Thoughts from Last Night's Ethics Forum

The Committee for County Progress hosted an Ethics Forum last night. Micheal Mahoney served as moderator, with panelists Rep. Paul Levota, Rep. Jason Kander, and David Levinthal, the Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics in DC. The panel was great, the discussion was informative, and the crowd was a who's who of up-and-coming politicos. I don't have time to do one of my typically verbose descriptions of the event, but here are a few observations:

Paul Levota is funny. At one point, Mahoney was pressing Levota on the unlikelihood that the Missouri Senate will accept contribution limits. Mahoney pointed out that little will be accomplished by sticking to the issue accept to use it as a campaign weapon. "That's the plan," Levota deadpanned.

Transparency is crucial. One of the big problems in Missouri is that donors hide behind committees. When checks get funneled from "Missourians for Good Things" to "Missourians for Awesome Things" and then to "Missourians for Nice Things" and then finally to the candidate, it's awfully hard to track the dollars back to the special interest pulling the strings.

Jason Kander is funny, too. Commenting on a fellow representative's $100,000 donor, Kander pointed out that the donor probably gets his calls returned faster than the representative's children. (Maybe that isn't funny.)

The Center for Responsive Politics is a tremendous resource. Levinthal was well-informed, completely balanced and thoughtful. The Center is non-partisan, and his straight-arrow style made clear that he is interested in good government, period.

The candidates are out to see and be seen. The crowd was peppered with candidates in up-coming races. I hate to mention names, because I don't want to neglect anyone, but Crispin Rea was a welcome presence, along with his campaign treasurer Theresa Garza Ruiz. I finally met Jeremy Ploeger for the 51st district, and Geoff Gerling, candidate for the 46th District.

Where were the County Legislators? The only County Legislator in attendance was the always-wonderful Theresa Garza Ruiz. This came as a bit of a shock, given that it was a forum on Ethics sponsored by the Committee for COUNTY Progress. After the legislature's embarrassing and anti-ethical attempt to avoid ethical home rule, it seems that more of them would have an interest in the topic. Fortunately, Henry Rizzo's opposing candidate and likely replacement, Crystal Williams, was present.

Speaking of Theresa Garza Ruiz . . . I had a brief opportunity to speak with her about her sudden removal as Chair of the Justice & Law Enforcement committee. Despite her degree and experience in law enforcement, she was unceremoniously dumped from the committee, and the "dumper", Henry Rizzo, didn't even talk with her about it first, before awarding the committee Chair to a convicted felon. Theresa didn't have much to offer by way of explanation of this baffling move, other than to point out that the claim that it's part of a normal rotation of chairs is demonstrably false.

Micheal Mahoney knows his stuff. Mahoney did a great job of moderating the event, and the high point came when he ran factual rings around a loud audience member who was claiming that money is the be-all and end-all of politics. Mahoney pointed to the Carnahan/Talent race, and when the blustery but ill-informed talker pushed on, he pointed out that the Mayor was also not the leading fundraiser in his election. It was an amusing and deft evisceration of an anti-Funkhouser activist who seemed to be substituting volume for accuracy.

It's wonderful that so many people care about ethics in Missouri. On a Thursday evening, a healthy crowd of people came out to a mid-town law office to participate in a high-level forum on the topic of dollars and politics. That's a pretty impressive level of interest, and the CCP deserves credit for putting on the forum.

Blogging is Dying

The FTC has issued new guidelines requiring that bloggers disclose conflicts of interest clearly and conspicuously, such as when they receive freebies for product endorsements.

Does that mean that I'm actually going to have to pay for all those restaurant meals when I write my posts?! I can't imagine how that would work - do they really mean that I'm going to have to reach for my wallet and pay, rather than standing up at the end of my meal, telling the wait staff "I'm going to blog about this", and walking out, as I always do now?

And what about beer? Do they really expect me to pay for the bottles of beer I write about, rather than simply browsing through various retailers, pulling interesting selections off the shelves, and walking out?

Of course, those benefits of blogging are minor in comparison to the lucre I bring in through my writing on poetry. The compensation packages I have worked out with various publishers of poetry have made this blog into the economic engine that it is. The estates of Frost and Yeats have made me a wealthy man, and I resent having to disclose every time I cash one of their six-figure checks, or they send me on a junket to Tahiti.

If not for the profit motive, why would I even write this thing?

Fortunately, the guidelines don't become effective until December 1. Until then, it's business as usual. If you want me to mention your business on this blog, just email bigdollarendorsements@gonemild.com. We'll work something mutually beneficial out, just like we always have.

Cozy Cash Committees Closely Controlled - Day 87 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Why are the "Big Money" Committees on the Jackson County Legislature controlled by only 5 legislators?

Why are 3 legislators (Theresa Garza Ruiz, Greg Grounds, and Fred Arbanas), excluded from the three committees (Anti-Drug, Finance & Audit, and Budget) that have the most financial influence on Jackson County (Anti-Drug, Finance & Audit, and Budget)?

Dan Tarwater serves on all three of the Big Money Committees. Theresa Garza Ruiz serves on none.

James Tindall (convicted of income tax evasion) serves on two of the Big Money Committees (Budget and Anti-Drug). Greg Grounds serves on none.

