Meeting Candidates - Why Does it Matter?

Political season is upon us, with sequential waves of candidates descending upon us seeking votes for school board elections, followed by County primaries, followed by County generals and Congressional elections, followed by City elections. And, if you take the slightest interest in voting, you will be bombarded with opportunities to "meet and greet" candidates.

It's a strange phenomenon, really.

From a politician's perspective, shaking a voter's hand is THE most effective way of securing a vote. No mailer, no phone call, no 20 page position paper will be as effective for that voter as a firm handshake, a look in the eye, and a couple meaningless words. "I'm Joe Blow, I'm running for ________, and I'd appreciate your vote on August 3," is all it takes.

We voters are star-struck with shocking ease. That's the only explanation that accounts for the incredible success that hand-to-hand political conquest offers.

We voters are fools. We believe, like the Worst President Ever, that we can look into someone's eyes and get a sense of their souls. Spending 30 seconds with a candidate makes most voters think that they've taken the measure of the candidate, and gives them confidence that the candidate is worthy of their trust.

It's not even limited to the charismatic candidates. I'm not immune, and I've seen the phenomenon happen with some of the least charismatic candidates imaginable. Somewhere I have a picture of my son and me beaming with Governor Bob Holden - Holden may or may not have been a good Governor, but he certainly was not a splash of transformative inspiration.

It's the celebrity, I suppose. Meeting someone whose name is in the news gives us a touch of importance otherwise lacking in our daily world. The fact that someone you've heard of is sticking his or her hand out meet you is flattering, and, as much as we want to believe otherwise, most of us vote with our emotions more than our brains. Researching policy positions and comparing them to our own half-formed beliefs is nothing compared to having a politician look us straight in the eye and treat us, for a few seconds, as if we matter, as if we are worthy of respect and attention from someone "more important" than ourselves.

It's not entirely a bad thing. The importance of meeting candidates does force politicians to expose themselves to malcontents and germs, which at least assures us of politicians with a good immune system and some awareness of mental health issues. And, as voters, we are offered the opportunity to weed out a few whose arrogance, general creepiness, or other personality flaws outshine their star power. We may not be able to get a sense of someone's soul, but we can occasionally recognize a total loser.

So, it's meet and greet season, and I'll be out there meeting and greeting. I'll even host a few candidates I feel strongly about, through deeper conversations and more thorough vetting. That's how the political process works, particularly at the local level. It's the best we have, particularly in the absence of an impartial local press that can adequately cover local issues and candidates.

Seek out the candidates. Ask a few questions. See how quickly and intelligently they respond to difficult questons. Shake their hands. But remember to pay more attention to positions and interests than a good grip.

Let's Talk Politics This Time

Last year about this time, we discussed whether the City Council should make a $2,000,000 donation to the County, in the form of stadium subsidies. I opposed the decision, the Mayor opposed the decision, but the City Council voted 12-1 to give money away.

Since then, the Chiefs and Royals have had horrific seasons with terrible attendance, the City has not had sufficient money to clear streets, our murder rate remains high, a rapist roams Waldo, city employees have been laid off, remaining city workers have had their wages frozen, and we've installed Cathy Jolly's odious red light cameras to generate revenues. All this, and nobody has had the cleverness to point out that the City Councilmembers who voted for the donation should be held accountable for their shocking priorities.

And now the issue is back again.

(As an aside, why don't some of the crack reporters for the Star do an article about the FREE Royals and Chiefs tickets handed out to County and City politicians? Who's sitting in those seats? Are they even being used? I'd be willing to bet there's a story there - either the politicians are handing them out to donors, or they're wasting the tickets. And, as another aside, why doesn't the Star do a story on why, exactly, we even have a Jackson County Sports Authority? How much bureaucracy do we need to pay for simply to keep track of two tenants??)

This year, I'm not even going to bother arguing about the wisdom of stealing $2,000,000 from the city's coffers. My opinion remains clear, but let's look at a much smaller issue.

How do the politics of this debate work this year? Will Funkhouser's suggestion that we end the exemption do him political harm or political good? Will it harm him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and willing to risk our sports franchises? Or will it help him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and being the only one who prefers to spend $2,000,000 on things like police protection, snow removal, and city workers rather than weak athletes?

I'm curious about what people think. A good friend emailed me when the news came out and said that this closes off Funkhouser's path to reelection - "Voters won’t tolerate our Mayor screwing Chiefs and Royals, regardless of the budget shortfalls." He may be right, or he may be wrong, and the decision could be a step on the path toward reelection. (I know a lot of you disagree with a lot of Funkhouser's decisions, and believe that reelection is utterly impossible. That's fine - but, if you can, try to analyze the politics of this one decision. I'd love to know what you think.)

(Update: A commenter claimed that city officials get tickets, but county officials don't. The commenter is mistaken. Under the lease agreements, County officials get a suite and prime parking. See page 16, section 7.4. It's offensive to think that the City Council would steal money from city priorities so that county officials can watch games from a suite.)

Playing Games with "Cops on the Street"

After hacking $15 million dollars from the budget of the Kansas City police department, the Kansas City Council wants to act like it didn't do anything wrong. Incredibly, two City Councilwomen have sought to breeze in and wallpaper over their budgetary attack by encouraging the Police Department to eliminate support positions and change the working conditions for 200 cops - all so that they can claim that their budgetary attack didn't reduce "cops on the street".

These are the same people who voted to donate almost $2,000,000 to the stadiums, instead of using it to reduce the cuts to cops.

Frankly, avoiding a reduction in the number of "cops on the street" is political showmanship, not effective public safety. "Cops on the street" need support off the street, and $15 million in cuts to the back office is going to have an impact on the ability of the cops on the street to do their jobs. Those cops on the street need supplies, they need well-maintained vehicles, and they need supervision. Like any business, they need support services, and cutting those support services while artificially maintaining the number of cops on the street is likely to do more harm than good.

Sure enough, after the Police Board passed the budget without a single negative vote, one of the City Council members took the low road and preemptively slimed the Police Chief. "If officers are pulled off the street that will be Corwin's decision, not the council's." Folks, I've seen some pretty vile attempts at denying responsibility for one's own behavior before, but that one ranks way up there.

Of course, in the anti-Funk hysteria this town is currently suffering through, nobody wants to talk about the irresponsibility of the council. Instead, people are aiming their guns at the one person who has worked hardest to preserve the police force. The same Council member mentioned above had the unmitigated gall to complain that "Funkhouser hadn't helped the city officials dicker with the police staff during task force meetings about the budget."

I believe that the Council "dickered" the police department quite well without Mark's help.

