Sheriff Evicts Insiders - The First Victory in the Cleansing of Jackson County Legislature

First, big kudos to Sheriff Mike Sharp, who has taken a stand against the literal insiders who have used courthouse access to unfairly gain early access to getting their name first on the ballots. In prior years, incumbents would use their courthouse passes to get in and file for themselves and friends while the hopes for reform sat outside in the cold.

Finally, Mike Sharp has put an end to that odious and unfair practice. Using his role as chief of security for the courthouse, he decided to take names at the courthouse door starting at 5:00 yesterday.

I had written about the unfairness of the prior system before, when Theresa Garza Ruiz proposed a simple and fair fix to the insider game. Greg Grounds joined her in seeking to eliminate cronyism.

Heny Rizzo voted for special insider privileges.

Dan Tarwater voted for special insider privileges.

James Tindall voted for special insider privileges.

Scott Burnett voted for special insider privileges.

Dennis Waits voted for special insider privileges.

Fred Arbanas voted for special insider privileges.

Bob Spence voted for special insider privileges.

Not surprisingly, even under the new system, Henry Rizzo managed to find a way to use his position to engage in petty cheating. He loathes Theresa Garza Ruiz because she has consistently sought to bring openness and reform to the Jackson County legislature. With that in mind, he let Ruiz's opponent cut in line to get his name on the ballot before her.

Can you believe that? Most people grow out of that kind of behavior in 1st grade, but Henry Rizzo and his friend apparently did not.

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.

If You're in the Mood to Think Deeply About the Internet . . .

McKay over at State of the Line puts into words a lot of the thoughts that have been going through my own mind. Here are a few excerpts, to give you the flavor, but the whole essay is well-crafted, thoughtful, and thought-provoking.

"What we don’t often discuss is whether or not a culture of instant satisfaction is even a desirable state of living. I’ll admit I’m as guilty of this mindset as anyone else: I feel lost without my phone, become anxious when I cannot check my email for several hours, and become consumed by news and market alerts from the Times and Journal — and that’s before I even start to revel in the abundance of information in my Google Reader feeds. But why do we need this? It’s hard to imagine that just ten years ago, we often had to place a call from a land line to a land line, leave a message, and wait for a response."
. . .
"The mantra of Web 2.0 is always based around the supposed wisdom of crowds: if you let the aggregated genius of the assembled masses decide it, then you’re bound to get the best and most efficient result. Have we really taken the myth of the rational market this far?"
. . .

"But the releasing of the keys to the free-information demands of the online marketplace is not even the most troubling aspect of the internet’s total cultural penetration. That, I suggest, is the culture of hatred bred by anonymity. What’s most baffling about the trend toward online anonymity is exactly where it came from. When I watch the evening news, I’m not allowed — nor do I feel entitled — to appear in a picture-in-picture window offering sarcastic remarks, thinly veiled insults, and outright sadistic language about the anchors and the stories. So why do we feel this is a fundamental right online? Yes, the web is supposed to be a democratizing tool of great egalitarianism — I understand that. But just because one could say anything he wants doesn’t mean one should. There is something deeply troubling about citizens being able to hide behind online handles and lob verbal grenades toward anything they deem disagreeable, lame, or pointless. Aside from contributing nothing to our conversation, it weakens the intellectual capital of this allegedly revolutionary tool. Why should people bother posting information online when one commenter, emboldened by the freedom of anonymity and feeling empowered to voice his darkest thoughts because it will never be traced to him, can simply make a hateful or racist remark?"
. . .
"
On Human Connections & The Social Utility Of The Internet

January 22, 2010 by McKay

Since our denunciation of snark in late November, we’ve made an effort around here to post thoughtful, reflective pieces that take a step back from the hyperactive and hyperbolic mood of the blogosphere. I’ve been thinking quite a bit, though, about the very essence of that particular arena, and about the entire networked world that supports it. The internet (the noun seems to have reached a non-capitalization age, no?) is widely heralded by everyone from sociologists to Apple stockholders as the salvation of humanity — the thing that will bring everyone together, result in a technological Age of Aquarius, and connect open-minded people everywhere in a panoply of new ideas and information-sharing mechanisms. To see just how deeply this assumption has become ingrained in our society, just note the Luddite accusations that follow anyone who dares suggest the following: what if the internet’s deleterious effects outweigh its benefits?

The internet, I’d contend, is a technological success — nay, a marvel — but an undeniable failure as a tool of emotional connectivity. I take pains to say it’s not a failure as a tool of human connectivity; its power in allowing me to speak instantly to someone in Malaysia, or email a friend in Britain, is unsurpassed and unlike anything we’ve ever known. Its capability in the arena of communication is not here disputed. As a communication tool, it has revolutionized the way we operate — so much so that it becomes difficult for us to comprehend that letters and conversations once had to wait days while mail was delivered, or months while ships crossed the ocean. (Honestly, can we comprehend that? Or have we become so accustomed to instant responses that our brains can’t quite wrap themselves around it? Paleontologists often speak of the difficulty in communicating the sheer magnitude of time’s passage between dinosaurs and humans; our existences are so short that we truly cannot fathom a span like “millions of years” — is this sort of like that?) It has likewise reshaped the way we do business: the online market connects us to a marketplace of goods and services we never would’ve foreseen, all capable of being delivered in minimal time. All of this has created a culture of instant satisfaction, in which most of our communication and capitalist desires can be satisfied in ever-shorter durations.