Henry Rizzo (convicted of providing false information to a financial institution) serves on two of the Big Money Committees (Budget and Anti-Drug). Fred Arbanas serves on none.

It can't be based on experience, because Fred Arbanas has been on the County Legislature since it started.

It can't be based on knowledge, because Theresa Garza Ruiz is completing a Master's Degree in Public Administration with an emphasis on Government Business Relations and Public Management.

It can't be based on qualifications, because Greg Grounds has over three decades of government and business experience, including a stint on the Jackson County COMBAT Commission.

It can't be based on public trust, since two of the Financial Five (controlling 4 of the seven seats on the Budget and Anti-Drug committees) have criminal records for financial improprieties, while none of the other three have rap sheets.

It just doesn't make sense. Any auditor knows "there is safety in numbers", meaning that you should have as many people as possible involved in oversight of financial matters - a rule that would apply with special force where some of individuals involved have been caught and convicted of financial improprieties.

At the same time this bizarre and unsettling committee structure was being set up, the Jackson County Legislature decided (in violation of the Charter) that it should not have to answer to the Jackson County Ethics Commission anymore.

Why does the Jackson County Legislature oppose Ethical Home Rule? Is there Big Money involved?

Government in the Dark - Day 64 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Knowledge is power, and it appears that Jackson County Government doesn't want to spread the power very widely. Unlike the City of Kansas City and the State of Missouri, Jackson County does not maintain a searchable database of its laws. Instead, Jackson County tells you to contact the County Clerk if you want to know what the law is, or download the chapters you want in pdf form.

And, in case you're looking for the famous Jackson County Ethics Code, which the Legislature imposed on everyone else but still refuses to bring itself under, don't bother looking on the Code page. Instead, you need to go back through the journals of the legislative meetings and track it down that way.

Personally, I think that's a shame, and that the citizens of Jackson County ought to have easier access to the law that the Jackson County Legislature fears. So, here is a pdf version of the law. And, if you want to see how the legislature's refusal to allow the Jackson County Ethics Commission violates the Charter, here's a pdf of the Jackson County Charter. Look at pages 25 and 26 for the provisions that the Jackson County Legislator is violating.

Why is it that a mere blogger makes these laws more available to the public than the Jackson County Government?

Who's benefiting from the secrecy? In 2010, we can have a solid slate of candidates who accept the Charter and support ethics to run against each incumbent on the Jackson County legislature.

Too Much Cooperation? - Day 54 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

Cooperation is generally a good thing, but it has its limits. In the legislative world, too much agreement is a red flag that something is amiss. If a roomful of elected officials sworn to represent their constituents don't ever disagree, they are either not facing genuine issues or not having the courage to dissent.

Over the first 4 meetings of the 2009 Jackson County Legislature, Bob Spence is the only legislator to vote "no" on anything. No other legislator has broken from the herd even once. (To be completely fair, as always, I should point out that Fred Arbanas abstained from a vote to congratulate him on his birthday, and Scott Burnett abstained from the vote electing him Chair. So at least two legislators have a vocabulary that exceeds "aye". It's also worth noting that Henry Rizzo didn't abstain from the vote electing him Vice Chair, secure in his knowledge that ethics rules don't apply to the Jackson County legislature.)

During that time, the Legislature has spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, and changed the law in a fashion that will almost certainly cause children to be harmed in Jackson County, as well as property damage.

More tellingly, nobody has dared introduce an ordinance reversing the Legislature's anti-ethical exemption of itself from the Jackson County Ethics Code. I had correspondence with one legislator who agrees with me that the exemption should be reversed, but he won't introduce such a measure unless he knows it will pass. Sadly, going on record supporting ethics is less important than avoiding the wrath of the legislative leadership.

Folks, a good legislature is marked by spirited debate and respectful differences. A bad legislature is marked by fearful cooperation and gutless orthodoxy. A legislature that agrees on everything is not doing its job.

The Jackson County legislature is not doing its job.

Jackson County 2nd At-Large District - Day 53 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

I'm an optimistic person, and I believe that the Jackson County legislature will reverse itself on its misguided attempt to exempt itself from the Jackson County Ethics Code. I hope we won't need to attempt an initiative campaign, or recruit candidates to run against the incumbents.

All that said, now is the time for people to start thinking about running in 2010, and I want to encourage that thought by posting profiles of various districts. Today, I'll talk about the district that ought to be most "in play" of all the districts - Henry Rizzo's 2nd at-large district. I'm choosing that one because, even though I live in his district, Henry Rizzo failed to respond to my polite email seeking information about his vote on the ethics ordinance. Non-responsive politicians are a pet peeve of mine.

Here's a map of the district - it covers a huge swath of Kansas City's most politically active and wealthiest section. It includes almost all of the County inside the 435 loop south of the river, including the Ward Parkway corridor. There are lots of people in that geographic zone with serious political insight, good connections, and experience running in elections. Certainly someone out there who ran for Mayor, who has termed out of another office, who ran for State Rep, or who has always wanted to get involved with elected public service, would be willing to step up and put his or her name into contention to run against Henry Rizzo, especially in light of his insistence that the Jackson County legislators should not be overseen by the Jackson County Ethics Commission.