Showing an amazing ability to focus on the irrelevant, Yael "Funk is a Big Poopyhead" Abouhalkah even took a cheap shot at Funkhouser for not attending the meeting at which the budget passed without a single negative vote. Again, showmanship gets valued over substance in Yael's mind. Instead of even mentioning the vote tally, Yael wrote two columns attacking Mark for the same missed meeting, and implied that pre-meeting participation in the budgetary process doesn't matter if none of the voters mentions it during the vote. Amateurish, petty hack job.

If we want to talk about failure in Kansas City, we ought to be talking about the attempts of certain City Council members to paper over the impact of their disastrous police cuts, and the Star's biased refusal to call them on it.

Not Gonna Fight It, and I Hope Funk Doesn't, Either . . .

Like our Mayor, I disagree with portions of the budget passed by a 12-1 margin yesterday. Most of the disagreements are relatively minor, but a few of them (deep cuts to the police, $1.7M donation to the County) might be worth screaming about. And I know how to carry the fight to them, too. Call on Funkhouser to veto their scandalous budget and force them to cast their votes twice in favor of hurting our City. Divide the $1.7 million by the 12 votes in favor and ask whether any one of them is worth the $142,000 they are giving to the County, and maybe even try to tie them into the Jackson County Ethics Blackout. Scream about the "Marcason-Hermann Police Cuts" and set up a weekly report on which crimes get assigned to which Council members.

Yeah, when it comes to being a screaming ass, I could write the book. But I'm not going to play that game, though some say I'm pretty good at it.

Fact is, our Council has put in a lot of effort on this budget. I can sit here on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback all I like, but they are the ones who had to jump into the mudpit and wrestle the beast. If I really, really, really, think I'm absolutely, clairvoyantly right about how to set up a budget and balance the priorities to lead our city forward, I should have either run for office back when they put their reputations and wallets on the line, or I should have been at every public budget meeting and forum offering them my spectacular wisdom.

Instead, I stayed home.

That doesn't mean they're above criticism for foolish decisions (ahem, extending Cauthen) or that I won't complain when they use hard cases to make bad law (ahem, anti-Volunteer ordinance), but there comes a time when a good citizen knows when to shut up. This is one of them. They managed to unify behind a budget that may be imperfect, but it's a sober document reflecting hard choices and deep thought. If I thought they were supporting an insane, irresponsible, ill-thought-out budget, I would be screaming, but nobody can seriously claim their budget is not a realistic attempt to wrestle with our problems.

Funkhouser voted against it, and I can respect his vote. Like him, I personally think the police cuts are too deep, and that when it comes to basic services for all, public safety is job one. Politically, the vote might have been wise, too, since he can now point to that vote as having stood up for citizens and police when the council gave money away to the county and stadiums.

But it's a pretty weak point, and it's been made now. Vetoing the budget will change absolutely nothing, practically or politically.

It's time to move on.

The time for fighting about the budget is over. Ultimately, neither Funkhouser, the City Manager nor any of the Council members won or lost the battle, because it's really about US. As citizens, we have elected representatives that have decided on a budget by a 12-1 margin, and any further fighting about it is game-playing that can only distract our representatives from getting on with the business of overseeing the implementation of that budget.

So, instead of screaming or personal attacks or any other pushback on this budget, I want to thank our City Council. You've worked hard on a budget, and come up with a document that united twelve of you. That's impressive work, and my admiration is sincere. Each of the twelve who voted for the budget worked hard to arrive at something that you think represents Kansas City's best interests, and my points of disagreement are incapable of overshadowing my appreciation.

Fine work, City Council. I hope our Mayor signs on now that the time for fighting is past.

Is the City Council Irrelevant?

Yesterday, Funkhouser went ahead and signed the ordinance extending the TIF package for the Savoy Hotel. While I criticized the extension here yesterday, and I questioned the good faith of the Council, the developer and even the developer's lawyer, it turns out that the only party truly deserving of scorn on this issue is the Council.

The developer, developer's attorney, Funkhouser and the other taxing districts went ahead and worked out a better deal without the Council, rendering irrelevant the Council's attempt to actually harm our city. Actually, as Mark Forsythe correctly pointed out the other day, they had already worked out a better deal before the City Council followed joined in Terry's Terrible Temper Tantrum and, incredibly, approved a worse deal for the city than was already on the table!

Truthfully, they went ahead and approved an ordinance that was worse than the developer had actually agreed to, just because Terry Riley was angry that someone else had negotiated the deal! Is that the sort of person you voted for?

Fortunately, the adults fixed the situation. Through written, good faith agreements apart from the Council, the developer agreed to do the right thing, whether the Council cares about the good of the city or not. Thank goodness Funkhouser worked with them to make it all come out okay.

Meanwhile, city hall observers are left to smirk at the Council's behavior. The more juvenile members of the Council have been claiming lately that the Mayor is "irrelevant", just because they don't talk to him much. Sadly, the Council is becoming Junior High at its worst, with cliques excluding others on the Council and bragging about it to the rest.

If Mark were the sort to join in those games, he would be out whispering to others that the Council is "irrelevant", and snickering at the silly ones who joined in Riley's malfeasance.

But he won't do that.

Instead, he realizes that the Council remains very relevant, and capable of much more mischief in the future. In this instance, he managed to prevent them from bringing as much harm to the City as they attempted, but he knows we are still burdened with Cauthen for a couple years because of their immature behavior. Alas, the City Council may be outsmarted on occasion, but they are not irrelevant. Fortunately, neither is the Mayor.

Savoy TIF - A Reason to Despair

If Kansas City is ever going to do the right thing, this should have been the moment. Everything was set up absolutely perfectly for success, and we absolutely blew it.

We have some fine and intelligent people on our City Council. We have a Mayor who even his most dogged opponents acknowledge has the political courage to stand up to developers seeking to get wealthy from tax funds. We have a budget crisis raging, to keep the focus on the budget imbalances created by bad decisions made in the past. We even have a sane economic development policy that the Council has already agreed upon, to help it make rational decisions.

Surely, under these circumstances, when a wealthy developer approached our City with his hand out, our Council would have the strength and good sense to honor their commitment to the citizens of Kansas City, right? Surely, at this moment of crisis, they would not screw us one more time, for old times' sake . . .

Wrong.

Absolutely incredible. With the sole exceptions of Mayor Funkhouser and John Sharp, the City Council went ahead and showered a rich developer with undeserved tax breaks, at the urging of a well-connected development lawyer who gave them money.

For a great explanation of just how bad a deal this was, go read Mark Forsythe's excellent analysis at The Kansas City Post. Make no mistake about it, Kansas City taxpayers are helping to make the rich richer, while facing cutbacks in basic services.

And your council member is fine with that.

