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.

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.

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?

SHUT UP! County Blocks Gone Mild? - Day 92 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

A funny thing happened with my hit counter yesterday. I had my highest count in a month, thanks to links from Tony's Kansas City and the Prime Buzz Blog Watch, but there were no hits at all from the Jackson County Courthouse. It seems I've been blocked!

I've always had my fans at the Jackson County Courthouse, and I have never NOT had hits from there on a workday since - heck, I don't know. 2005?

I must have gotten under somebody's skin, I suppose. Fortunately, they haven't blocked me from access to their site, so I can still get access to their agendas and keep an eye on who's lying about what committee he's not chairing. For the moment, they are free of local ethical oversight, and heaven knows the Star refuses to do an adequate job of covering County issues, but others are starting to pay attention.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to block websites. When City Hall blocked Tony's site, they used the excuse of his penchant for pictures of scantily clad women as an excuse, but everyone knows it was a ham-handed and failed attempt to reduce his influence. I don't know what excuse the County may be using to block Gone Mild, but it can't be bikini models . . .

Who's Chairing the Anti-Drug Committee? - Day 91 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

According to every official document I have seen, Dan Tarwater chairs the Anti-Drug Committee, a powerful committee that controls the $21 million COMBAT tax. As the only member of the committee who does not have a rap sheet for financial crimes, he is probably the least inappropriate person of that committee to be in charge.

Why, then, is James Tindall claiming to chair the Committee, and using County resources to publicize that claim? Is it an attempt to convince inattentive outsiders that he is more influential over the dollars than he truly is?

Of course, it's probably just a mistake. But, with the County Legislature fighting hard against Ethical Home Rule, and with an Anti-Drug committee consisting of two people with financial rap sheets, it's dangerous to assume that things are on the up-and-up.

Until the legislature accepts Ethical Home Rule, it does not deserve the benefit of any doubt.

Why is James Tindall using county resources to claim he is chairing the Anti-Drug committee?

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.

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?

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.

What's the Going Rate for Backroom Deals?

Apparently, a cool thousand dollars is not large enough to trigger the gag reflex of our Jackson County Legislature.

Yesterday, the Jackson County legislature was going over the COMBAT Funds, and Theresa Garza noticed an unusual item - a thousand dollars is being directed to crime activist Alonzo Washington for a decal on his car. No, I'm not kidding -

A brief flare-up among Jackson County legislators occurred Monday over a proposal to give $1,000 in COMBAT anti-drug tax money to anti-crime activist Alonzo Washington.

Washington plans to display the COMBAT message on a vehicle he uses to visit crime scenes in the inner city and urge members of the community to provide tips to police.

I have nothing against Alonzo Washington - I admire his dedication to fighting crime. BUT, I have a huge problem with paying him a thousand dollars for putting a COMBAT sticker on his car, and I appreciate Theresa Garza having the good taste and courage to question this bit of sleazy misappropriation of my tax dollars.

For her efforts, she got lectured by convicted criminal James Tindall. He called her picky for raising a question over $1,000. Can you imagine the gall of Tindall - who was convicted of tax fraud daring to speak to anyone about how to spend money on crime prevention??

Sadly, Garza backed down, and did not oppose the thousand dollar sticker. Apparently, backroom deals for COMBAT funds are okay if they're only four figures . . .