PIMBY?

Yael Abouhalkah had a funny observation in his blog post about the proposal to stop siphoning money away from taxpayers to support the Costco TIF Plan.

Jan Marcason, a sharp and well-intentioned City Council member, also questioned what happened last week.

Marcason lives in the Southmoreland neighborhood in the 4th District and supports its housing repair program.

While everyone has heard the term "Not In My Back Yard", this presents an unusual case of "Please In My Back Yard". The elegant Southmoreland neighborhood has enjoyed access to free money, and nobody can really blame them for enjoying the opportunity.

But if you spend a little time driving around the old Northeast, or the East side, it's hard to understand why tax dollars should be funding housing repair in such a posh area. The Southmoreland website is a cheery, welcoming place, offering "Up to $10,000 or more matching grants to fix up your house."

Meanwhile, other neighborhoods can't get their weeds cut or their illegal tire dumps cleared.

Southmoreland is fortunate to be on the PIMBY side of the financial seesaw, while others struggle for basic services. Southmoreland doesn't want to share, and they have a brave and articulate councilmember to stand up and fight for the privileges they have enjoyed for over a decade.

Is it a fair fight?

Mayor Funkhouser Addresses the Budget

I thought Funkhouser's letter concerning the Budget was extremely well-done, and a good example of the kind of straight talk and dedication to priorities that won him the office. Hilariously, and I kind of think she might have been joking, Jan Marcason accused the letter of "set[ting] up a tension that didn’t need to be there." Umm, yeah, Jan, that letter managed to bring tension to a peaceful, loving City Hall, right? Too funny!

Rather than trying to "spin" the letter, though, I'll just post it and let everyone read it for themselves.

DATE: February 12, 2009

TO: City Councilmembers

FROM: Mayor Mark Funkhouser

SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed FY 2009-10 Budget


The Kansas City Charter requires that I deliver to the City Council a copy of the proposed budget along with my comments. This letter fulfills that requirement.

As we approached this budget season I thought of Sir Winston Churchill who said, "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

This budget does not give us the tools to do the job.

On January 15th I was handed the first draft of the budget. I distributed copies of that budget to the members of the City Council and to the press. Here is that budget.

On February 2nd, a second budget was delivered to my office. Here is a copy of that budget.

As you can plainly see, there is a significant difference in these two documents. As you will hear, those differences caused me to look at this budget differently.

You have heard me say before that I am committed to returning Kansas City’s focus to its residents. This budget should put Kansas City's families first. We need to protect our families and be compassionate about their circumstances. The way to do that is to be smart with their money by providing them with an accountable and transparent budget.

The budget delivered to me fails to do that and is therefore unacceptable.

In my conversations with individual members of the City Council, not one has indicated that he or she is prepared to vote for this budget as submitted. There are good reasons for this. This budget is unbalanced, unaccountable, and full of gimmicks and smokescreens. It doesn't put Kansas City families first.

Protection

This budget proposes cuts to the Police Department that will undo ten years of progress to improve services. Chief Corwin tells me it will force the layoff of more than 200 police personnel and take dozens of officers off the streets. This is unacceptable.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe in their homes. Marie Sims is a mother of four children, one of whom was born deaf and blind. She works two jobs. Marie Sims' eastside home has been burglarized twice in three months.

Marie Sims does not feel safe in her home. Still, Marie Sims told the Kansas City Star that police officers who helped her were "her angels."

By taking police off of the street, families like the Sims will feel even less safe.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe on the streets. In December, more than 150 police officers went door to door to track down dozens of people being sought by the homicide unit. That sweep solved the murder of Napoleon Malone, who was killed while on a smoke break from his job. Mr. Malone should have been safe on our streets.

Kansas City's families deserve to be safe in their neighborhoods. The Waldo Heights apartments used to be a frequent spot for calls about shots fired, drug dealing, burglary, robberies and a host of other problems. Officers responded there on a daily basis. But a concentrated effort by Officer Jeff Peacock has helped clean up the area. A reduction in police officers would jeopardize that success.

Kansas City's parents need to know their children are safe at school. Eastgate Middle School's neighborhood is one of the highest crime spots in the Northland. Parents at the school are relieved that the police department launched a program that places a Community Action Officer in their school. Cutting funding for police threatens that successful program.