What we don’t often discuss is whether or not a culture of instant satisfaction is even a desirable state of living. I’ll admit I’m as guilty of this mindset as anyone else: I feel lost without my phone, become anxious when I cannot check my email for several hours, and become consumed by news and market alerts from the Times and Journal — and that’s before I even start to revel in the abundance of information in my Google Reader feeds. But why do we need this? It’s hard to imagine that just ten years ago, we often had to place a call from a land line to a land line, leave a message, and wait for a response. Today it’s difficult to envision waiting for anything; most news and information is accessible by the click of a mouse or swipe of a touchscreen. However, this seems to have weakened our collective resolve. When everyone can access everything all of the time, the ill effects are two-pronged: first, it makes us spoiled and expectant, assuming that we can get anything as soon as we want it. Second, it weakens the inherent worth of pure waiting, which in turn depreciates the value of patience and appreciation of the final product or idea delivered. The reason patience is said to be a character-building virtue is because it helps us place more context and appreciation on the thing we finally receive; if I’ve not had to endure any kind of wait for something that’s important to me, how do I know to appreciate it? Especially when I can, presumably, receive another just like it in an equally short time span?

The problem spawned by a culture of instant satisfaction is that it somehow convinces us that we deserve things for free. Think about that for a second: the Times employs hundreds of reporters in its newsroom. Those people work to create what’s largely considered to be some of the best journalism in the country (not to mention agenda-setting; it’s often joked that if you want to know what NPR will talk about on Thursday, you should just read the Times on Wednesday). Where on earth did we get the notion that we deserve every ounce of that product completely free? The internet was supposed to connect us to the product, not deliver the product free of charge and render the cost of the effort worthless. Newspapers made a strategic blunder when they imagined they could provide free content and use advertising to support it, and now we’ve all become horribly accustomed to receiving things for free.

The mantra from the supposed gurus of the Web 2.0 revolution, of course, is that information wants to be free. This is patently absurd. The only people who want information to be free are those who can bank a profit from that information’s use: advertisers, online vendors, et al. If I’m the one paying a staff of hundreds to produce that information, what message am I sending to my employees by giving away the product of their work? It’s akin to Honda giving away cars and relying on rear-window advertising to make a profit — how would the legions of assembly line workers feel about placing a value of $0.00 on each car they produce? The mantra of Web 2.0 is always based around the supposed wisdom of crowds: if you let the aggregated genius of the assembled masses decide it, then you’re bound to get the best and most efficient result. Have we really taken the myth of the rational market this far? (There is, in the recession’s wake, a pretty serious backlash against that myth. Can we really assume that a stock’s price reflects all pieces of known information and is adjusted to meet that information? Are we really supposed to believe that human emotion, artificial inflation, and pure market chicanery never plays a role?) As web pioneer Jaron Lanier notes in his new book, crowdsourcing in pursuit of free information can be not just an ill-advised strategy, but a pernicious one; he notes that it leads content-producers “to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.” While the tone is slightly alarmist, Lanier’s point is solid: when we assume we can get anything we want — news articles, images, digital music — for free online, we hurt, and perhaps destroy, the innate worth of what people are producing and sharing. Why should a musician who writes and produces a song, presumably at some expense, be expected to bestow it as a gift upon the world?

But the releasing of the keys to the free-information demands of the online marketplace is not even the most troubling aspect of the internet’s total cultural penetration. That, I suggest, is the culture of hatred bred by anonymity. What’s most baffling about the trend toward online anonymity is exactly where it came from. When I watch the evening news, I’m not allowed — nor do I feel entitled — to appear in a picture-in-picture window offering sarcastic remarks, thinly veiled insults, and outright sadistic language about the anchors and the stories. So why do we feel this is a fundamental right online? Yes, the web is supposed to be a democratizing tool of great egalitarianism — I understand that. But just because one could say anything he wants doesn’t mean one should. There is something deeply troubling about citizens being able to hide behind online handles and lob verbal grenades toward anything they deem disagreeable, lame, or pointless. Aside from contributing nothing to our conversation, it weakens the intellectual capital of this allegedly revolutionary tool. Why should people bother posting information online when one commenter, emboldened by the freedom of anonymity and feeling empowered to voice his darkest thoughts because it will never be traced to him, can simply make a hateful or racist remark?

The problem is that it doesn’t take any talent or creativity to make one of these remarks. All it takes is a detached aloofness, or a hatred of a certain political figure, and one can immediately take a reductio ad absurdum approach to online discussion. By insulting the author, or suggesting that the article or work is boring, or denigrating a particular race, one reduces the discussion to its most base and troubling elements. No talent is required to do this. And for what? So you can appear more world-weary than the next commenter? So you can hold yourself out as more sophisticated than the other readers, and thus more difficult to impress?

In case it’s not obvious by now, this post is a mea culpa of sorts. For the first nine months of this site’s existence, we committed some of the sins I’ve just listed. As anonymous writers, we felt a perverse freedom to say whatever we pleased without fear of repercussion. With no fear of exposure, we could mock, insult, and generally torment people like Mike Hendricks, Mayor Funkhouser, Jack Cashill, and various users of Ink’s web site. Why did we do this? Well, in some cases criticism was more than warranted. . . . But in most cases there was no point to this. . . . We poked fun at Star columnists — and indeed at the entire publication — because it was easy for us; we were not reporters caught up in the dwindling world of media, and so never had to worry about the actual work it took to produce a newspaper. Far easier it was for us to simply wait for them to do the work, and then sit back and comment anonymously. For a time, this worked marvelously. Our page views reached heights greater than anything we’d ever imagined, and we routinely received emails from people congratulating us on our snarky ascension. But it wasn’t right. It wasn’t the kind of thing that would make our parents beam with pride. Most importantly, it didn’t contribute anything of value to our citywide conversation. Being able to make someone laugh, or merely pointing out the absurdity of a column, doesn’t make you cultural critic. That takes analysis, reasoning, and reflection. For a distressingly long time, we lost sight of that."
. . .
"Removing ourselves from the self-absorption of Web 2.0 is paramount if we are to recapture a reality based on tangible connections to nature and to each other. This starts with several actions. First, the scourge of web anonymity must end. For whatever reason, the nature of anonymity prompts us to give voice and life to our darkest sides. Second, we must understand that just because we are enabled to say something doesn’t mean we are compelled to say something. There may very well be a rumor swirling about a City Hall politico, but to give life to that rumor is to act irresponsibly. When one writes a post insulting that person or implying untoward things about him, it’s important to remember that people will read it and be affected by it. These are not mere words leaking out into an online ether where people are unaffected by harsh statements — they are mean-spirited and unnecessarily cruel aspersions that will no doubt alter the mood and spirit of the subject."
. . .
"Jaded, world-weary affectation is a vacuous intellectual pursuit. It challenges nothing, contributes nothing, learns nothing. There is something larger, and that thing is a stroll on the lawn of the Nelson, or a sunset over a comically flat Kansas horizon, or a chat with a friend under the Plaza lights. These are not things to be blogged about or posted as status updates in 140 characters or fewer; they are things to be lived, to be experienced, and to be savored, all with an attitude of appreciation and civility toward your fellow citizen because it’s simply the right thing to do."