Rizzo is vulnerable for a whole bunch of reasons beyond his rejection of ethics. He was behind the recent fireworks legislation, which is already attracting some scrutiny regarding who is really profiting. He's also pleaded guilty to a charge of providing a false statement to a financial institution, a federal offense. I could list more, but the clear message is that Henry Rizzo would face a difficult time running against a fresh face with a concern for ethics.

Take a second and look at this map. Think about some of the politically-involved people you know in that area. Next time you see them, ask them whether they might be interested in running for office . . .

Why Does the Star Ignore the County? - Day 52 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

A few weeks ago, I was talking to a savvy former politician who told me that when he was being interviewed by TV people, and he said something he didn't want broadcast, he would drop an F-bomb into the sentence. Video editing capabilities of the day and pressing deadlines kept him out of the news when he didn't want to be there.

I have discovered a similar trick that works to keep the KC Star from putting something in the paper. Just mention "Jackson County". The Star will lose interest and flee from the story.

I attended an introductory meeting for an unofficial committee focused on city business last week, and I was not at all surprised to see two, count 'em two, Star writers there. I asked one of them afterward why they double-teamed a city issue, but nobody was writing about the fact that the Jackson County Ethics Commission was NOT meeting, because nobody had been timely named to it.

Similarly, there is nobody writing about the fact that this is Day 52 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis, with the Legislators continuing in their refusal to be governed by a local ethics commission.

It's even reached the point that the Star downplays Jackson County issues on the Prime Buzz. Recently, I did two posts in one morning - one was about a minor argument I had with another local blogger, and the other was an analysis of whether anyone would agree to serve on the Jackson County Ethics Commission, and raising the question of whether it was even ethical to serve on it while it was barred from taking on the tasks assigned to it in the Jackson County Charter. The Prime Buzz's Blog Watch column ignored the post about an important issue for Jackson County governance and wrote about the other.

Who, at the Star, covers the City? Lynn Horsley, Deanne Smith (who I understand has a vested interest in keeping County coverage positive), Yael Abouhalkah, and anyone else with a spare moment and a scrap of paper. Who, at the Star, covers the County? Well, let's see - Mike Mansur does a decent job when he has the chance, but it's only one of his many assignments.

The result is that you have the Star double-teaming a committee meeting, but ignoring the Jackson County Ethics Crisis. The result is that the Star didn't even mention that the Jackson County Ethics Commission had resigned until weeks after it had happened. The result is that the Star STILL has not reported that the time has lapsed for the ethics committee selection board to appoint replacements, with the result that Mike Sanders now has that duty.

For some reason, the Star has decided that it should not flip over the rocks in Jackson County government. It's kind of sad, because the more I look, the more I find. I'd love to see what a real journalist could do with these stories.

Burning Houses, Severed Fingers, Blinded Children - Jackson County Wants More of These - Day 51 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

Our Jackson County legislature has legalized the sale of fireworks in Jackson County. They claim that the reason they are doing so is to help nonprofits.

No, seriously, they are claiming that.

I attend a lot of nonprofit meetings, I read a lot of nonprofit publications, and I know a lot of nonprofit executives. Never once have I heard anybody propose that fireworks sales are the solution for the funding crisis faced by nonprofits. Not once.

And, really, Mr. Rizzo and Mr. Tarwater, if you want to help nonprofits increase revenues, why choose a seasonal item that causes fires, traumatic amputations and blindness? Nonprofits have funding needs all year, not just in July. Why not let nonprofits sell drugs, or run brothels? There's a lot more money in those vices than you can get from the chump change people fork over for bottle rockets.

Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps Henry Rizzo and Dan Tarwater have been talking to the National Society for Blind Homeless Kids Missing Fingers.

Or, perhaps they have lined up some donations from people with ties to the wholesale fireworks industry.

It has now been 51 days since we have had a fully staffed Jackson County Ethics Commission with the power to investigate our Jackson County legislators. As long as the legislature exempts itself from local enforcement of the Jackson County Ethics Code, Jackson County voters should assume the absolute worst of legislators.

With characters like Rizzo and Tarwater helping out the fireworks industry, it's hard to believe anything but the worst.

Day 50 of Jackson County Ethics Crisis - Will Citizens be Forced to Use Initiative Petitions to Get the Ethical Governance Promised in Our Charter?

Jackson County Government has been in an ethics crisis for 50 days, and the crisis shows no sign of fading. Instead, it worsens.

Way back in the beginning of December, Sly James resigned from the Jackson County Ethics Commission. His resignation started a 30 day time frame for a new appointment by the ethics committee selection board. Unfortunately, that board failed to appoint a replacement in time, so, under the County Charter, Mike Sanders is now the only person with the authority to make that appointment. Similarly, the remaining ethics commissioners each resigned before Christmas, and the 30 day period for their replacement has passed, as well.

In the time when Jackson County has been without an Ethics Commission, the Jackson County Legislature has run amok. First, it passed an ordinance which illegally purports to rob the Commission of its role in overseeing Jackson County Ethics. As if to demonstrate its utter contempt for ethical standards, the County Legislature then selected as its Chair a member who has already been fined for a state-level ethics violation.

Why has Mike Sanders failed to appoint a new Ethics Commission? Probably because ethical citizens are hesitating to join a Commission which is directed by the Charter to do that which is barred by ordinance. It's an untenable position, and I certainly understand why good people would not want to be a part of an atmosphere that is rapidly descending from unethical to actively anti-ethical.