If they're not going to stand up for us now, when will they stand up for us? When Terry Riley chooses not to play silly games over turf? When the development lawyer appearing before them has not greased their palms with substantial campaign donations? When the contrast between having money to pay for basic services and having money to pay for a "four star" restaurant is somehow sharper?

It's moments like these that make me wonder why I care. The deck is stacked in favor of the status quo, and even good people like my city council representatives are riding with Terry Riley and Jerry Riffel instead of Kansas City taxpayers.

I can only hope that sometime today, Mayor Mark Funkhouser vetoes this disgusting display of legislative sell-out, and that a few good council people will look themselves in the mirror and think about why they got involved in the first place.

I know it's politics, but, really, how could you fall this far?

Should Equal Rights Apply Only During Economic Good Times

One of my City Councilmembers, Beth Gottstein, has introduced a proposed ordinance to ban discriminatory dress codes in publicly subsidized redevelopment plans and projects. The ordinance is, of course, a reaction to the dress code that the people at the Cordish Companies have used to deny access to the tax-advantaged Power & Light District for people dressed in, shall we say, an "urban" style. Not surprisingly, the ban on ball caps and white t-shirts was sometimes ignored for shall we say, "suburban" looking people.

Beth Gottstein, along with Terry Riley, Mayor Funkhouser and John Sharp, has come out against having our tax dollars subsidizing discrimination. Who could possibly disagree?

Sure enough, the local blogosphere provides an example of someone willing to stand up for prejudice if it's profitable. Over at the Kansas City Post, we are instructed that "As far as the P&L, our primary concern right now should be revenue." The focus should not be on equal rights in a time of economic crisis, it should be on revenue. "I would like to see the numbers on how many potential patrons are turned away, and what the projected lost revenue is. I doubt it's even a drop in the bucket." It's not that they're too black, it's that they're not green enough?

I'm grateful that Councilmember Gottstein has found a revenue-neutral way to help our city become a better, more welcoming place. Her dedication to building bridges and reaching out to all facets of our community has been an important part of her character for years - long before we were fortunate enough to gain her leadership on the Council.

Some things remain more important than revenue, even during times of economic crisis. While some among us feel that "Hard economic times call for singular focus," leaders like Gottstein realize that good people don't turn on each other during hard economic times. Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Thank you, Beth, for helping Kansas City stand in a goood place at a time of challenge. That's why we voted for you.

Siettmann, Roe, Cashill - Stuck in the Middle with Funk

In the comments to my posting of the Funkhouser budget letter, I've been questioned about our Mayor's recent hiring of Mark Siettmann, a man who formerly worked for Jeff Roe's company, Axiom Strategies, as well as Jack Cashill's attempts to portray himself as an influential member of Funkhouser's inner circle. One of the joys of blogging is that I always get to pick and choose what I write about, and it's easy to avoid issues I don't want to talk about. But the questions raised are fair questions with (I think) interesting answers, so here goes.

First off, I don't think Cashill has any influence on the Mayor outside of his own mind. If Mark let the guy look at some of his speeches and make suggestions that he didn't accept, well, that's just an example of Mark's kindness to a guy who not many people will give the time of day to. Cashill is loudly irrelevant and has been for years, and I admire Mark for treating him gently.

Jeff Roe is a different matter, though. It bothers me that Mark talks to the guy. (The advocate in me wants to point out some of the other Dems who have done the same thing, but that's advocacy, not logic.) While I understand that it's smart to get a diverse set of perspectives on issues, I have a problem with a lot of Jeff Roe's tactics. I've conveyed my displeasure at the idea, but I'm not the one who got elected Mayor, so that's not really my decision.

So, honestly, no, I don't like the whole consultant deal, but I'm not naive enough to be shocked. There's a limited pool of high-level talent out there, and most of them are entrenched to the same pro-developer, chattering class crowd that Mark ran against, and defeated. He kind of had to go outside the usual crowd, and he did.

Now, moving forward, here's where I stand. If Siettmann is shown to have written homophobic material, just get rid of him right away. I was wrong when I argued that Semler's appointment could be justified, and I learned from it. This case would be even easier - Mark should tell him to clean out his desk the day he gets the proof.

Assuming that doesn't happen, then I hope the guy does a super job. Remember, his job is to do communications, not policy. Those of us who know Mark know that the public persona of Mark Funkhouser is nothing like the real man. If someone can help the real man appear more clearly to Kansas Citians, that would be a fantastic thing. If someone can help show how foolish the City Council is when it makes outrageous mistakes in defiance of Mark (like when they gave Wayne "Lie on the Resume" Cauthen a fat 3 year contract), that would be a fantastic thing, too. Mark needs to shake up his public image if he is going to accomplish what is best for the city, so good luck, Mr. Seittmann.

Cauthen Consistent, Council Confounded

For the second week in a row, Wayne Cauthen has demonstrated his disdain for the City Council by skipping the Finance and Audit Committee meeting.

While I tend to criticize our City Manager for his resume lies and participation in the looting of the city, I have to admire him for this one.

Wayne Cauthen claimed in his resume that he has "Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget." Now, if he shows up and participates in a committee meeting where the City Council is struggling to come up with $85 million to correct the city's structurally imbalanced budget, wouldn't that be inconsistent? In Wayne's World, the budget problems don't exist.

The Council's frustration with Cauthen must have been heightened by the fact that Cauthen sent Chuck Eddy, a $140,000 expense item, to attend the hearing in his place. That's just kind of rubbing their nose in it, don't you think?

While I certainly understand their frustration, I hope that the Council uses this opportunity to ponder the fact that Funkhouser was right to fire Wayne Cauthen, and their childish decision to give Cauthen a 3 year contract out of spite was the single most destructive mistake made by this City Council.

Kraske Whiffs Again - What He Should Be Asking

Steve Kraske claims the upper right corner of today's front page of the Star, and manages to look good while whiffing almost entirely. It's kind of like watching an unschooled rookie with a sweet swing face the famed knuckleballer Tim Wakefield. Kraske swings mightily, but can't quite make his wooden analysis impact the baffling trajectory of local politics.

The headline in the dead tree version of the story is "Has mayor run out of political capital?", and the lede is an anecdote claiming that Funkhouser failed to gladhand at a democratic fundraiser. In short, Kraske asks the wrong question and answers it with conventional wisdom from the chattering class. That, my friends, is not "analysis" worthy of publication.

First off, the question is not whether Funk has run out of "political capital". The guy won by fewer than 900 votes and walked into a council chamber poisoned by hardball politicians seeking to become mayor. The guy never really had political capital - he walked in with a target on his back, and nobody on earth was going to trade that target for a 7 member dependable majority. And, to give his critics their due, he certainly has not behaved in a fashion well-designed to accumulate it, either.