The budget presented to us cuts Police Department funding by $10 million. That cut would hurt our families and does the opposite of what they have told us they want us to do.

If Kansas City is to prosper the Sims family, Waldo Heights residents and Eastgate Middle School students must be safe.

We have invested in our police department and it has paid off. Response times have been cut in half. Crime rates have dropped substantially. And citizen perception of safety has increased. If we cut funding now, we jeopardize these gains.

Simply put, cutting police is a short-term budget fix that does not match our residents' priorities, and I will not accept it.

Compassion

This budget would nearly double the city’s property tax levy to fully fund general obligation debt service. It estimates that this would generate $8 million annually. In these hard times, I will not burden working families with an 86% increase in one of their city property taxes.

I recently received a heartbreaking letter from one of my residents about this proposed tax increase. When I called him, he told me about his struggle as a senior citizen trying to make ends meet. Every dollar we add to his tax burden is one less dollar he can spend on food and heating. How could we support such a tax on our senior citizens?

We need to ask ourselves what this tax would really pay for. Should we use this tax to pay the $7.2 million shortfall on debt for the Power and Light district? Should we use it to pay for luxury condos or a convention hotel? Should we use it to continue to subsidize downtown TIF developers? It is unconscionable to almost double this tax on residents when they wouldn't even get a vote.

I must reject this proposal.


Accountability and Transparency

This budget fails Kansas City families with its lack of accountability. This is unacceptable to me.

In 2004 when they approved bonds to pay for capital improvements, the voters were promised that those bonds would not result in a tax increase. We can not break our promises to the voters.

Likewise, when the City asked its residents to approve a public safety sales tax, it promised the tax would result in 20 more policemen a year. We can not break our promise to our residents.

To do so would undermine citizen trust in their government. Any portion of this budget that fails to fulfill our word to Kansas City's families must be rejected.

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of my heroes, Abraham Lincoln. He said "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." This budget fails to bring the real facts. This is unacceptable.

The submitted budget contains $14.5 million in unspecified cuts to city departments. In reality these are cuts in basic services that will show up unannounced during the fiscal year, much like last year's weed problem. These cuts are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Likewise, the budget transmittal letter states "A reduction in workforce anticipates the elimination of 300-400 vacant and filled positions in General Fund supported funds." However, these position reductions do not show up in the personnel schedules, because they are not really lay offs – they are financial targets that department heads are supposed to achieve. If the department head can find the money elsewhere he or she can avoid layoffs. Therefore, the number of lay offs is not clear. Worse, it is not clear what services are being cut.

All across Kansas City, families are sitting down at their kitchen tables and reworking their family budgets. If they used this budget as a guide, they would cut a little from everything, including their necessities. I would submit that most Kansas City families know enough to prioritize their expenses. They cut their luxury items, like eating out, while leaving alone the necessities, like buying formula for their babies.

This budget's gimmickry fails our duty to those responsible families. It makes no difficult choices.

A budget is a plan for action. This budget has no plan, only soft promises to make cuts. This council must reject this attempt to submit an unaccountable budget.


Additional Tools Required

Therefore, I am sending this budget back with my recommendations.

By February 26, I expect a document to be delivered that provides us with a balanced budget without cutting the Police Department, without increasing property taxes, and without making unspecified cuts.

We owe it to the Kansas City families we are charged to take care of to know exactly what cuts will be made, how many actual jobs will be lost, and what services will be curtailed.

Last year this City Council passed a budget that included eliminating 140 positions, but management cut only about 80 positions. Only about 18 people left the payroll. Using financial targets instead of position reductions means that the cuts in expenditures are not structural. There is no transparency for Kansas City families.

Once I receive a balanced, accountable budget with no gimmicks or smokescreens, I will review it and make my final recommendations on March 5th.

Albert Einstein said, "In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.”

These difficult times are an opportunity for Kansas City to reshape how the city works for our residents. We can only do that by starting our budget discussions with honesty and the desire to make hard choices. As Churchill said, we need the tools to finish the job.