Is there a solution to this ethical toxicity created by the Jackson County legislature? We have a completely empty Ethics Commission, and it appears that nobody will fill those seats. At this stage, even if Mike Sanders were able to find willing participants, what kind of credibility would they have? For all concerned, it might be best to leave the Commission vacant as a symbol of the Legislature's disdain for ethical standards.

If the Jackson County Legislature persists in its rejection of local ethical oversight, citizens have two methods of fighting back for their Charter. As I've mentioned before, replacing the incumbents in 2010 may be relatively easy and bring a bunch of fresh faces to the legislative body.

The second method, and one that is becoming increasingly attractive, is an Initiative Petition. With under 7000 valid signatures on Petitions, we could force a vote in Jackson County about whether we want our Jackson County legislators to be subject to local ethical oversight and local ethical standards.

If we time this correctly, we can gather the signatures on spring weekends and get the issue on the ballot in August. It's going to take a lot of work and a bit of money, but this is the sort of project that ought to catch fire. There are a lot of people who knocked on doors and organized successfully for the November elections, and new potential candidates for office should be eager to align themselves early with the pro-ethics side of Jackson County.

It's day 50 in Jackson County's ethics crisis. In the coming days and weeks, I'll be posting more about this problem. Stay tuned.

How to Help Bring Ethics to Jackson County

I've been on a bit of a roll lately, directing attention to the false arguments and nasty implications of the Jackson County legislature's refusal to submit to local ethics oversight. The attention is having an impact - KKFI has done a show on the topic, the Star has condemned the bad behavior, and, for the first time ever, the Jackson County Courthouse has climbed into my Top 10 sources of visitors! Folks, that's a lot of hits from one location, and I can't help but wonder if they're reading my coverage of their lack of ethics, or if they're checking out my "99 Bottles of Beer on the Blog" series. Either way, welcome!

While that's all been fun and good, a bunch of people have asked me in person and through email what they can do to help. People are sincerely angry that the Jackson County legislature is violating the County Charter and refusing to submit to local ethical oversight. By popular demand, here are a couple ways you can help in the effort to bring ethics to County government.

1. Write the legislators! This whole scandal stems from a belief that they could get away with this ugly subterfuge without anybody paying attention. They almost succeeded - if the members of the Jackson County Ethics Commission had not all resigned in response to the ethical shenanigans of the legislature, this whole issue might have escaped notice. Now, we need to let the legislators know we're paying attention. Here are their email addresses:

Scott Burnett - sburnett@jacksongov.org
Theresa Garza Ruiz - tgarza@jacksongov.org
Henry Rizzo - hrizzo@jacksongov.org
Fred Arbanas - farbanas@jacksongov.org
James Tindall - jtindall@jacksongov.org
Dennis Waits - dwaits@jacksongov.org
Dan Tarwater - dtarwater@jacksongov.org
Greg Grounds - ggrounds@jacksongov.org
Bob Spence - bspence@jacksongov.org

If you would prefer to call their offices or use old fashioned mail, you can find their phone numbers and addresses by clicking on their names on this page. Please contact them and let them know that you want ethics in Jackson County.

2. Talk to them. If you see them out someplace, like in a store or at a neighborhood event, politely mention your concern to them. Most of them are quite nice people, and most are unlikely to take a swing at you if you are polite and sincere. Truly, they are (mostly) fine public servants who are doing this job for good reasons, so the tone to take is one of gratitude for the many good things they do, but concern about this uncharacteristically unethical move.

3. Educate yourself about the County. I've posted links to the Jackson County Charter, the Ethics Ordinance and the Missouri Ethics Commission site on this website already, and, if you want your own copies, email me and I'll be happy to get them to you. The Jackson County Government does not get nearly the attention in the press that the City government gets, but it has a huge budget and impacts a broader geographical area.

4. Educate yourself about the Ethics issue. Unfortunately, if past behavior is a predictor of future performance, if you do contact one of our legislators about this issue, they will try to fool you with bad arguments, half-truths or outright lies. They may claim they are covered by the Code, or that the Missouri Ethics Commission has laws that apply to them. Ask them if they will be subject to ethics discipline if they show up to a meeting drunk, and that should stop them in their tracks.

5. Start talking to someone about running for the Jackson County Legislature. I mentioned above that the County doesn't get much press scrutiny, and the flip side of that coin is that none of the Legislators is all that well-known or popular. On top of that, every single one of them signed onto a law that exempts them from local ethical oversight! How simple will it be to pound on that fact in an election? How many voters (and donors) will respond to a simple promise to support an amendment of our Ethics ordinance so that it will apply to the legislators? How will any of the incumbents get around the fact that they supported the exemption? If you know someone who ran for office, but didn't make it, this is a grand opportunity for him or her to give it another try, with a built-in advantage. Call him or her and suggest this opportunity to run in 2010.

6. Write a letter to the editor. If you want to lift a line or an argument from this blog, have at it. The Star doesn't have anyone assigned to cover the County fulltime, so, if this issue is going to make it into ink, the letters page is the most likely candidate.

7. Talk about the issue to everyone you know with an interest in politics. Right now, this issue is generating a fair amount of buzz in the political community, and a few things are rumored to be coming up soon to keep it there. That's the kind of pressure that politicians respond to, so keep up the good work!