The correct question is "Can Funkhouser work with this Council to accomplish good things for our city?". Because, really, that's what people wanted when they elected him, and that's how he will be judged. Maybe a few of the insiders and professional game-players such as Kraske care about style points or how well he shakes hands at a cocktail party, but the rest of us care far more about accomplishments. By focusing on shaking hands and fuzzy concepts of "political capital", Kraske focuses on the parlor game aspects of city government rather than on the street level effectiveness of city government.

Now, before the anti-Funk brigade reflexively misinterprets what I have written so far, I'm only saying that the question ought to be "Can Funkhouser work with this Council to accomplish good things for our city?" rather than "Has mayor run out of political capital?". I hope we can all agree that my question is the better question - who cares if he never shakes another hand and the verdict at Kraske's chattering class cocktail parties unanimously states he has zero "political capital", if he is able to work with our council to accomplish good things for our city?

Having thus refocused the issue from image to substance, I'll go ahead and answer my own question.

Yes, Funkhouser can work effectively with this Council to accomplish good things for our city. He can do that by continuing to work creatively and subtly through other council people, the majority of whom will, when push comes to shove, get on board for the right reasons on the big issues for the good of the city. Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein, for example, are not going to vote for a lousy Cauthen budget no matter what they think of Funkhouser or his wife. Most of the council is composed of grown-ups, and they can separate their disagreements on the anti-volunteer ordinance from good policy in facing the substantive issues they need to address.

All that said (and apparently beyond Kraske's imagination), Funkhouser has an opportunity right now to jumpstart his working relationship with the City Council and kick off 2009 in the most productive way possible for our city's future. In one fell swoop, he could eliminate his biggest problem in image and the city's biggest problem in reality.

In my opinion, Mark should approach those city councilmembers who really do have the good of the city at heart with a proposal to dismiss his Volunteer Ordinance lawsuit in exchange for their support in getting rid of Wayne Cauthen. Most agree that Cauthen is simply the wrong man for the foreseeable future, and I believe they would welcome such an opportunity to get back on track in solving our city's very real problems.

I feel like I owe some explanation, since I loudly called upon Mark to file his lawsuit, and I continue to think that the anti-Volunteer Ordinance is an unconstitutional bastard born in a backroom from spite and dishonesty. Despite my dislike of the Ordinance, though, that single issue need not continue to distract attention and dominate the public discourse.

Right now, Mark is working just fine with his geographically flexible Mayor's office, just as most of the councilmembers work effectively while spending little time in the four walls of their offices. While it feels wrong to let such an ugly little ordinance remain on the books, dismissing the suit does not make it constitutional. Someday, in a less critical time when we can afford to focus on "B" level priorities, the ordinance can be challenged in a more favorable environment. In terms of impact on the city, the Volunteer Ordinance is tiny in comparison to the damage wrought by the wrong City Manager.

Dismissal of the suit would also unplug the electricity surrounding rumors of Koster investigations and other nonsense. In short, Funkhouser would be rising above the Council's petty mistake, diminishing a danger, and accomplishing a larger goal. It would also provide the good Councilmembers with a way to redeem themselves from their current tarnished, bickering image, and make a clean break from the past.

Would Funkhouser ever make such a deal? I have no idea.

But it's a lot better question than Kraske's breathless insider chatter about "political capital".

Praise for the Council

On New Year's Day, I received a chipper and realistically optimistic email from Jan Marcason, wishing her supporters "good health and happiness in 2009". The other night at the beer party, someone asked me why I am so positive about Jan Marcason, Beth Gottstein, Russ Johnson, Deb Hermann and several other city councilmembers who have, at least to all appearances, not been supportive of Mayor Funkhouser, whom I also support.

The question has many answers.

In the biggest sense, I don't necessarily want a monolithic City, County, State or Federal government. I've never understood the perspective of those who feel that government is working best when it is bickering least. In reality, government is one of the battlegrounds where clashing interests meet to decide on shares and rules - peace is an unnatural state in any legislature, including our City Council. When Barnes had a dependable majority behind her, she drove our city into financial disgrace and allowed TIF pigs to plunder our future.

Beyond the inherent conflicts of legislative life, I also accept that each elected official is a human being. I think all of them have had grand moments and boneheaded blunders. The Mayor, for instance, made a mistake in the Semler appointment/retention, and his go-it-alone approach to firing Cauthen was simply foolish. As for the Council, the Volunteer Ordinance is an hysterical embarrassment, and the thoughtless decision to give Cauthen a raise and a three year contract may have been the only way to be more foolish than Funkhouser in the Cauthen saga.

In short, if I want to find a perfect politician who never makes costly, bone-headed mistakes, I had better search someplace other than City Hall.

But I think they're, on the whole, doing a darned fine job. They joined together and rejected Cauthen's ludicrous, unrealistic budget. They did the hard work to come up with a far better budget and are already working toward doing it again in an even bleaker economic context.

They came up with a good Economic Development Policy, and have generally eschewed the sort of high-cost, high-profile, high-risk projects that typified Credit Card Kay's tenure. Instead, their few investments have focused on the long-neglected East Side of Kansas City.

They have also done the hard and completely non-glamorous work of drafting a sewage overflow control plan, as required by the EPA. Jan Marcason led them to approval of a well-thought-out, innovative and environmentally-friendly plan that will improve our city for at least a generation. The plan may not capture quite as many readers as a deposition in the lawsuit that the City Council has kept alive, but it is far more significant to our city's future.

It's easy to get frustrated by the continuously-mistaken, bickering bunch of knuckleheads that you read about in the paper and on blogs. But if you pay attention to the work they do, and tune into Channel 2 from time to time, you'll see that they are not the same people you read about.

They are gracious 99% of the time. They are cooperative most of the times when they ought to be. They represent conflicting interests effectively and competently. They answer calls and emails, and seek out the opinions of citizens. They take on difficult tasks without expectation of glory or lucre, and they do those tasks well. They respond to problems day in and day out. They endure attacks on their intelligence and character without responding in kind.

We are truly fortunate to have the City Council we have right now. There is great work going on at City Hall, and those of us who pay attention too rarely offer appreciation.

To borrow from Jan Marcason's email, I wish the Mayor and each of the Councilmembers good health and happiness in 2009. Thank you for your work on our behalf in 2008.

Beer in the Bottoms? Let's Bulldoze the Power & Light District!

Last night, while researching my next homebrew recipe, I came upon a spot of amazingly cool news. In 2009, Kansas City will have another brewery opening up, this time in the West Bottoms. Dead Canary Brewing is a woman-owned and run new brewery, setting up in the West Bottoms down off 12th Street, among the haunted houses and great old brick buildings.

