actions followed? Which submitted proposals were reviewed? What was recommended and why? What did the selected organization promise and perform? What reports support the December 2024 compliance assessment? What were the exact 2026 agreement terms? How did the City account for rent, concessions, scheduling access and taxpayer-funded improvements?

Reasoned conclusion: Moore's documented process contains real governance mechanisms. The next research step is to examine whether those mechanisms produced verifiable outcomes for the City's families and public assets. No misconduct conclusion follows merely from an evidentiary gap.

Records Still Needed

Priority 1 — governance decisions: The full 2022 baseball field lease; specific compliance correspondence and cure notices, if any; every dated version/addendum of RFP 2024-007; a list of bidders; properly redacted proposals; staff evaluation criteria or scoring; Parks Board minutes and recommendation; the 2024 final award action.

Priority 2 — enforceable agreements: Executed 2024, 2025 and 2026 baseball and softball agreements, amendments, termination/renewal notices, concession provisions, insurance certificates and responsibility matrices; schedules and rules for third-party tournament access.

Priority 3 — financial and program performance: Lease-invoice and payment ledgers; amounts paid or reimbursed to the City; annual program and financial reports received by Parks; concession and gate arrangements; participation by age division and sport; field calendars; grounds and restroom maintenance expenses; capital project budgets, payments and closeout reports; public-facility safety/accessibility records with appropriate privacy protection.

Priority 4 — Hidden Valley reproducibility: A filtered Buck Thomas event/division export with event keys, season definitions, sport, posted fee, team count, division count, location strings, deduplication rules, and a reconciliation note explaining earlier facility-summary discrepancies.

Right of Response

The City of Moore, its Parks and Recreation Department, the Parks Board, the City Council and former or current officials connected to the documented decisions are invited to provide signed agreements, performance summaries and corrections.

Moore Youth Baseball Association and Moore Girls Softball Association are invited to document the registration opportunities, league and tournament services, volunteer contributions, scholarships, accessibility efforts, maintenance and financial reporting associated with their operations.

2024 proposal applicants may submit properly documented corrections to the chronology or selection record. Any future correction will be incorporated with a date and explanation of the new evidence. Being named in this research does not imply misconduct.

Conclusion: the public return needs a public record

Buck Thomas Park shows why a serious review must go beyond a single organization or a single dollar estimate. In Moore, the City acknowledged a need to review an earlier arrangement, issued an RFP with identifiable accountability requirements, later reported that participating associations had reached compliance, and approved agreements for the following year. Those are meaningful facts. [S1][S2][S3]

The Hidden Valley data demonstrate a substantial historical baseball and softball activity footprint. City infrastructure documents demonstrate continuing public responsibility for the complex. Neither record can replace the other. [S4][S5]

The standard is not simply, “Was an agreement signed?” It is, “Can the public verify what the agreement required, what the parties delivered, and what the community received?”

Following the money. Following the facilities. Following the decisions. Following the public record.

Evidence and source links

[S1] City of Moore Council approved minutes, December 18, 2023 (PDF). Agenda Item 13: baseball RFP authorization, reported earlier compliance concerns, named vote. Agenda Item 14: softball-improvements budget amendment.

[S2] City of Moore RFP #2024-007, Youth Baseball Leagues/Tournaments Provider (PDF). City-issued requirements, proposed lease fee, evaluation procedure and January 12, 2024 submission deadline.

[S3] City of Moore Council approved minutes, December 16, 2024 (PDF). Reported compliance, 2025 association approvals, parking-lot improvements for Buck Thomas and Kiwanis.

[S4] Buck Thomas Park Hidden Valley USSSA Facility Activity Report, 2001–2026 (PDF); research landing page. Independent research—not a government audit or official USSSA financial report.

[S5] City of Moore Buck Thomas Park Restroom Facilities, Project 2026-003 (PDF). Project information and procurement description.

[S6] City of Moore Youth Sports League Contact Information. City identification of MYBA and MGSA.

[S7] Buck Thomas Park — official City park description.

[S8] City of Moore Council and council-manager government description.

[P1] BCM Sports applicant proposal, City of Moore RFP.pdf (researcher's document archive). Not a City award or endorsement. The archived first-page deadline differs from the final City-hosted PDF; the discrepancy is expressly unresolved.

Editorial note, October 11, 2026: The publicly accessible sources above were checked for this installment. The referenced City minutes are primary evidence of what was said and voted upon, but not independent proof of every underlying assertion by a speaker. Signed 2024–2026 agreement texts and the full bid evaluation file have not been verified in this publication. The current source-linked Hidden Valley report is used in preference to inconsistent older secondary summaries. No allegation of wrongdoing is made.