Ladies and gentleman, once we have those tools it will be time to roll up our sleeves and finish this work.


cc: City Manager Wayne Cauthen

SUNDAY SHOCKER - Squitiro Taking Over as Chiefs Head Coach

On the Sunday before the Super Bowl, new Chiefs General Manager Scott Pioli shook up City Hall and Arrowhead Stadium by announcing that Gloria Squitiro will be replacing Herm Edwards as Head Coach of the Chiefs, effective immediately. "Squitiro knows how to make things happen in Kansas City," Pioli explained, "and she's not welcome at her first choice of workspaces, so I thought we should let her try her hand at coaching a football team."

Ed Ford, of course, was the first to criticize. "She has no experience!", he shouted from the back of the room, where nobody had been paying attention to him. Pioli replied that Herm Edwards had plenty of experience, and "look where that got us." Clark Hunt chimed in that Ed Ford really ought to spend at least a little time doing something other than attacking the Mayor and his wife, but Ed Ford shook off the suggestion. "I paid Pat Gray good money to conduct a 'push poll', and I want my money's worth. If I don't have Gloria to attack at City Hall, somebody might start asking why I haven't accomplished anything."

The traditional media were in a state of shock. Steve Kraske and Deanne Smith were seen sadly handing over thick files to Jason Whitlock and Joe Posnanski, and CJ Janovy was rumored to be in despair. "Squitiro was Janovy's muse. CJ managed to create a cover story out of nothing but snark and Photoshop," a source from within the very quiet Pitch newsroom whispered. "I gotta go and empty the trash now."

In her first address to the team, Squitiro was clearly relaxed and in her element. "You big lugs," she shouted, "you've probably heard a lot about me. Most of it's not true, but losers like to talk. I like to get results. If I took a funny-looking, dour accountant and ran a campaign that made him Mayor, it will be easy to take a 2-14 group of losers like you to the Super Bowl. Alvin Brooks was a helluva lot tougher to beat than the San Diego Chargers, I tell ya. From now on, we're wearing orange!", she shouted, and then murmured, "and I'll be attending your team physicals, too." The players squirmed a little upon hearing that.

One of the Chiefs players, speaking under condition of anonymity, seemed pretty pleased with the choice. "Sure, she hasn't coached before, but she never worked in a Mayor's office before, either. She's smart, aggressive, and not afraid to say what's on her mind. I think she might fit into the NFL even better than she did City Hall."

Brandon Clark, a skycap at the Kansas City Airport, was enthusiastic about Squitiro's new role. "I've seen her stand up for herself when she thought the officiating was questionable, and she will dominate the sidelines."

Contacted at her Northland home, Frances Semler remained bitter about her experience with the City. "I just hope she takes a hard look at that Gonzalez guy!" she shouted, before slamming the door on a reporter.

Clark Hunt seemed especially thrilled with the salary negotiations. "She works for free!", he exclaimed. "That frees up lots of money to spend on draft picks. And I think she might be able to convince Funk that city support for the Jackson County Sports Complex should keep on flowing. Can't get much further East Side in Kansas City than Arrowhead Stadium, so keep that money flowing."

Jan Marcason expressed frustration that Squitiro had circumvented her anti-Volunteer Ordinance. "Volunteers are bad people," she complained. "We need to find a way to regulate everyone who works for free in this city, especially Gloria Squitiro. Ed Ford suggested in one of those famous backroom meetings that I should have named my ordinance the anti-Gloria ordinance, and included a provision that told her to stay in her house at all times, but I didn't listen to him because I wanted to make it look like I was spending time on something that wasn't so mean-spirited and foolish. I guess he was right. Mean-spirited and foolish isn't really unusual on this Council."

Mayor Mark Funkhouser seemed happy with the turn of events. "I'll be spending most of my office hours at Arrowhead Stadium now, rather than my house in Brookside. It's more convenient for the residents of the East Side, and I'll be holding Town Hall meetings at the Stadium on a weekly basis."

Wayne Cauthen was unavailable for comment on the news. He was busy negotiating with Cordish to give them the parking concession for Arrowhead, in exchange for a handful of promises.

"This is a great time for the Kansas City Chiefs franchise," Scott Pioli gushed. "Gloria Squitiro has watched her husband try to lead 12 Council members at a time, and he's made some great plays, like the New Tools initiative, a better budget and an economic development policy, and he's made a few bad calls, too. Like a football coach, he has done it by empowering the members of the Council to make the right plays. Now, Gloria gets to try to manage 11 players on the field at a time, and accomplish her goals through them. It ought to come easy to her. She can trade the ones that aren't doing their jobs, but Funk doesn't get to do that."