Obama Less Ethical than Rizzo?

While the rest of the country has been celebrating the election and inauguration of President Obama, Jackson Countians are stuck with the troubling realization that President Obama is less ethical than the sterling characters who rule the Jackson County Legislature. On his first day in office, President Obama suffered the ethical lapse of imposing new ethics standards and making them apply to himself, and enforceable by an entity that is part of the federal budget. Close observers weren't caught off guard, though, in that he committed the same gaffe in the Senate, when he joined in the push to increase transparency and ban lobbyist gifts, again with federal enforcement.

According to the ethical whiz kids at the Jackson County Courthouse, federal ethical oversight is unethical. Just as the Untouchables argue that they cannot be investigated by a group that is part of their budget (ignoring the Sheriff's department, the Prosecutor's Office and the County Courts), the same logic would demand that we ban local oversight of our federal government, as well. Perhaps we can get the government of Canada or Mexico to oversee our ethics, if local oversight is too corrupting for the sensitive souls on the legislature. Or perhaps the U.N. should step in and take control.

Does that sound right to you? It's the exact same argument that our Jackson County legislators are trying to make.

Somehow, I have more faith in President Obama than in our Untouchables.

Jackson County Ethics - Is Someone Drinking on the Job?

Does someone on the Jackson County Legislature have a serious drinking problem?

One of the mysteries surrounding the Jackson County Legislature's violation of the County Charter has been their motivation for making themselves "Untouchables" for the Jackson County Ethics Code. They claim that they are covered by the Missouri Ethics Commission, but informed citizens know that the MEC is strictly limited by law to "enforcement of conflict of interest and lobbying laws (RSMo 105.450-498) and campaign finance disclosure laws (RSMo 130)." The MEC does not and will not enforce the Jackson County Ethics Code, and anyone who says they will is either lying or misinformed. Even if the MEC wanted to, Missouri law does not give it that power.

Obviously, there are major differences between the Jackson County Ethics Code (here it is in pdf format) and the Missouri Statutes policed by the MEC, but yesterday evening a political insider asked me for specifics. Beyond the point that one is enforced locally and in public, while the other gets enforced behind closed Jefferson City doors, I pointed out that they differ in various specifics. I was unprepared to answer the question forcefully, though, so, when I got home, I started looking at some of the differences.

There are a bunch, of course, but the one that jumped off the pages last night was this one:

In addition to being a violation of other laws, it is also a violation of this chapter for any public servant to: . . . Be found guilty of violating the County's policy prohibiting the possession or consumption by employees of alcohol or any controlled or illegal substance in any County facility, vehicle, or work site, including lunch periods and rest breaks; prohibiting public servants from driving or reporting to work, performing work, or visiting a work site while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled or illegal substance.

Setting aside the obvious fact that this provision completely demolishes Rizzo's argument that the County Legislators dislike "double jeopardy", this might be the key to understanding the whole thing.

The MEC will not investigate allegations of drinking on the job.

As a determined advocate for Jackson County ethics, I knew that it would help my cause to come up with a term that encapsulated the controversy in a phrase. A couple weeks ago, I tried out "Unethical Enablers", because the legislators had made it much easier for future, less exemplary politicians to get away with unethical behavior. At the time, I had no idea that their behavior could also be explained in terms of enabling other problems, but, wow, there it is. The Jackson County legislature has exempted itself from an Ethics Code that encompasses drinking on the job, or showing up at a Legislative session drunk.

Why?

Now that the voters are paying attention, will they amend their ordinance so that they are governed by the Jackson County Ethics Code, and overseen by the Jackson County Ethics Commission?

(Note on comments - this is not the place to speculate about whether any specific elected official has an issue, and I will delete all such comments.)

Who Will Appoint the Jackson County Ethics Commission? Is it Even Ethical to Serve on it?

Is it ethical to serve on a body which is statutorily prohibited from doing what the County Charter orders it to do? Is it ethical to participate in a sham when your predecessors resigned to expose the sham?

Those questions are probably being pondered as we speak by a few citizens of Jackson County. In fact, it may be that the County is having sufficient trouble finding willing participants that the duty of filling the seats has shifted from the Ethics Commission Selection Board to Mike Sanders, the Jackson County Executive.

According to the relevant Charter provision,

There shall be an ethics commission selection board, which shall appoint all of the appointees to the ethics commission. This board shall consist of the executive director of the Mid-America Regional Council, the dean of the Henry W. Bloc (sic) School of Business and Public Administration at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, and the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City. Within thirty days of the effective date of this section, the selection board shall appoint five residents of the county to the ethics commission. The commission members shall select their own chairman. Thereafter, within thirty days of the occurrence of a vacancy on the ethics commission, the selection board shall fill the vacancy. If for any reason the ethics commission selection board fails to timely fill any vacancy or position on the ethics commission, the executive shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy or position.

The first ethics commission resignation came in early December, so the selection board is no longer empowered to make the appointment, and the duty falls to Jackson County Executive. I'm not certain of the resignation dates of the others, but I believe they were completed before Christmas (though the Star did not report on the resignations until weeks later). It appears that for at least one, and perhaps all of the commissioners, the ethics commission board has failed to timely fill the vacancy, and now the executive shall appoint a qualified person.