I apologize to McKay for copying so much of what he wrote, but, trust me, the real essay goes deeper and further.

My post about Henry Rizzo appointing James Tindall to be chair of the Jackson County Legislature's Justice and Law Committee needs to be rewritten.

Is the End Near? - Day 149 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Finally, after almost half a year in an ethical wasteland, the Jackson County legislature is reportedly prepared to accept Ethical Home Rule. Amusingly, Tarwater and Rizzo are pushing for the new deal. “We’re going to put ourselves under the ethics code,” Rizzo said in an interview. “But it will take a unanimous vote of the commission to eliminate one of us.”

The news of the yet-unwritten deal came (not coincidentally) on the same day that the Ethics Commission Selection Committee came forward with a panel of 5 new people to serve on the commission. Janet Blauvelt, Karen Graves, Fred Mills, Myron Sildon, Gwendolyn Washington will make up the new Ethics Commission, and it looks like the Selection Committee did a fantastic job of recruiting and choosing solid people. I know and admire two of the Commissioners.

It remains to be seen whether the entire Legislature will go along with the proposal. Early in the process, Scott Burnett drew a line in the sand over the false issue of "double jeopardy" by both the County Ethics Commission and the Missouri Ethics Commission. Most citizens accept the fact that they are subject to multiple levels of oversight, but Burnett somehow felt that he should be exempt. Fortunately, the rest of the Legislature disagrees with him on that point, and he apparently stands alone in his absurd claim that two levels of ethical oversight amount to "double jeopardy".

Ultimately, this is a good day for Jackson County, though it's a major loss for many of the members of the legislature. Rizzo and Tarwater will probably lose their seats over their efforts to eliminate Ethical Home Rule, and Scott Burnett's term as Chair of the Legislature has been forever tainted by the half-year-long ethical blackout. If it hadn't been for a few citizens who stood up to the good-old-boy network, they might have succeeded. In fact, they still could succeed - until the deal is passed by the legislature, only a fool would trust in their willingness or ability to do the right thing.

Thanks and congratulations should go to Pat McInerney for his quiet and determined leadership on this issue.

Make Way for CONVICTS in Public Office!? - Day 142 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

From Jefferson City comes an extremely troubling rumor - a Kansas City area Democrat is rumored to be attempting to remove laws barring felons and federal criminals from serving in elective office.

Right now, laws on Missouri's books attempt to prevent convicts from holding elected office in Missouri.

115.348. No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony or misdemeanor under the federal laws of the United States of America.

115.350. No person shall qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been convicted of or found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the laws of this state.

Unfortunately, the first law has been held unconstitutional because it was passed as part of a bill that violated the "single issue" rule for legislation. It was additionally found unconstitutional because, back in 2006, Missouri criminals were not prevented from serving in elective office, and it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That flaw was subsequently remedied by 115.350.

The long and short of it is that we need our Missouri legislators to pass a new and clean version of 114.348. Instead, rumor has it that a Kansas City Democrat who has ties to James Tindall is working to loosen up the rules against criminals in elected office. Those rules laws need to be tightened, not loosened.

A lot of weird stuff gets passed in the late hours of a Missouri legislative session. Please, let's not use the legislative process to clear the way for more convicts in elective office for Missouri.

Influence-Peddling and Failed Ethical Oversight - Day 123 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Jackson County legislators have influence. With a few words, a handshake, or a backroom meeting, they can change the fortunes of a company, an individual, or a nonprofit organization. On a small scale, they do stuff like give a friend a thousand tax dollars to put a sticker on his car. It's an expensive form of fondness, but they're only spending our tax dollars, so who cares?

On a large scale - well, we don't know how large a scale their corruption has achieved. We hear that close friends have been hired. We have money getting siphoned into expensive arts programs that employ friends and benefit few. All of this money gets divvied up in backrooms to "certain outside agencies" with only cryptic messages offered to the public. And please don't forget that a majority of the committee that controls the COMBAT money has a criminal record, and one of the criminals on the committee is using county resources to falsely claim that he is the Chair of that committee.

Plainly stated, when you have shady dealings involving county money, legislators who are overstating their own influence and a complete absence of local ethics enforcement, the situation is ideal for influence peddling. This whole situation stinks to high heavens.

In a closely related development, press reports claim the FBI has been conducting an investigation into influence-peddling in Jefferson City. Apparently, the Missouri Ethics Commission, a "toothless" body that "takes too long to investigate complaints and announce its conclusion, and is too timid about fining lawmakers found to be in violation of ethics law", has failed to keep a close eye on the legislators down the hall.