Folks, this could be amazing.

They are setting up Beer Pong and Dodgeball Leagues. They are creating a taproom. They are committed to brewing practices that are green and sustainable. They got started on this journey by brewing naked.

Most importantly, they are creating "high content, high flavor, knock you on yo ass beers." Beers like Cat House Stout - (Dry hopped mint chocolate imperial stout), Local No. 12 - (lemongrass maple strong ale), Speakeasy IPA - (honeysuckle grapefruit IPA), Bathtub Barleywine - (copiously hopped barleywine), and Chickory Rhubarb Imperial Porter.

This could do more for the West Bottoms than any TIF Project ever brewed up in a closed-door meeting between Kay Barnes and Mephistopheles. Really - the West Bottoms could become the new Crossroads X 20, with lots of inexpensive great old buildings around, acres of parking, and reasonable access to the highways.

But, since Wayne Cauthen and the prior City Council have gambled our city's future on the Power & Light District, which is already turning out to be a bit of a flop, I have a radical idea. Let's bulldoze the Power & Light District, and refuse to give any more of our tax dollars to Cordish and their cronies. (Yes, of course they will sue, but it will take years for them to recover anything, and a sensible jury might just rule in our favor if we can introduce evidence of all their broken promises and their racist dress codes.)

Now that we have freed ourselves of the millions upon millions of obligations to out-of-state developers, we can bring in some topsoil and put in the world's most awesome beer garden in all the paved expanse that currently exists down there. Let's be ambitious - let's create something that will make Munich's Oktoberfest seem like an unpopular fraternity's weekend kegger. (We can even, as a nod to our prior mayor, put in a rain garden, just to show we're not angry anymore.)

Then, we take a few million dollars and give them to our local brewers to create the micro-breweries of their dreams on the periphery of our new beer garden. Relocate Boulevard's and its emblematic smokestack downtown. Get 75th Street Brewery to open up a 12th Street Brewery. In a cross-state gesture of goodwill to make up for our outright theft of the 1985 World Series, offer Schlafly a space.

But don't forget the beginners, either! The Kauffman Foundation wants to support entrepreneurship - let them funnel a few million dollars to help ambitious homebrewers make the leap into micro-brewing. And, because cans are so much more recyclable and cheaper to ship than bottles, let the city open up a municipal cannery, offering access to its canning lines for each of the breweries on a cooperative basis - a green infrastructure project that ought to attract funding from every level of government.

As I think we demonstrated at 75th Street Brewery on Monday night, real beer is a big draw. People will come out for something unusual, and they appreciate a good party. Imagine if Kansas City was the undisputed Home of Great Beer. We would have to hire thugs to control the hoards of convention planners! Vacationers would come in year round, just to try the seasonal brews! Hotels chains would pony up their own money to get access to the crowds of tipsy beer-lovers walking around downtown.

Most importantly, it would be awesome.

My point in this flight of fancy is that for the millions of dollars we have blown on a cookie-cutter assemblage of national chain restaurants, we could have had something unique and truly attractive to Kansas Citians and conventions if only we had focused on local businesses and local flavor. This is the sort of impulse that Mayor Funkhouser has pushed with his New Tools initiative. Economic Development does not have to mean sending massive amounts of money to out-of-state developers for massive projects. Let's hope that the Council gets behind the concept and that we see some real Kansas City economic development.

In the meantime, let's raise a toast to Dead Canary Brewing. They might accomplish with beer what politicians have failed to accomplish with hot air and taxpayer dollars.

Mayor's Forum on Financial Preparedness

Yesterday morning, concerned Kansas Citians gathered at the auditorium of the Liberty Memorial Museum for a conversation just as bleak as the weather outside. The structural imbalance of Kansas City's budget and the crazed tax-giveaways of the Barnes years have left us facing a $84.9 million dollar shortfall which will grow to a $111.5 million shortfall if current trends continue. The short answer, brought home by Deb Hermann, Mayor Funkhouser and the consultants who spoke, is that current trends cannot continue. So what are we going to do about it?

In a nutshell, we failed to come up with workable solutions. The ideas that seemed to have the most support all placed the misery squarely on the average city worker or average citizen, and involved little or no sacrifice for the ultra-wealthy Kansas Citians who spoke out at the meeting. "Charge for trash" and "cut back on city workers" were the strongest suggestions offered up by the multi-multi-multi-millionaires who grabbed the microphones before going back to their taxpayer financed enclaves. Funny how nobody even suggested graduating the earnings tax, or even delaying Payments in Lieu of Taxes so we get a year's worth of interest on the money we are paying to finance their castles. Indeed, one of the wealthiest men in the state openly scoffed at any thought that some of the problem could be solved on the revenue side of the equation. The suffering, it was clear, belongs to the peasants.

That said, I'm glad I showed up and participated. Almost all the smart councilmembers attended, and it was wildly impressive to see 60 of Kansas City's heaviest hitters show up on a frigid Monday morning in Christmas week. Notably absent were Wayne Cauthen, Kay Barnes or Steve Glorioso. Also, no Federal, State or County politicians attended - we're in this on our own, Kansas City.

While we didn't solve the massive budgetary problems we're facing, the morning was time well-spent. We all learned a little more about the issues, received a briefing on the consultants' report (available for download here), and we got to think a little and brainstorm on ways out.

Perhaps most valuably, we got a flavor of the political realities faced by our elective representatives. On the one hand, we had the uber-wealthy loudly and jealously guarding their advantages, while we also faced fantasy-land fossils grumbling about free trash promises from generations ago, and calling for repeal of the earnings tax. We heard ill-informed, reckless suggestions tossed out by those without a clue on implementation, and we heard earnest, factual statements about the financial unsupportability of doing nothing.

Walking out after 3 hours of financial bad news, it was hard not to feel a strange sort of optimism. We have some great people in this city, and the City officials who showed up are focused and smart. Deb Hermann did a great job of presenting, and Funkhouser did a great job of getting everyone's attention focused on the problems we're facing.

Funkhouser 6 Times Smarter With The Money Than Our Council

Remember last week when Funkhouser tried to get the City Council to enter into a global settlement of the Bates case for $135,000? Remember how I criticized the Council for failing to join in the settlement, instead preferring to play nasty political games?

Sure enough, it's come back to bite them in the ass. Bates is now seeking $800,000 because our Council was too smart by half. Maybe that should be "too dumb by 6 times", but it doesn't appear that our foolish-with-the-taxpayer-money is able to do such sophisticated math.

How are those depositions going, Council people? Don't you wish you were working on city priorities rather than wasting time on a suit you should have settled?