(UPDATE!: I received a gentle and good-natured email from the fine folks over at FuKCed City, who pointed out that this post bears more than a passing similarity to their post of a little more than a month ago entitled "BREAKING NEWS: One Arrowhead Shocker!" and reporting that Gloria Squitiro was becoming the team's General Manager. All I can say is if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they should feel incredibly flattered. I can't even deny that I read the piece when it was posted - I read all their posts, because they're great. It must have stuck in the back of my mind, and come out in a more wordy and less original form. My apologies to the crew over at FuKCed City, and, if you haven't bookmarked them yet, add them to your list of regular reads.)

Jan Marcason Keeps Her Focus, Delivers Good Work on Sewers

One of the things I admire about Jan Marcason is her seriousness of purpose. She understands that she was elected to perform public service, and she sets out to accomplish her tasks, even when they're not particularly glamorous or even pleasant.

Mayor Funkhouser could not have chosen more wisely when he picked her to lead the task force studying our long-festering sewer problems.

Sure enough, she has delivered a plan to address the city's needs with increased fees and seeking state and federal support. Nobody wants to see their sewer and water bills increase significantly, but Marcason's plan helps right the balance after generations of underpayment for those services, and the resulting underfunding of infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The plan covers all the details I would hope for or expect, including incentives for environmentalism, assistance for the poor and plans to make new developments cover their own costs.

Back when we were differing strongly over the "Volunteer" Ordinance, Marcason stressed to me in a conversation that all the hullabaloo was, for her at least, in addition to the normal workload. The time she spent on that ordinance, she assured me, was not taking away from the time she should be spending on areas we agreed were legitimate and necessary areas for Council involvement.

It borders on humorous that somebody with Marcason's clean image and generally sunny disposition would tackle the grimy, dirty topic of sewers. But she has done it, with the level of detail and attentiveness to city needs I would expect.

It's great to see that both 4th District Council Representatives are paying attention to real city council business and city needs.

Can Funkhouser Win Again?

It's time to get real honest here, and even risk hurting a few feelings of people I like. But a few things need to get said.

Kansas City political insiders may be the most foolish batch of group-thinkers ever assembled in one town. In their world, Coffman had Kander on the ropes. Harris was the best hope against Koster (I'm not saying I'm immune). Barnes had a real chance in northern Missouri. Really, you need to spend some time at the cocktail parties to understand just how strangely out of touch some of these people are.

Now, they are saying Funkhouser is a one term Mayor. And they are saying it so confidently that it reminds me of how little chance Conventional Wisdom gave him in 2007.

In other words, it makes me suspect the inside crowd is wrong again.

First, let me acknowledge that all is not well in Funkytown. There would be serious problems if the election were to be held in the near future. But not for the reasons that have the chattering class smirking.

Funkhouser's biggest problem is the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. That is the metric that will make or break his fortune in the 2011, and right now, it is down. This paragraph from the report would be a knife through the heart of a reelection bid if it were happening today:

Kansas Citians’ satisfaction with city services declined this year, as it did in the other metropolitan area communities and large U.S. cities included as our benchmark cities. Compared to other area communities and large U.S. cities, Kansas City’s citizen satisfaction is still at or near the bottom.

If that does not turn around - if that is not simply a case of things getting worse before they get better - I hope and expect that Funkhouser would not even run again. That is the essence of the orange revolution, and if it turns out that Mark can't get make progress there (even if it isn't his fault), then the experiment has failed, and we should all try to learn from it.

(As an aside, I must point out that David Martin of the Pitch manages to look at the Survey and miss the point. He points to a decline in satisfaction with elected officials, and claims that they are Funkhouser's "approval ratings". It takes the opposite of political insight to reach such a conclusion. In fact, the average voter looks at the mess of City Hall intrigue and says "to Hell with all of them." At its worst, that statistic is bad news for all the council; at its best, it shapes up nicely for Mark to run once again as an outsider against the whiny council people who are mucking up the works. When the City Council does something stupid like the Anti-Squitiro Ordinance, Mark takes a small hit, but the members of the Council take a big hit. The infighting isn't hurting Mark as much as it is each and every incumbent. While I don't approve of the sexist "Mean Girls" label that a commenter here used, I think it reflects a growing perspective among voters.)