Believe it or not, this toothless, timid and ineffective oversight is exactly what the County wants for a watchdog. The legislators, including Dan Tarwater, Henry Rizzo, Scott Burnett and Denny Waits, have loudly claimed that they don't need Ethical Home Rule, because they are also supposedly "watched" by the MEC - a group that has allowed things to slip so badly that the FBI is stepping in.

Meanwhile, the Jackson County Legislature has exempted itself from the Jackson County Ethics Commission's oversight, and, in the face of legislative hostility and probable litigation, the Jackson County Ethics Commission remains completely vacant.

It is hard to overstate the degree of danger Jackson County government faces. It really, truly has convicted criminals (Tindall and Rizzo) on its legislature, controlling millions of dollars. The legislature has exempted itself from local ethical oversight, in violation of the County Charter, and submits only to a toothless, ineffective and timid entity that is housed miles and miles away.

If influence-peddling is happening in Jefferson City, what do you think is going on in the halls of Jackson County Courthouse?

Join the Jackson County Ethics Commission - Day 112 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

I recently spoke with one of the County legislators most resistant to Ethical Home Rule. Not only did he attack the concept of local oversight, he even had the gall to attack the future ethics commission. "Do you really think Sanders is going to appoint people he doesn't control?", he whined. That vile little attack on the process came from someone who agrees with the appointment of criminals to be a majority of the Anti-Drug Committee.

The fact is, Mike Sanders will appoint whichever 5 nominees that the Ethics Commission Selection Committee delivers to him. Mike Sanders has been above-board through this whole process, and is the prime mover behind the move to articulate the very Ethics Code that the Jackson County legislators are excluding themselves from. Unlike the Jackson County legislators, Mike Sanders is not foolish enough to maneuver himself into a battle against ethics. It takes a special kind of stupid to fight against Ethical Home Rule in Jackson County, and Sanders doesn't suffer from that kind of stupid.

Unfortunately, the Jackson County Ethics Commission Selection Committee is facing a few problems in finding a properly balanced slate of candidates to submit to Mike Sanders for appointment. The application "deadline" has been extended from the end of February until whenever they can get a great slate of candidates they feel confident will carry out their duties impartially and diligently. Here is the application, and here are the qualifications. The application is a simple online form and the qualifications are minimal.

If you read this blog, and live in Jackson County, you probably qualify to be a member of the Jackson County Ethics Commission. Stepping up and serving now would give you a chance to learn more about how the County works. More importantly, you would be playing an important role in the return to Ethical Home Rule for Jackson County.

Hint - while the Charter requires that "no more than three commissioners must be from the same political party", there is no restriction that you must belong to either of the major parties. Seems like this would be a great way for one of those third parties to get somebody involved in actual government . . .

Won't you consider going online and filling out the short application? If you will not or cannot, do you know somebody who might be waiting for a call from you to get involved? Would you please make that call?

I promise to continue the fight to bring Ethical Home Rule back to Jackson County, but the fight is meaningless if we can't find 5 citizens to serve on the Ethics Commission. The criminals on the Jackson County Legislature and their secretive colleagues are quite happy to allow the Ethics Commission to remain unfilled. They need our oversight.

Day 100 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

It's now been over a hundred days since Jackson County has had functioning Ethical Home Rule. A hundred days for people like Henry Rizzo, James Tindall and Dan Tarwater to thank their lucky stars that no local authority exists to examine what they are doing with millions of dollars of COMBAT funds. A hundred days of a broken ethics system.

This is how they like it. They think they're winning.

By exempting themselves from Ethical Home Rule, the Jackson County legislators have abandoned one of the key tenets of Jackson County government. As wise commentators here have pointed out, principles of statutory construction probably make their monarchic attempts to place their ethics beyond scrutiny legally ineffective - but, until we have a panel of brave citizens with the courage to fight the kind of fight that Rizzo and Burnett and the rest of the anti-Ethical legislators will fight to free themselves from scrutiny, it looks like we will have no functioning Ethical Home Rule in Jackson County.

Have they really won, though? In reality, they have lost more than they know.

First, almost all of them will face vigorous challenges in the 2010 elections. Rizzo will lose his election. Tarwater will lose his election. Tindall will lose his election. Burnett, Spence and Waits will face stronger challenges than they've ever seen, and two of them will lose their seats in races defined by ethical issues. Arbanas will attempt to handpick a successor, but his seat will go to an experienced politico running on a pro-Ethical Home Rule platform.

Second, they may well lose the COMBAT tax in the next reapproval election. By funneling all the money through a committee with a majority actually found guilty of financial crimes, they have undercut confidence in the administration of the COMBAT tax. It's a terrible shame, because the COMBAT tax accomplishes much good in our community, but, even if we weren't in the midst of an economic crisis, nobody can expect Jackson Countians to ignore the potential of massive corruption coupled with a refusal to accept Ethical Home Rule.

Third, they will lose the Ethical Home Rule battle anyhow, but not until they have destroyed their own credibility and electability in the process. Whether it's through the work of a few brave legislators who could bring this issue up for a reconsideration, or through a brave Ethics Commission taking on the battle of standing up for the Jackson County Home Rule Charter, or through a revision of the Charter to make it even more explicit that our legislators do not get to prevent their own ethical oversight, or even through an initiative petition, Ethical Home Rule will be restored in Jackson County.

Finally, the scrutiny is not going to stop. Now that we've hit day 100, I will be scaling back my Jackson County Ethics Blackout coverage to weekly updates on the misdeeds of the Jackson County legislature. There's plenty of material to do a daily piece, but there are other topics I want to cover in this blog, as well. By doing a weekly piece, bolstered by more time to do a few Sunshine Law requests and some insider interviewing, I'm hoping that less will be more.