Ed Ford and Cohorts - "Too Smart by Half"

One of my favorite phrases was taught to me by one of the most truly clever lawyers I ever worked with, Jack Craft. Someone who creatively saw a bright side but failed to anticipate the downside, or who thought they were being smart when they were in fact being dumb, qualified as "too smart by half". One time, in an administrative matter, I drafted a convincing argument that the bureaucrats were not, in fact, authorized to take the action they were proposing, but Jack pointed out that by attacking the authority of the state agency, I might win, but I would be exposing our client to years of regulatory retribution from the agency. I was "too smart by half".

This week's City Hall drama showed that our City Council is too smart by half. When Funkhouser brought to them a settlement opportunity they had been seeking for months - a chance to put the Bates suit behind them relatively cheaply and move on with the city's business, Ed Ford rallied his cohorts to reject the opportunity. In a vain attempt to avoid scrutiny of their unconstitutional Anti-Volunteer Ordinance, they refused the opportunity to put this distraction behind them.

Now they have their distraction and the lawsuit, too.

Meanwhile, Funk and Gloria are finished with the Bates lawsuit, and focusing on the economic crisis facing our city. Marcason and Circo spent their time getting deposed yesterday . . .*

It showed real grace and leadership by Funkhouser to bring his colleagues an opportunity to put the Bates lawsuit behind them and offer them a path to focus on the real issues facing Kansas City. To employ another classic phrase, he led the horse to water. Unfortunately for the Council and for Kansas City, our council chose to behave like the wrong end of the horse.

UPDATE: *(Jan Marcason visited the comments section and reports that her deposition was canceled, and that her "day was spent productively addressing city issues." That's great. After seeing how much she is able to accomplish for our city in a single day, it's doubly discouraging that she and the others chose to keep this lawsuit alive to distract them on future days.)

Is Silly Season Coming to a Close?

Funkhouser is talking about the economic crisis.

Marcason is talking about sewers.

Jolly is talking about red light cameras.

Hermann is looking at budget shortfalls.

Gottstein remains focused on her priorities.

The whole Council is waking up to the horrible mistake they made in extending Cauthen's contract over Funkhouser's smart-with-the-money objections, and giving Cauthen terrible evaluations that will never appear on his resume of fabrications.

The Finance Committee refused to go along with Cauthen's crazed scheme to take all the risk of the eternally-botched Citadel Project.

Meanwhile, Ed Ford is all by himself ranting and muttering darkly about recalls he is too lazy and ineffective to spearhead. (He brings to mind this nifty bit of analysis - "In fact, people who resort to using the threat of recall in Kansas City are announcing in clear tones that they are ignoranuses. They are stating boldly and clearly that they do not know what they are talking about, but they want attention, nonetheless. They are standing on their soapbox and loudly embarrassing themselves, hoping you will watch.")

Back when the Mayor and Council were elected, I thought we had chosen wisely. At times over the past year and three quarters, I've had moments of despair, but the past week or so has given me hope. The Mayor is focused on helping the city weather an economic crisis that Cauthen foolishly ignored, and the Council is actually working on something other than trying to run the Mayor's office (well, except for Ed Ford).

I'm beginning to hope that by spring, our elected officials will be acting more like a well-run student council than a self-indulgent drama club. (Well, except for Ed Ford.)

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.

Suits, Settlements and Silliness

It's always about the money, isn't it? Maybe not, this time.

For an amount rumored to be under $50,000, Ms. Bates has settled her suit against her former friend, Gloria Squitiro. Ms. Squitiro did not even know that her insurer had agreed to the settlement, and is reportedly none too happy with the result. She wanted her proverbial day in court to disprove all the allegations made against her, but, really, that was never going to happen - the court of public opinion reached its verdict long before the facts came in, and this media environment was never going to allow that court to retry that case. If a pro-Gloria version is voiced in the forest, and Tony and Yael don't approve it, does it make a sound?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the suit continues with the prime defendant on the sidelines?

I hope that attentive readers remember that months ago, at the peak moment of silliness in the so-called Volunteer Ordinance, I wrote "Something has been 'off' about the whole affair. . . . 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. . . . 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."

At this point, we now have Gloria Squitiro's liability settled, just as I had foreshadowed, for a tiny fraction of the amount the City Council wanted to spend on consultants and records checks. But the case continues on against the City Council!

While I'm confident that Ms. Squitiro is disappointed that the case got settled, I want to point out that somebody here was pretty darned smart with the money, and it most definitely was not the hysterical City Council! If I recall correctly (and I do), the only person who voted against the misguided, ineffective volunteer ordinance was Mayor Funkhouser.

So, if you're keeping score at home, we have Ruth Bates paid, we have Gloria Squitiro safely out of harm's way, and we have the City Council getting sued!

If I were Gloria Squitiro, I would take a few of my no-longer-at-risk dollars and buy a bunch of nice honey crisp apples for the council, and deliver them to their offices as a way of asking "How do you like them apples?".

Folks, it looks like all the game-playing by our squabbling, ineffective City Council has blown up in their faces.

Furious at the Former Council & Mayor

News is starting to leak out that Kansas City taxpayers are going to get stuck with a $4 million bill to cover bond payments on the Power and Light District. That is $4 million dollars getting diverted to bankers instead of to snow removal or street repair. That's $4 million dollars that ought to be spent on Kansas Citians, instead of institutional bondholders. That is $4 million this year - who knows how much we'll get stuck with in future years, as the economy slows and we realize we're throwing good money to prop up a bad investment?

It's all because of the former City Council and especially the former Mayor, who blew our tax dollars for projections based on sparkles and unicorns.

Do you really want light rail? Do you want a downtown stadium someday? Do you want snow-free streets on the morning after a storm? Do you want sewers that don't flow into Brush Creek and cause fines from the EPA?

Well, too bad. We're spending that money on the Power and Light District, instead. Instead of all those things, we're investing in tax-favored, out-of-town bars and restaurants.

Mayor Funkhouser Stands Up for What's Right - Political Courage versus Political Opportunism

Funkhouser has announced his intention to file a lawsuit seeking reversal of the Anti-Squitiro Ordinance, just as I argued that he must over a month ago. I hate to see litigation erupt, but the Council's attempt to take over the Mayor's office was a serious breach of governmental roles, and Mark's suit is important and justified not just for his own convenience, but for future councils and future mayors.

It has been mildly amusing to see pundits and observers get themselves worked up about Funkhouser's meetings at his home, when it has been obvious that Mark was simply "laying low" until after the Light Rail Election.

Of course, the expedient thing for Mark to do would be to simply set Gloria up outside the office and set her to work on a project of her choosing. Heck, if he asked her to take on elderly issues, or community health concerns, or some other topic, it would generate positive exposure for both of them. They could walk away from the pack of lies and backroom dealings that resulted in the "volunteer ordinance" and start building an invincible base of political capital for the next round of elections.