It's no wonder that the selection board has faced a challenge in trying to fill the Commission. The Charter grants the Ethics Commission the power to hold legislators accountable, while a recent ordinance passed by the Legislators purports to strip that power away.

If a good, ethical citizen wants to take a seat on the Commission, his or her first duty will be to sue the Legislators to reverse their illegal, Charter-violating ordinance exempting themselves from local ethical oversight. If, on the other hand, you agree to simply ignore the Jackson County Charter, you are exposing yourself to clear questions about your ethical judgment and the legitimacy of your role.

Who wants to step into a mess like that?

Is It Time to Give Up on Jackson County Ethics Legislation?

It's been a little more than a month since the Jackson County Legislature violated the Jackson County Charter and passed ethics legislation that purports to exclude the Legislature from the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission. It's been weeks since the Ethics Commission responded to that "untouchable" approach by resigning, and sometime soon a committee (not the Legislature) will appoint a new committee (if they can find people willing to play along with an illegal sham of an Ethics Commission). It's a New Year. We have a new Chair of the Legislature. Is it time to let bygones be bygones, and move forward?

Not just no, hell no!

This is a battle that is going to drag on, even if the bodies won't hit the floor until 2010. The traditional media have started to pay attention to it. Rumor has it that at least a couple legislators are feeling like they were lied to when they were assured that it was legal, and that the Missouri Ethics Commission had the authority to enforce it. They don't want to take the risk of drawing a strong challenge in their next election, having already tainted themselves with a permissive attitude toward unethical behavior.

Here's the end game on this flap. I intend to focus on the Jackson County Legislature, its ethical shortcomings, and how to challenge each of the "Untouchables" until they reverse themselves on violating the Charter. I've talked to a couple well-connected people who share my disgust for what the Legislature has done, and they have promised to make a few calls to people who might be interested in running for the Legislature on a pro-Ethics platform. The next round of elections for the Jackson County Legislature is promising to be a battle between the Pro-Ethics candidates and the Untouchable Incumbents.

I won't predict that each and every incumbent will lose in the next race. Based on what I've seen and heard, though, I will issue my prediction today that, unless the Jackson County Legislature submits to local ethical oversight, at least 4 and perhaps 5 will, in fact, be driven from office. There are some bright people out there inspired to get involved in politics, and the Jackson County Legislature provides the next golden opportunity to run for office on an anti-incumbent, pro-ethics platform.

Some entrenched incumbents are going to lose their seats, and almost every one of them will face a serious and very expensive challenge, unless they reverse themselves on the Ethics Legislation, and do it soon.

Here are my predictions on this matter. The furor about this will not fade away. Scott Burnett's term as Chair of the Jackson County Legislature will be dogged by questions raised by the refusal to submit to local oversight, and the violation of the Charter. Several new members of the Ethics Commission will resign after questions are raised about whether it is ethical to serve on an Ethics Commission that is being barred from following the Charter that creates it. Other blogs and other media will join in the fun. Sometime over the next few months, someone will file an ethics complaint against one of the legislators, and the Ethics Commission will refuse to hear it, and will forward it to the Missouri Ethics Commission, which will also refuse to hear it. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, citizens will be outraged by the Untouchable legislators. A few of the legislators will develop a conscience and file legislation that will reestablish the oversight called for in the Charter. Rizzo, Burnett, Tarwater and a couple other "old school" will persist in arguing that they are above local oversight, and new candidates will start making their plans known. It will be a bloodbath.

And we WILL get a Jackson County legislature that respects ethics.

Jackson County Ethical Lies - It's Not Double Jeopardy!

Is it "double jeopardy" to be required to follow the laws of both the County and the State? Of course not. When Henry Rizzo argued that "The Legislature didn’t think it needed to subject itself to 'double jeopardy' by being under both state and county commissions", he was abusing an important constitutional term in an attempt to cover his own unwillingness to be held to ethical standards. Sadly, this appalling and cynical dodge of responsibility is being used by other legislators, as well - one of whom looked me in the eye and tried to claim that Scott Burnett's twice-examined and once-penalized ethics brouhaha was an example of "double jeopardy".

Nonsense.

Anyone who tries to argue that it is double jeopardy to be bound by both the Jackson County ethics code and state campaign laws is either ignorant or lying. Neither is an attractive trait in someone we have trusted to be a legislator.

Simply stated, "double jeopardy" is being tried twice for the same offense, and it is banned by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It does not apply, though, if you commit an act which is subject to prosecution by two authorities under separate laws. The LAPD officers who pounded Rodney King were convicted in federal court after being acquitted by the state court, because their behavior violated different laws for different levels of government. If you rob a bank, don't expect to get off easy by copping a plea to a speeding ticket in the getaway car.

Rizzo's claim of double jeopardy is rendered even more silly by the fact that the Jackson County Ethics Code and the laws enforced by the Missouri Ethics Commission do not even overlap entirely. The Missouri Ethics Commission is limited to enforcement of STATE "conflict of interest and lobbying laws (RSMo 105.450-498) and campaign finance disclosure laws (RSMo 130)." Even if they wanted to enforce the standards of local Jackson County voters, they would not be authorized to do so.