Jackson County Legislature Extraordinary Secrecy, Without Ethics - Day 99 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

When a legislative body sttempts to exempt itself from an Ethics Code, and to deny the Charter-granted right of its citizens to oversee its ethics, the wisest course of action is to start with the assumption that they are up to something untoward. No benefit of the doubt goes to those who insist they are above the scrutiny and accountability they would impose on others.

In that light, yesterday's hijinks at the Jackson County Legislature ought to be raising eyebrows. Chair Scott Burnett introduced a last-minute resolution calling for a closed meeting, excluding the press and citizens from knowing what the Legislature is up to. Typically, such resolutions are introduced at the meeting preceding such an extraordinary action, but this one was introduced and acted upon without normal notice. The exception to the Sunshine Law relied upon by the Legislature was RSMo 610.021(1) - "Legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys."

The Jackson County legislature is lawyering up again? What is it this time? Is somebody trying to explain in simple terms to Henry Rizzo that the City is under no legal obligation to spend $2,000,000 on public safety rather than entertainment for suburbanites? Are Tarwater and Tindall fighting it out over the disputed chairmanship of the Anti-Drug Committee? Is yet another federal investigation for corruption focusing on the Jackson County Legislature - a fresh chapter in the rich history of Jackson County crime and corruption?

We can only guess at what went on behind those closed doors. We can be certain, however, that the Jackson County legislature has exempted itself from Ethical Home Rule, and now it feels the need to have emergency meetings about secrets.

Is that the type of government Jackson County deserves?

Tarwater's Tape Exposes Rizzo - Day 98 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

As promised earlier, a videotape of Dan Tarwater grandstanding on the stadium issue may be found here. In watching the performance again, it's hilarious to see Henry Rizzo spring into action and attempt to nail down the legal obligation of the City to make a donation to cover Jackson County's commitment of funds. Rizzo flails away, asking awkward question after awkward question, until, finally, Tarwater admits that there is no legal obligation for the City to divert two million dollars from public safety into suburban entertainment.

Even the County Counselor was dodging Rizzo's questions, not wanting to make him look like a fool in front of everyone. Nice try, but when Rizzo gets on a roll, there's no stopping him.

Sadly, truth may have emerged on the tape when a legislator from outside of Kansas City pointed out that several Kansas City Council members are willing to join in the diversion of funds and sell out Kansas City. Any Council Member who votes to give away $2,000,000 during our budget crisis will demonstrate that s/he is on the side of Henry Rizzo and Dan Tarwater.

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?

Retraction Regarding Criminal Dominance and Influence on the Jackson County Legislature - Day 86 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

A couple days ago, I referred to the Jackson County legislature as "dominated by criminals". A commenter questioned my description, and, to be completely fair (as always), the legislature is not necessarily, in fact, dominated by criminals. It is, however, influenced by criminals. And, in its infinite wisdom, the legislature has chosen to appoint two of its legislators with rap sheets to a three person committee handling every nickel of the COMBAT Fund, which gives those individuals unusually strong influence over the disbursements of the Legislature.

So, I'd like to retract my previous statement about the Jackson County legislature. I am not sure it is 100% fair to claim that it is dominated by criminals. Instead, I would prefer to make the 100% accurate claim that "In boom times or tight times, though, one thing remains constant - the Jackson County Legislature is scandalously under-regulated, influenced by criminals and defying local ethics oversight."

My apologies for any confusion.

They Want to Win When They Lose? - Day 84 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

While the Kansas City Star assiduously avoids mentioning it, there's gold in the Jackson County Courthouse. $678 MILLION dollars are being doled out in Jackson County's 2009 Budget, which is actually a reduction from the prior year. In boom times or tight times, though, one thing remains constant - the Jackson County Legislature is scandalously under-regulated, dominated by criminals and defying local ethics oversight.

That makes the Jackson County Legislature a playground for lobbyists. Two out of three members of the committee that handles the $21 million dollars of COMBAT funds have criminal records for financial crimes - a majority with a rap sheet! And both of those individuals (Henry Rizzo and James Tindall) have voted against local ethics oversight.

If you ask a County Legislator about the Ethics Blackout, he or she will likely lie to your face and claim it's no big deal, because the Legislature is covered by the Missouri Ethics Commission. It's apples and oranges, though - the Jackson County Ethics Code includes important provisions ignored by the State Ethics Code. As pointed out earlier during the Jackson County Ethics Blackout, the Missouri Ethics Commission doesn't even prevent our brawling legislators from showing up to meetings drunk or stoned!

Another, more profitable, difference between the Jackson County Ethics Code and the Missouri Ethics Code is that Missouri has no provision about former legislators coming back to lobby their former colleagues, while the Jackson County Ethics Code includes a prohibition against former elected officials profiting off of old backroom favors for a year.

In short, if they lose their next election, they want to be able to cash in on the cronyism and corruption that they have fought to preserve. They know who to ask and where to apply pressure for COMBAT funds, and they want to be able to sell that knowledge to the highest bidder when they finish their "public service".

That's only one of many reasons Jackson Countians must defeat the Jackson County Ethics Blackout, and why the criminal element of Jackson County government is fighting so hard to fight Ethical Home Rule.

Gone Mild Election Results - Day 81 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

I asked, and got 110 responses, to my completely nonscientific poll on which Jackson County legislator is least likely to be retained in 2010. Here are the results:

Henry Rizzo 27.3% 30

Scott Burnett 16.4% 18

James Tindall 15.5% 17

Dan Tarwater 14.5% 16

Theresa Garza Ruiz 11.8% 13

Dennis Waits 10.9% 12

Fred Arbanas 1.8% 2

Greg Grounds 0.9% 1

Bob Spence 0.9% 1

Interesting results, and not entirely what I expected. I should note that 12 of the 13 votes for Garza Ruiz came in during a 10 minute span - I suspect someone was stuffing the ballot box against her, but that was the only voting irregularity I noticed.