They know that. Heck, I know of at least one political coward who offered that advice.

But Mark has a lot more political courage than I do, and he's going to stand up for the structure of our city government. The council does not control the mayor, and the mayor does not control the council.

Mark is entirely capable of working under the control of the council. He did that for years as Auditor. He's great at it.

But it's not his role now, and it wasn't the council's role to pass an ordinance directing him on how to run his office. Politically, the council saw an opportunity to pick on Gloria Squitiro when she was down, and they took full advantage of that opportunity. They did what was easy and convenient and politically expedient.

Now Mark Funkhouser needs to be the grown-up who looks above the rat-pack politics of the 26th Floor and considers what is right for the future of our city. By going one way, he could join in the Council's political opportunism and make himself (and his wife) more popular than ever. By going the other way, he will expose himself (and his wife) to more hostility and frustration, but he will fulfill his responsibility to his office and to this city.

Thank God we elected a non-politician to the Mayor's office.

All Things Considered - Council's the Source of the Embarrassment, and Yael Expects No Gatekeeper

I winced when I heard that NPR's All Things Considered was going to be doing a story on the saga of the Volunteer Ordinance. I feared that they, like the local media, would mischaracterize the story as being about something other than the a power grab by the City Council in a misguided attempt to decide how the Mayor should run his office.

NPR got it right, but I'm still wincing. Our City Council was shown to be the source of the problem, interfering with a Mayor's decision to work with his spouse. NPR even went further and gave Yael Abouhalkah enough rope to hang himself, quoting him as "a columnist with The Kansas City Star, [who] says city residents don't need a gatekeeper in the mayor's office."

Really, Yael? You, in your infinite wisdom, have decided that Mark doesn't need a gatekeeper? Even though every Mayor since Henry Kumpf has had a gatekeeper of some sort? (Confession - I really don't know if Henry Kumpf had a gatekeeper - I just looked back at some historical KC Mayors and picked one with a funny name.) It takes guts for a columnist at the Star to issue such an opinion, sitting in an office shielded by more plexiglass and paranoid guards than a payday loan shop at two in the morning.

In the big picture, though, NPR saw that the City Council is at fault here. Mark clearly states that he just wants to be left alone to run his office and focus on the real city issues. The City Council, though, wants to play around with staffing decisions that aren't theirs to make. The KC Star is annoyed that Mark doesn't maintain an open-door policy that they themselves don't emulate.

Meanwhile, we had 21 murders in August, and the City Council wants to play games.

Last Thursday, I saw Alvin Brooks talk about a local murder, and he challenged each of us to think about how the blood of a hopeless young man is on our own hands. 5 or 6 Council members were there, fresh from their override of the Mayor's veto. Sadly, I doubt that any of them even thought about how their silly, unconstitutional game-playing was a part of the problem.

Instead of being on the national media for innovative crime solutions, we're on NPR because our City Council doesn't like the Mayor's wife. Our Council has chosen to focus its attention on the feisty Italian in a cubicle rather than the poor kids shooting each other, and that's what NPR found worthy of broadcasting.

How embarrassing.

Mayor Funkhouser, You MUST do your Duty

Mark, when you started out on this effort, you knew this time was going to come. You knew that the forces that have controlled the city to their own advantage were going to attempt to seize control of the Mayor's office. The time has come - not a time of your choosing, not the issue of your choosing, not even the opponents of your choosing. But you knew that it would come about like this - fighting an awkward fight on a tilted battlefield.

You must fight.

The City Council has quite literally sought to dictate who may speak to the mayor, and under what terms. The ordinance they passed has specifically included giving advice as a forbidden activity. They did so even though it had been pointed out to them that forbidding unapproved contact with government officials is not only undemocratic, but unconstitutional.

Sadly, the City Council seems to think this was simply about your wife. Indeed, they sought to hide that fact when they started on the twisted, secretive journey to passage of this ordinance. They claimed to be imposing a volunteer ordinance that applied to all volunteers, but were forced to strip away provisions that applied to the Parks Department, then to other departments, and finally passed an ordinance that was, as you wisely pointed out all along, drafted to apply only to your wife. It was sad to see how they stabbed Beth Gottstein in the back, leaving her hanging out to dry when she made the unfortunately false claim that the city council would not be so small as to draft an ordinance aimed at your wife. Even as she uttered her hopeful words, her fellow 4th District Councilperson was in a backroom boiling the ordinance down to its poisonous essence. They are ruthless, even to each other.

But, even though the ordinance was aimed at your wife, it was never about her. With all due respect for Kansas City's first lady, she was merely a cruelly chosen target for serious people with a deeper agenda. Gloria is a tool they are using to cause you pain, but, if it weren't her, it would be something else entirely. This is about power. This is about who controls the Mayor's office. More centrally, this is about money.

Dirt and concrete - not bare feet and most definitely not words between former friends - are the reasons the council has acted as it has. As you knew when you started this whole effort, Mark, there are people who make money, huge money, staggering money, based upon the decisions of the Mayor's office. For decades, those people have controlled the Mayor's office. Mayors Cleaver and Barnes, in particular, saw that things went smoother when they made sure the very powerful were kept happy. And smooth sailing for the powerful meant smooth sailing for the politicians who kept them happy. To be fair, they accomplished much that was good while they were appeasing the powerful. They were talented politicians.

Dirt and concrete - real estate holdings and construction dollars - are very, very serious matters, as you well know. Those persons who control the valuable real estate (and their lawyer hired hands and other servants of power) in our city expect to see money spent on them, and taxes abated for them. Where many of us view political involvement as a civic interest or even a hobby, these people are in it for the deadly serious money. If they dream up a new project that enhances their holdings, the Mayor is supposed to be enthusiastically behind it, even if it means taking tax dollars away from our schools, and resources away from our poorer citizens on the East side, the West side, and the Northeast. Those cops patrolling the Cordish properties are not patrolling the areas that are seeing drive-by shootings and drug dealing. Why? Because the high dollar dirt and concrete are focused on Return on Investment, not returning hope to the urban core.

The citizens of Kansas City have very few opportunities to sit at the tables of power. In fact, they have none. Nobody is going to genuinely seek citizen input on whether we should gold plate the doorknobs on the latest Cordish fantasy. Nobody expects the public to have a voice when the powers that built the fantastically expensive convention center now say it is incomplete without a fantastically expensive hotel to go with it. Nobody was supposed to discuss development tools for the East side, or pledge to pursue TIF projects that benefit the areas that are genuinely blighted.