Rizzo and other legislators who invoke the Double Jeopardy clause are trying to wrap themselves in our Constitution while shielding themselves from local ethics laws. It is a despicable trick, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Dan Tarwater Responds, but Appears Not to Know What is in the Jackson County Charter

Dan Tarwater is my in-district County Legislator. I wrote to him and the rest of the Legislators expressing my dismay at their refusal to support local ethics review, and asking them each three specific questions. I also promised to publish their answers, unless they requested that I not do so. Here's what I got from Dan Tarwater:

1. Do you support empowering the Jackson County Ethics Commission to have authority to "receive complaints and conduct investigations" regarding Jackson County legislators?
Yes I do and the legislature does authorize and allow the Ethics Commission to have authority to receive complaints and investigate but then it is to be passed on to the Missouri Ethics omission. The reason for that is that the Jackson County Ethics Commission is appointed by us and it could have a conflict of interest since we also fund them. There are already provisions in place to avoid this conflict and that is the Missouri Ethics Commission.

2. If not, why not?

3. Do you believe that the Jackson County Charter supports your
interpretation, or do you believe that it needs to be changed to
allow for the exemption of elected officials from local oversight?

I do believe that the County Charter does support this position. I feel that we as elected Officials should be help to a higher standard than anyone else. If an elected official does something that is wrong they should be suffer the consequences. Any act that is deemed to be a violation should be investigated by an authority that does not have ties to body. We would not want someone to look at a ruling and say they did not find them guilty because they had a conflict of interest.

So there you go. Let's take a look, though, at the truth of what he said.

"The reason for that is that the Jackson County Ethics Commission is appointed by us". That, folks, is a pure, unadulterated LIE. The County Legislature does not appoint the Jackson County Ethics Commission! While supporting legislation to rob Jackson Countians of ethical oversight, Tarwater doesn't even have a passing familiarity with how the current system works!!

Here, for those who care about the truth, is what the Charter, not Dan Tarwater, has to say about how the Commission is appointed, and it's linked to the real Charter, in case you want to read the entire Charter by yourself:

There shall be an ethics commission selection board, which shallappoint all of the appointees to the ethics commission. This board shall consist of the executive director of the Mid-America Regional Council, the dean of the Henry W. Bloc School of Business and Public Administration at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, and the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City. Within thirty days of the effective date of this section, the selection board shall appoint five residents of the county to the ethics commission. The commission members shall select their own chairman. Thereafter, within thirty days of the occurrence of a vacancy on the ethics commission, the selection board shall fill the vacancy.

That's a lot of technical language, but it raises a vital question.

Does Dan Tarwater not know what he's talking about, or is he lying to his constituents? It's one or the other, and neither answer is acceptable for someone making decisions about how Jackson County voters can hold their legislators accountable for unethical behavior.

Tarwater's second answer also includes a major blunder about what is in the Charter. He claims that the Charter supports his position on robbing Jackson Countians of the right to oversee the Legislature's ethics. Once again, let's go to the primary sources.

The Charter: "The commission may receive complaints and conduct investigations of violations of the conflicts of interests, financial interest disclosure, and lobbying registration and disclosure provisions of the charter, the code and ordinances, and the statutory and common law of the state of Missouri as it applies to county officers . . ."

The Ordinance Dan Tarwater and the rest of the Jackson County Legislature enacted: "the Jackson County Ethics Commission shall be without jurisdiction to hear complaints [[filed with the Jackson County Ethics Commission]] concerning the compliance with any provision of this chapter of any actions or conduct of any County elected officials . . ."

So, the Charter specifically authorizes the Commission to look into ethics violations by county officers (including elected officials), while the ordinance specifically robs them of that jurisdiction, and Tarwater seems to think the two are consistent. Once again, we are left wondering, "Does Dan Tarwater not know what he's talking about, or is he lying to his constituents?"

It's an interesting question, but does it really matter?

Jackson County Ethical Shell Game

Somebody at the Jackson County legislature must have read Catch-22, and taken it to heart.

Here. buried on page 48 of noble-sounding ethics legislation, is the key to the whole thing:

Given that the County Legislature and the County Executive are the elected officials ultimately responsible for approving the budget for, promulgating rules to govern, and entering into contracts for the Jackson County Ethics Commission, it is necessary to avoid even the appearance of influence over Commission actions and decisions. Therefore, [[any]] the Jackson County Ethics Commission shall be without jurisdiction to hear complaints [[filed with the Jackson County Ethics Commission]] concerning the compliance with any provision of this chapter of any actions or conduct of any County elected officials, and any such complaint shall be forwarded to the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The kicker is that the Missouri Ethics Commission will not enforce the Jackson County Ethics Code! Not their job! Sorry! Might as well forward it to the Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners!

As for the nonsense about overseeing the Ethics Commission, I suppose the County Legislators believes that State Reps don't have to answer to the State Courts or the Highway Patrol, and Senators are exempt from the FBI. How stupid do they think we are?

Never before in the history of Jackson County fraud has the legislature ever so brazenly sought to mislead the public.

Will we let them get away with it?

Time for YOU to Start Thinking About Running for Jackson County Legislature?

Do you have a hankering to run for political office, but don't want to give up your career? Do you see the local politicians on TV and think "Somebody better ought to get involved"? Do you want to break up the cozy circle of local politicos who elevate self-interest over ethics?

Maybe you should run for the Jackson County legislature. And maybe you should start putting your campaign together now.