Another concern I have for Funkhouser's prospects is that he really has lost contact with most of the people who worked on his original campaign. I think back to the meetings we had and I cross off most of the brightest and best people I have ever seen working on a campaign. Maybe lunches with Jeff Roe are a substitute for breakfasts with Jeff Simon, but they make me queasy. Maybe a guy who made his money growing plants isn't as interesting as a crazed conspiracy theorist, but I know which one I respect. Right now, it appears that Funkhouser has decided not to dance with the ones who brung ya, and I don't like the looks of the crew on his dance card.

My final concern about Funkhouser's chances for reelection is a little fuzzier, but it's a spirit thing. The first go-round was open, fun and inclusive. Of course, it was "us versus them", but the only "them" was the TIF pigs at the trough. Now, "them" seems to be everyone but "us". "Them" now includes Cindy Circo, who I think is a darned good person. Jan Marcason is definitely "them", and, even as we disagreed through every step of the Anti-Squitiro Ordinance process, she showed the class and dignity that I think should be a model for all elected officials. I disagree with her, but I admire her - the opposite of an "us versus them" mentality. Sadly, I kind of fear that this post might put me onto the "them" team in their view, or my honest disagreement with the light rail proposal. It feels like a bunker mentality has settled in, and the exit door is getting used a lot more than the entrance. I don't see orange as the color of the next election - maybe battleship gray.

So, with all that said, how do I think that Funkhouser might be retiring from the Mayor's office in 2015 instead of 2011?

First off, let's remember that a lot can change over the next couple years. Most importantly, those citizen satisfaction numbers can change, and, if they go up, that is the most important factor in the election. Because, really, it is about a city that works, and if people think things are on the right path, then Mark will stand to benefit. Already, there is some improvement in some areas - if that improvement spreads, don't bet against Funkhouser, no matter what your political-know-it-all neighbor says.

Secondly, the only option will be another candidate, and who that candidate is will make a huge difference. Right now, the whispered candidates I've heard have huge flaws that make them unattractive representatives of the same era of profligacy we soundly rejected last time around. And, by all accounts, it will be a crowded field, which means Funkhouser will cruise through the primary on name recognition and appreciation for what has gone right. Who will be his opponent, and how bloody will he or she be after the primary?

Finally, don't forget that Funkhouser is connecting with people every day. He's holding regular town meetings, and making himself available, unfiltered, to average citizens. He's showing up on the East Side and the West Side and meeting people other than self-appointed "leaders", and, by and large, he's winning a lot of favor. Snobby insiders and the chattering class may find Funk and Squitiro to be coarse and common, but the coarse and common voters are kind of liking what they are seeing.

And that direct connection to actual voters is what infuriates the insiders more than anything. Despite the inability of the political insiders to actually demonstrate any political savvy, they like to think of themselves as arbiters of what must be. They've never forgiven Mark for defeating their annointed candidate, and their heads will explode if he does it again.

Which might be reason enough for the rest of us to support him in 2011.

Marcason Rumor False - Responsive Public Service Alive and Well

Yesterday morning, I posted two rumors and compared the amount of play that they received, while contrasting their importance. One of the rumors that Jan Marcason was working to ignore the Economic Development Policy of the City Council and seek approval of wasteful, unnecessary tax abatements for a wealthy developer.

The rumor is false. I emailed Councilmember Marcason before posting the item, but not at a reasonable hour for seeking her input (I do my blogging in the early morning). Even though I labeled it clearly as a rumor, and the point of the post was that unimportant personality-based rumors get more attention than substantive, policy-based rumors, I wanted to find the truth, if any, behind it.

Sure enough, as always, Jan Marcason responded promptly (though after I had left for the day), with a direct and complete response. She even included her cell phone number for me if I had any questions.

It turns out that Marcason's involvement sprang from her following up on a report that the developer had not had a complete opportunity to do their presentation. She also mentioned that the EDC is going to put on an "Economic Development 101" program to explain to developers what incentives are available and when they would be appropriate, and she plans to attend so that she can be more informed.