One of the flaws in my method was that it only called for a vote on who is most likely to not be retained. Henry Rizzo, with his aggressive stand against Ethical Home Rule and a district that includes the politically-active Ward Parkway corridor, was a fairly obvious choice, especially in the absence of a specific opponent.

I was a little surprised to see how high Scott Burnett ranked in the poll. As Chair of the Legislature, he will be in the hot seat if the voters do not see a return to Ethical Home Rule, so perhaps the readers have a good point. Personally, I think Mr. Burnett has done enough outreach and has enough donor friends to make him hard to beat, but time will tell how much this Ethics Blackout will damage his "good guy" image.

A low surprise was Fred Arbanas. Only two voters chose him as least likely to be retained, but I think there's a decent shot that he will decide to step aside at the last minute and try to handpick a successor to a seat that he has held since the very first County Legislature met. That's kind of like having James Madison still sitting in Congress today. Look for Mr. Arbanas to act as if he's running until the day of filing, to discourage any competition, and then for him to walk in with a "team player" to take his place. I think Arbanas' seat is one of the most likely to become a pro-ethics seat, but only if someone bright and aggressive takes on the seemingly daunting task of pushing a rock up the mountain of Fred Arbanas' county-sponsored popularity. Trust me, that mountain may suddenly become a molehill when Fred Arbanas puts a backroom hack on the ballot in his place.

Perhaps future polls ought to ask how many of the County Legislators will not be returning, and we can also test different names against some of the more vulnerable legislators. It's going to be an interesting year and a half for the Jackson County legislators - perhaps the last year and a half in public office for several of them.

To Whom, for What? - Dan Tarwater Resists Local Oversight but Spends a Quarter Million Dollars - Day 75 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

A quarter million dollars is a lot of money. In a time of tight budgets and taxpayer suffering, a Jackson County politician ought to be as open and transparent as possible when proposing to spend a quarter million dollars of tax money. Such a massive investment deserves a little fanfare, right?

Not in Jackson County world.

Here's an agenda item on the legislative calendar for Monday's meeting, quoted in its entirety:

AN ORDINANCE appropriating $255,410.00 from the fund balance of the 2009 Anti-Drug Sales Tax Fund and authorizing the County Executive to execute agreements with certain outside agencies which engage in anti-drug prevention activities for the purpose of preventing illegal drug use and drug-related offenses, at an aggregate cost to the County not to exceed $1,715,067.00.

As my father would have said, "Clear as mud, but it covers the ground."

Good citizens with adequate computer skills are able to dig a little deeper and gain access to the ordinance itself, but it's a pointless exercise. Who is the money going to? The ordinance identifies them only as "certain outside agencies engaged in anti-drug prevention activities". What will they do for the money? It's not really stated, but the most clear statement we get is that they will "engage in anti-drug prevention activities for the purpose of preventing illegal drug use and drug-related offenses." What does that even mean?

(As an aside, I hope that the money would be spend FOR drug prevention activities, not for "anti-drug prevention activities".)

Why the secrecy? Why the coded talk of "certain outside agencies", instead of saying who's getting how much for what?

More ominously, this coded quarter million dollar transaction is sponsored by none other than Dan Tarwater, one of the defenders of the exemption of Jackson County legislators from the Jackson County Ethics Code, and the only member of the Jackson County Anti-Drug Committee without a rap sheet for financial misdeeds. Who's profiting, and how are they connected?

Jackson County taxpayers have every right to be suspicious. When the same people siphoning huge contracts to secret parties are the same people who refuse to accept local ethics oversight, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

Reduce the Size of the Legislature? - Day 68 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

I was discussing the Jackson County Ethics Blackout with a man who really knows the County, and he came up with a thought that hadn't even crossed my mind. "One of the problems," he pointed out, "is that we don't have enough work to keep 9 legislators busy, so they have too much time on their hands, and they bump into each other. If we really want an effective legislature, we should reduce it to 7 legislators."

My friend is correct.

Take a look, for example, at the committee structure. It's a classic of make-work and overlap:

Anti-Drug
Dan Tarwater, Chairperson
James D. Tindall
Henry C. Rizzo

Budget
Henry C. Rizzo, Chairperson
Bob Spence
Dan Tarwater
James D. Tindall

Finance & Audit
Dennis Waits, Chairperson
Bob Spence
Dan Tarwater

Health & Environment
James D. Tindall,
Chairperson
Greg Grounds
Dennis Waits

Inter-Governmental Affairs
James D. Tindall, Chairperson
Henry C. Rizzo
Bob Spence

Justice & Law Enforcement
Theresa Garza Ruiz,
Chairperson
Greg Grounds
James D. Tindall

Land Use
Fred Arbanas, Chairperson
Bob Spence
Theresa Garza Ruiz

Public Works
Bob Spence, Chairperson
Greg Grounds
Theresa Garza Ruiz

Rules
Greg Grounds, Chairperson
Henry C. Rizzo
Dan Tarwater

(There's enough material in this bizarre set-up to keep me writing for another month. Notice that Tindall and Rizzo, both with criminal records for their financial misdeeds, show up on both the Anti-Drug (COMBAT funds) and Budget Committees?)

Do we really need all nine of those committees, or do they exist solely to give each legislator an opportunity to chair a committee? Really, couldn't the work of the "Anti-Drug" Committee be handled by the Budget Committee and the Justice and Law Enforcement Committee, with the added benefit that we would not have $20 million tax dollars passing through the hands of a committee where the majority has a rap sheet? Similarly, couldn't the Land Use and Public Works Committee be combined into one entity, especially since Theresa Garza Ruiz and Bob Spence are the majority on both?