The Jackson County legislature is vulnerable. Every single one of them, with the exception of Fred Arbanas (who was absent), is ON THE RECORD exempting themselves from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission, in violation of the Jackson County Charter.

If they don't reverse themselves on that point immediately, it should be a relatively easy matter to run against a Jackson County politician who has gone on the record supporting less ethical oversight for him or herself. Better yet, you will have your choice of two candidates to take on, since you can run either "in district" or "at large". To figure out which candidates you could run against, just find yourself on the district maps appearing under each legislator's name. You will be in two legislators' districts - one of the "at large" legislators and one of district legislators. Check out both, because they are not the same.

The only qualifications you'll need to run, as defined by the County Charter, are: "Each member of the Legislature shall be a qualified voter in Jackson County for at least three years preceding his/her election and a resident in his/her district for at least one year preceding his/her nomination." The filing deadline is not until later in the year, but now is the time to start talking to people who know the county and the districts. The elections will be in 2010, so you have more than a year to get your name out there if you get started soon.

If you've been wanting to get into politics, how often are you going to face your choice of two candidates who have publicly come out against ethics? This is a golden opportunity.

Jackson County Ethics Fiasco - Making Corruption Easier

Why would the Jackson County Legislature violate the Jackson County Charter, and exempt itself from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission?

That's a hard question to answer, but one point is crystal clear. The Jackson County Ethics Fiasco orchestrated by Mike Sanders and the Legislature is certainly not designed to improve County government or to make themselves more accountable to voters.

Now, I'm not claiming that the Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature are engaged in rampant corruption. Of course not. I am saying, however, that Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature have just made it easy for themselves to get away with rampant corruption.

Why??

Honestly, who among us thinks that a legislative body that has in recent years engaged in actual fisticuffs, and which includes a man convicted of a federal crime, ought to be shielding itself from local ethical oversight?

One of my prized possessions is a copy of the County Charter given to me by Harold Fridkin, one of its authors, and a man I greatly admire. Perhaps I'm just a sentimental sap, but I take that document seriously, and it pains me to see Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature use it as toilet paper, ripping from it the pages that empower the Jackson County Ethics Commission to "receive complaints and conduct investigations" concerning our Legislature. It pains me to read that Mike Sanders, rather than standing up for local ethics enforcement, proposes to solve the problem by amending the charter to gut the ethics commission.

I have the deepest respect for several of the Jackson County legislators, but I am at a complete loss to explain why they would make corruption easier in our county, and refuse to be held to the same ethical standards as other county employees. The state ethics commission will not enforce county ordinances, so they can violate our new ethics code with impunity. Why would they give themselves that option?

Even if they complete their terms with honor, their misdeeds surrounding the Ethics Code will be the root of future scandals. Even if they are not crooks, they will be the ones that enable future crooks.

It ought to bother us that they cannot explain why they choose to exempt themselves from the oversight of the Jackson County Ethics Commission, which is the only body authorized to enforce the ethics code. It ought to bother them, too.

It ought to make them sit for a few minutes and think about whom they are serving with their actions. Future crooks, themselves, or the citizens of Jackson County? And whom were they hoping to serve when they first got involved in public service?

The citizens who drafted the County Charter expected our legislators to submit to the oversight of the Jackson County Ethics Commission. Why, now, is that too much to expect?

Jackson County Non-Ethics On Jay Leno!

On Monday night, the Tonight Show mocked Mike Sanders' version of Jackson County "ethics" code, which has been carefully drafted to avoid covering the Jackson County Legislature. The thing is, it's really not funny. It's scandalous that our legislators are conspiring to exempt themselves from oversight.

David Martin Explains the Jackson County Legislature

Money quote: "What I learned from paying closer attention: County government is, at its highest level, a mostly inconsequential exercise conducted by tedious people." I'll argue that they're not all tedious, but they all should be ashamed of themselves for not getting the Ethics Legislation passed. Even the good ones . . .

Biobank? What Does the Public Think?

55 years ago today, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the double helix that encodes and passes on genetic information. Since that time, scientists have been working to unlock some of the secrets and opportunities that spring from DNA.

Why does one sibling get cancer and another remain healthy? Why has autism touched so many more lives over the past couple decades? Many health problems are rooted in a complex mixture of genetics, lifestyle, and environmental factors, and answering those questions requires a broad database with genetic, environmental and lifestyle information concerning thousands and thousands of subjects.

A Biobank is such a repository of tissue samples and data. The National Institutes of Health thinks maybe the United States ought to create a Biobank to help out such research.

Of course, any thinking person ought to be enthusiastic about such an important research tool, right? Well, maybe. But there are some other issues to think about, beyond the prospect of curing diseases. Do we really want a massive database of such information sitting out there ready to be hacked and misused? Think maybe your insurance company or the NSA could dream up a few nefarious uses for all that info? And who decides what gets researched?

The NIH has decided to seek public feedback, and Kansas City is one of only 5 sites to host a public forum on the topic. The event is free, and will provide a rare opportunity to learn more about biobanks and provide feedback that will weigh into the decisions to be made. It will be at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation on March 8 from 10 until 1 - go here to register.

This is a fascinating issue - right at the crossroads of society, individualism, ethics and medicine. It's also an issue that is getting addressed without much public attention. This forum provides an opportunity to get informed and be heard.