So, while the 39th Street Giveaway may or may not be dead (keep an eye on the other councilmembers), the rumor is false as far as Jan Marcason is concerned.

I do have to point out, though, as an opinionated citizen in the 4th District, I have seen that my two council members, Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein, are unfailingly responsive and helpful. Even as I was expressing my strong disagreement with them over the Anti-Volunteerism Ordinance, they were consistently patient and forthright. At one point, when the ordinance had been changed outside of the public eye, Marcason even called me at home and offered to send the latest version, long outside of normal office hours, even when she knew I was most definitely not supporting her on that ordinance. Jan doesn't try to smooth over her differences with me when she has them, but she has a remarkable ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

A Difference in Rumors - Jeff Roe and Mark Funkhouser, Jan Marcason and Tax Dollars

Yesterday was a funny day for rumors, and provided a great insight into the skewed priorities of Kansas City's political insiders. On the same day, two vastly different rumors hit my email box - one explosively interesting but nonsubstantive, and one explosively substantive but depressingly uninteresting. The former involved our favorite whipping boys, and the other involved large amounts of Kansas City tax dollars being siphoned away from basic services.

The Kansas City Star reported on the nonsubstantive one, of course. It touched off a minor explosion with a story that claims Mark Funkhouser is negotiating with Jeff Roe to bring him into his office in a paid advisory role. Among local dems, it is impossible to describe the furor without bringing Godwin's law into play. If you want to be a proper member of the chattering class, NOW is the time to engage in FULL FREAK-OUT!!! JEFF ROE REPLACING ED WOLF IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE!!! Panic!!

I received emails and comments from people in full froth yesterday evening. How would I react to this news? Would I be a hypocrite and embrace Jeff Roe, after expressing my disapproval of his tactics many times? Or would I finally break with Mark Funkhouser and join all my friends in the chattering class, who coincidentally stand to make more money if the development dollars start gushing again?

How exciting! A clear choice!

And that is one of the very few areas I will claim to have far better judgment than the average observer of local politics. I prefer to react to facts rather than half-baked rumors. If I see Jeff Roe hired to take a position in the Mayor's office, I will react to that circumstance. Until then, though, I'm going to see what happens.

Meanwhile, I also heard a rumor that Jan Marcason is working on getting a 39th Street Tax Abatement Plan passed from the floor, even though it doesn't meet any of the requirements of the council-approved economic development policy.

As far as rumors go, that ought to be attracting far more attention than Jeff Roe. That would be a HUGE reversal of the city's steps toward effective financial policies. It involves labeling one of my favorite sections of Kansas City as blighted, and surrendering taxes that ought to be supporting our city budget and Kansas City's crushing financial burdens, all to help big time fat cats lock in a super-generous rate of return while ignoring the East Side.

But guess which rumor shows up on the Prime Buzz? Guess which rumor filled my email box last night?

I hope both rumors are false. If Jan Marcason or any other member of the City Council attempts to shovel expensive tax abatements to an undeserving project in a thriving section of town, tongues ought to be wagging, and reporters ought to be reporting.

I promise right here and now that if Jeff Roe replaces Ed Wolf in the Mayor's office, I will express my opinion of the move in terms that even Tony would think are negative.

Now, will the fans of gossip pledge to join me at a similar level of ferocity if Jan Marcason or any other Council Member really does try to steal tax dollars for the Price Development Group? We can't afford to run the spigot anymore, and that's not a rumor.

(Update: As detailed above, Jan Marcason is NOT seeking to give tax abatements to the 39th Street Project.)

City Council - "Then don't do that"

City Councilmembers are making themselves look terribly foolish with their complaints about the circus atmosphere their own volunteer ordinance is causing.

Reminds me of the old "Doctor it hurts when I do this" joke . . .

Bad Legal Advice, or Decent Political Advice?