Do we even need a Health and Environment Committee? Or Intergovernmental Affairs? Shouldn't everyone be paying attention to those issues?

There's an old phrase that "Idle hands are the devil's workshop", and I think it applies to the Jackson County legislature. We have too many committees doing too little work, and we have both of our big money committees including Tindall and Rizzo.

Does anybody in Jackson County think that this unwieldy and strangely staffed committee structure is a good idea?

Even more to the point, does anybody think that we should trust these people to handle our money when they are adamant about avoiding local ethics oversight?

Good News and a Good Example on Jackson County Ethics - Day 65 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Go look at the Jackson County Ethics Selection Committee's website's "Process" page. Notice what's missing?

No longer is the Selection Committee promising to keep applications confidential.

I had a very pleasant conversation with someone deeply involved in the selection process yesterday, and he had a forthright explanation for the bogus promise of confidentiality - they hadn't really thought about it. As soon as they saw my objection, coupled with local attorney and sunshine law expert Jean Maneke's excellent legal analysis, they realized their mistake and fixed it.

What a remarkable example of good leadership!

Too bad the Jackson County Legislature is bereft of such leadership. I recall, back in the early days of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout, before Christmas, having a conversation with one of the legislators and discussing the crisis with him. I know and trust the guy, and it turned out that he was honestly confused. He genuinely thought that the Missouri Ethics Commission would enforce whatever the Jackson County legislature passed, and he thought that having both entities enforcing the same code was "double jeopardy".

He was completely wrong on both counts, but I am 100% willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that those were simple, good faith mistakes. I don't expect perfection from my politicians, and I don't blame him for being wrong at first.

But now the Missouri Ethics Commission has stated quite clearly that they will not be enforcing the Jackson County Code, and the "Double Jeopardy" argument has been demolished. There's a big difference between being mistaken and being pigheadedly mistaken, and the Jackson County legislature has crossed over to the latter.

I've talked to a lot of insiders who promise me that "this problem will be fixed" after we get a new Ethics Commission appointed. I admire their optimism, but I think the legislators are making a terrible mistake in waiting. I'm supposed to meet a candidate for Henry Rizzo's seat soon, and one of Dan Tarwater's more well-known constituents has spoken with me about an urge to run. Once people get in the race, they aren't going to back out, and the incumbents are going to answer the voters' questions about why they allowed themselves to be wrong about ethics for 6 months, or whatever amount of time passes in the Jackson County Ethics Blackout.

Why can't the Jackson County Legislature simply admit it made a mistake and fix it? That's what the Selection Committee did. That's what grown-ups do.

COMBAT, Crime and Ethics - Day 61 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

In 1989, the COMmunity Backed Anti-Drug Tax (COMBAT) was approved by Jackson County voters with a mission of "Making substance abuse history...". 2 decades have passed, and literally hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been "made history", but substance abuse appears undiminished as a problem in our community.

Who is in charge of this humongous pot of money that has failed utterly to accomplish its mission for two decades, and supports such lofty goals as paying a favored citizen a thousand dollar to put a sticker on his car (yes, I'm serious)? The Jackson County legislature, the same group of arrogant politicians who have passed an ethics code that can be enforced against everyone but themselves.

Does anyone else here think the spending of twenty million tax dollars without an ethics code is a good idea?

Oh, it gets worse. Much worse.

The COMBAT slush fund gets handled by a three person committee on the legislature. Guess who's on it? Hint: the majority has a rap sheet.

Here is the composition of sterling characters spending twenty million of your tax dollars in 2009 while insisting they should not be held to the Jackson County Ethics Code. The Chair is Dan Tarwater. As far as I know, Dan Tarwater does not have a criminal record, unlike his two friends on the committee. But, as if to assure that he has "street cred" with his two criminal friends, Dan did manage to get into a fistfight with a fellow legislator over money. Unsavory, but unconvicted.

The other two people that the Jackson County legislature has put in charge of spending twenty million tax dollars are actually, literally criminals. James Tindall was convicted of income tax evasion, though he managed to get off on the bribery charges. Henry Rizzo had to go to the Supreme Court to even get on the ballot, because he had "pled guilty to a charge of providing a false statement to a financial institution in 1991".

I think it's great that Rizzo and Tindall have returned to public life and won the voters' trust after breaking the law in matters involving the handling of money.

But does it make any sense at all to trust them to be the majority in a committee that controls twenty million tax dollars? Does it raise some concern in anyone's mind that all three members of this committee voted in favor of exempting themselves from enforcement of the Jackson County Ethics Code?

Please take a moment today and drop an email to members of the Jackson County legislators and tell them that you think that anyone in charge of spending twenty million of your dollars ought to be subject to enforcement of an ethics code, especially if they have a rap sheet. 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

Remember to be polite, but firm. All we want is for them to reverse their exemption from the Jackson County Ethics Commission.

Is "Sometime Soon" Good Enough? - Day 60 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

Rumors are swirling in the Jackson County Courthouse that the majority of the Legislators know they're in deep trouble with their exclusion from the Ethics Code, and that they will fix the problem in a few months after a new Ethics Commission is appointed. Then, they believe, everything will be fine and dandy, and they won't get clobbered with the ethics issue on the campaign trail. I've heard that from 4 sources with good connections to the legislators.

If I can get a handshake on that from someone in a position to make it happen, should I drop this "Day XX of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis" series?

After a good deal of reflection, the answer is not just "No", but "Hell No". I'm going to keep digging and posting until the Legislators accept enforcement of the Ethics Code, or they are driven from office. I intend to help recruit candidates and expose the misdeeds of incumbents until this thing is resolved.