I've been genuinely puzzling over the Marcason meltdown and the weirdness surrounding the volunteer ordinance being pushed by the Kansas City Council. Something has been "off" about the whole affair. Most of the potential explanations go part-way toward explaining the situation, but come up short or presenting a satisfactory picture.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Jan Marcason. She's not a rude person, in normal circumstances, but the video shows her turning her back on good citizens and ignoring them in favor of a back room. (Update: The video didn't catch the walkouts, as the camera stays focused on the speaker.) She's not someone who would, in normal circumstances, threaten a fellow council member, but Sharon Sanders Brooks blew the whistle on a hasty, whispered threat. She's not a sneaky person, in normal circumstances, but suddenly we see her sneaking a hidden ordinance into the committee so that she could ramrod it through without giving the public an opportunity to comment. She's not a metaphorical backroom politician, in normal circumstances, but the video shows her, quite literally, resorting to the literal backroom for a place to play politics outside the public eye.

Clearly, these are not normal times. I have way too much respect for Jan Marcason and most of those who supported her to believe that I am seeing the complete picture. Something made Marcason melt down, and I refuse to believe that it was simply an ego-driven, petulant reaction to people refusing to accept her ordinance on her schedule. Something else is going on. For Jan Marcason to threaten Sanders Brooks with a refusal to support projects in the urban core, it had to be something pretty major.

It could be something related to the Bates lawsuit. Clearly, the ordinance does not directly impact the Bates litigation, so the arguments about "protecting the city from liability" don't really add up. That argument also fails in view of the fact that Marcason's last backroom draft of the ordinance excludes 99.9% of the volunteers used by the city.

Furthermore, the lawsuit simply does justify such extraordinary reaction. Even it it went to trial, and a jury found that every claim of the plaintiff was true and unmitigated by other factors, financial damages in this case are difficult to demonstrate, and punitive damages are an unlikely prospect. Certainly, the case was unlikely to ever cost the city anything near the millions of dollars that Marcason had been willing to spend on consultants to provide countless hours of expensive training for thousands of volunteers.

One alternative method for the ordinance to become very much related to the Bates litigation, though, would be if it was somehow tied to a proposed settlement agreement. This does make a modicum of sense. Ms. Bates and Ms. Squitiro were, all agree, former friends, and it is not hard to imagine that a settlement of a case arising from a broken friendship would include an attempt to "settle the score" beyond mere money. This explanation also would encompass the near panic level of urgency that Marcason brought to the ordinance - most settlement proposals include an expiration date.

It's speculation on my part, but it's the only thing that explains the meltdown, the urgency and the willingness of Marcason to toss out every detail of the ordinance until it focuses exclusively on one person. All that other nonsense about trying to create broad volunteer guidelines in line with other organizations - methinks someone was making that up, and regrets spinning that line of malarkey in hindsight.

But, still, even if it is a part of a settlement agreement, it doesn't make a whole lot of legal sense. As described above, the Bates case, even on its best day, wouldn't justify the expense that Marcason was proposing to spend on consultants and criminal records checks. A quick look on Casenet shows that there are almost 800 cases of various types pending in Jackson County with "City of Kansas City" included in the parties. It would be bad legal advice, indeed, to agree to pass ordinances every time someone sues the city.

But legal advice is different from political advice. It would be a mistake to confuse good political advice with bad legal advice.

Kicking Gloria out of City Hall makes political sense for certain members of the council. It would be a way of undermining the Mayor, reaching into his office and making staff decisions for him. It would deprive him of his most trusted and important advisor. It would even be a bit of an embarrassment for him, and perhaps even be something that a councilmember with Mayoral ambitions would like to use during the next race. A settlement of the suit would also prevent a public airing of any defenses or explanations by Ms. Squitiro, such that only one side of the story would ever gain the public's attention - again, weakening a Mayor who is out to change the way things are done in our City.

It's even possible that the councilmembers believe they would gain the appreciation of a certain blogger, and get favorable treatment in the next election cycle.

Clearly, the Kansas City public does not know what is going on with this ordinance. Clearly, there is more afoot than simply trying to come up with a good volunteer policy, and we are being kept in the dark.

What happened in that back room? Until someone comes forward and explains it, concerned Kansas Citians are forced to speculate.

What's Behind the Weirdness?

Why did Jan Marcason go overboard and threaten Sharon Sanders Brooks if she didn't support the anti-volunteer ordinance NOW, as opposed to waiting a week? Why was it so important that the ordinance get passed before people had a chance to read it? It doesn't make sense if Marcason was really only trying to pass the ordinance . . .

Which leads us to the overwhelming question - what WAS going on in that backroom?

Will we ever find out?