Here are my reasons for refusing such a handshake deal:

1. I don't trust the legislature enough to rely on a handshake. There are 3 people I truly admire out of the group of 9, and that's not a majority. When it comes to dirty political dealing, I know I'm in way over my head, so I don't think it's safe to stop the heat until the problem is solved. Even if one of the legislators I admire promises to fix this problem, I won't believe that Henry Rizzo will allow it to happen until I see it with my own eyes.

2. Good people are already getting misled. Right now, as we speak, good, ethical people are submitting applications to the Jackson County Ethics Selection Committee under the impression that they won't be dragged into the public eye unless they are finalists. The Selection Committee's website promises "Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of applications, but the applications of those selected as finalists may become public. Finalists will be notified prior to their information being made public." However, under the Sunshine Law, those applications are public, and anybody can go look at them. Promising to make "every effort" to keep something secret when you know you are legally barred from making any effort to do so is simply dishonest, and far beneath the standard of ethics we should expect from anyone connected in any way to the Ethics Commission.

3. I don't want to foster the backroom atmosphere of Jackson County Government. Simply stated, if I reach a secret agreement to accomplish what I want, I would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

4. There's so much to write about! Every day I post something about the Jackson County Legislature, I get more information sent to me. There are a lot of people in the Jackson County Courthouse with information they want to share, and they know I can be trusted to keep them confidential. (If you're one of them, email me at dan(at symbol)gonemild.com.)

5. We need some turnover on the legislature, and this effort is going to help. The ethics crisis WILL be a millstone around the neck of each and every incumbent legislator in 2010. If the Ethics Crisis is still going on, it will be the dominant theme of the race. Even if they vote in mid-2009 to reverse themselves, I've already talked to at least one consultant who assures me that we can "rebrand" this "Jackson County Ethics Crisis" into the "Jackson County Ethics Blackout" and force the legislators to explain why they supported a 6 month blackout on their own ethical oversight. There's no good way out of this issue for them. There are three legislators I would truly hate to see lose their next race, but I'm confident that at least two of those three will survive the election.

Will Jackson County Legislative Arrogance Kill COMBAT? - Day 57 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

One of the joys of being a Jackson County legislator is the thrill of dishing out buckets of pork through the COMBAT tax. About $21 million dollars gets doled out to support over 80 anti-drug programs, and every nickel of it goes through a legislature that refuses local ethical oversight.

Personally, I'm in favor of the COMBAT tax, despite its many flaws in implementation, but many taxpayers will not support its renewal if the Jackson County legislature refuses to answer to the Jackson County ethics code. Already, the Legislature has been caught funneling $1000 to an anti-crime activist to put a sticker on his car (no, really, I'm serious), so, in a down economy, who can blame people for opting out of a slush fund for unaccountable legislators?

Voters vote on COMBAT renewal in 2010. In 2003, the .25% COMBAT sales tax was renewed with a margin of 64-36% (not quite the "more than" 2:1 margin claimed on the COMBAT website, but what's a little lie on a taxpayer funded website in a county governed by legislators with so little regard for ethics?), but times have changed, and, unless the legislators drop their sneaky exemption from local ethics oversight, they will bring the COMBAT tax down with them.

Jackson Countians have demonstrated that they will support a good tax if they believe it is well-administered. Unfortunately for those of us who support the good things accomplished by the COMBAT tax, the image of the Jackson County legislature will be horribly tarnished by that point. Last week, I spoke with a bright, well-connected, well-liked woman in Henry Rizzo's at-large district and Dan Tarwater's local district, and she is thinking of filing for office. If she goes after either one of them, she would make ethics the theme of her campaign. Who could blame her? It's a natural.

If the Jackson County legislators really, truly believe that the COMBAT tax is a worthwhile endeavor, and accomplishes good things, then they owe it to their constituents to give it the best renewal chance possible. To do that, they must reverse their exemption from local enforcement of the Jackson County Ethics Code.

If they fail to do so, Jackson Countians will have every right to assume the worst possible reason that they want to spend $21 million without ethical oversight, and vote the tax down.

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 . . .

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.

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.

Insiders (No, Literally, Insiders!) Want to Keep Control

One of the rites of Jackson County politics is the camp-out the night before the filing deadline for County races, in an attempt to gain the first spot on the ballot. This year, the silliness fell apart into a display of temper, whining, and favoritism. None of those things are new to Jackson County politics, but it's disheartening to see them displayed so prominently in the pregame show.

The dirty secret is that people who have connected friends, or who are incumbents, get to enter the building early. Simply stated, the system is unfair and undignified. Jackson Countians deserve a better system.

Theresa Garza Ruiz has a better way. She is proposing a lottery system, so that ballot position is decided by chance among those who file on the first day. “It needs to be a level playing field, and this is the way to do it," Ruiz claims. This is the same system that created rare agreement in the thread about the Sheriff's race that sprung up (strangely enough) under my post about Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island.

Of course, it's impossible to disagree with her, right?

Not surprisingly, a few "insiders" prefer the system that makes regular people wait out in the cold. Henry Rizzo and Dan Tarwater have said that the current system works fine for people with special courthouse access, and, since they have it, they see no need to change.

“The only ones unhappy about it are the ones who couldn’t get in early to file,” said Dennis Waits, the chairman of the legislature. In other words, who cares about the losers that don't have Dennis Waits to sneak them in the back door?

The current legislators have courthouse access, but the rest of us don't. They and their friends have an advantage that they have used to play games with our ballots. We should not allow their gamesmanship to continue.

The proposal by Ruiz is a sensible one. She is taking a small but important step against cronyism and "insider" politics (literally). Any legislator who opposes this proposal announces clearly that he is prefers insider games.