You are that nobody, Mark, and you have the chattering and monied classes in an uproar. So those people have manufactured an issue to knock you down a notch. They want to reach into your office, indeed, into your very marriage, and tell you how and when and where your wife can give you advice. The city council is willing to do that because, in the eyes of the real estate developers and the insiders, family values evaporate in the face of real estate values.

You are at a crossroads, Mark. You can allow the city council to wildly overstep its boundaries as set forth in the Charter and attempt to tell the Mayor how to do his job. You can ignore the unconstitutionality of their sloppy, treasonous little ordinance. You can go along and get along. You can act as though this ordinance is just a little bump in the road for your relationship with the council. You can even use this as a fresh starting point, and begin a rebuilding process to become the ribbon-cutting, cheer-leading, credit-claiming Mayor that this city chose to eschew when it voted Orange. In short, you can join in the reindeer games with the council and be one of them, all to your personal benefit. If you do that, you may retire after 8 years with a solid gold watch and a send-off party sponsored by the bluest of Kansas City's blue bloods.

But I don't think you can do that. Certainly not if you are the man I hope you are.

As I said above, this is most definitely not about cross words between former friends. This is not about one of hundreds of lawsuits pending with the city. It's not about Gloria, or volunteers.

It is about power. The powers that be want to control the power that wants to be. They have convinced members of the City Council to pass an unconstitutional power grab, and even gotten them to lie about their motivation along the way. The fact that many of the majority are fundamentally good people who are acting in this manner shows just how deeply the control of dirt and concrete runs in this town.

I leave it to you and your legal team to figure out exactly how to challenge the ordinance. But I call on you, as my Mayor, as my representative at the tables of power in this city, to stand up and carry on the fight. I can't be certain whether you will win, though I firmly believe that our judicial system stands as our most steady bulwark against the corrosive effects of money, power and influence.

The powers that be, acting through their influence on a too-easily-swayed council, want to dictate who may speak to the Mayor, when, and where. It is, of course, an outrage, and it was accomplished in a back room while committee members shamelessly ignored the public speaking against it.

If you fight and win, you will have struck a serious blow in favor of Democracy.

If you fight and lose, you will have provided an example of integrity that may inspire others to continue to fight.

If you do not fight, you will gain the peace and quiet and respite of the morally dead.

Gloria Squitiro Having the Last Laugh?

Lately, City Councilmembers have been so twisted up inside with their seething need to run the Mayor's office that they even missed the humorous irony in their complaints that their own bogus volunteer ordinance is creating a circus atmosphere. When they're not threatening each other or behaving unprofessionally, they're whining and manipulating and pointing fingers.

Not a fun bunch to be around.

That's why it was so refreshing to see this light-hearted exchange between the always-controversial Richard Tolbert and Kansas City's favorite First Lady, Gloria Squitiro. In it, Mr. Tolbert proposes marriage, and Gloria accepts, with a letter to Mark explaining her decision. "He's a much more experienced politician than you are, and to top it off, he's much less controversial." Of course, if Mark and Gloria split up, there's an additional twist - "You are now free to hire me to work in the Mayor's office. That is, if you think you can afford me."

It's good to see that someone in City Hall still has a sense of humor and an ability to rise above the sniping and lying. No wonder Mark Funkhouser wants her in his office. I wish each of our City Councilmembers had someone like her around. It might do them some good.

Another Serving of Humble Pie

Yesterday morning, I admitted I was wrong in failing to recognize Margaret Donnelly's strength as a candidate for Attorney General. I'm almost never mistaken on political matters, so it represented a kick to the self-esteem. The kick turned into a full-fledged stomping, though, at the Record Bar's weekly trivia contest last night.

I had no idea who the back-up quarterback for Tampa Bay is.

I forgot that Rosalind Shays fell to her death down an elevator shaft.

I was completely worthless in the "Director Cameos" category.

And, sadly, my team wasn't much better than I was. By midway through the first round, the other teams realized it was sound strategy to shift any reasonably challenging question to us, and garner the points when we failed to answer.

Despite the humiliating exposure of gaping holes in my intellectual data bank, I got to sit around with friends, drinking good beer (it was my first sighting of Bob's 47 this year!), and laughing a lot.

I never realized that the trivia world has its own circuit, but I ran into a friend there who says he plays several times a week at different bars.

Yet another thing I didn't know . . .

Despite the blows to my self-esteem, though, at least I get to feel a lot smarter than a dozen other Kansas Citians who voted yesterday for an unconstitutional ban on regularly giving advice to elected officials. That was really dumb.

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?

5 Words for Our City Council

Yesterday morning, three members of the Kansas City Council's Finance and Audit Committee voted for new restrictions on volunteers in Kansas City. I would love to link to the language of the ordinance, because, as citizens of this city, it is your right to know what is happening, but the drafters of this ordinance are far too embarrassed and timid to put their backroom-drafted ordinance into the public eye.

Since they have hidden the new ordinance, the actual words of the ordinance are unavailable to this blog. So, it's up to us to come up with our own words this morning.

No single word accurately and completely describes the actions of councilmembers pushing this ordinance, and yet so many words apply to aspects of their behavior. So, I'm going to offer up five words which I think are near the target, but I'd really appreciate your help in choosing which one is best. Or choose your own . . .

1. Arrogant: Please watch the videotape of the behavior of the Finance and Audit Committee. Have you ever seen such arrogance at this level? Come on, Councilpeople, at least act like you care what the voters think! Obviously, the only action that the majority cared about was going on in the backroom, out of the sight and hearing of the lowlife citizens who dared to intrude on the precious time of the majority. Wow. Some of us knew those council people when they were mere mortals . . . I wonder if the ghost of Pendergast was holding court in that back room?

2. Fraudulent: While we elected a Mayor who has sought to be smart with the money, somehow our council has decided to be dumb with the money. The Fiscal Note attached to this ordinance claims that the only expense it generates will be up to $100,000 for police reports. That was never true - it was a lie covering up the vast amounts of money (millions?) which the council could have directed to their consultant friends to pay for all the training volunteers would go through. But now, according to the paper, they have restricted their ordinance to apply only to volunteers for elected officials, though it still apparently requires the City Manager to make all department volunteers to go through training. How much is this costing us? That's the dirty little secret that the majority keeps hidden. Why?

3. Cowardly: As described before, the genesis of this ill-conceived effort was the constant drum-beat of a single, repetitive blogger. Yesterday, the blogosphere chortled at Tony's victory. Tony has proven himself a stronger influence on Kansas City than any single councilperson. And certainly much stronger than the voice of reason. (As a blogger, my hat's off to Tony. That was honestly impressive. What will your next trick be? Can you get them to stand on their heads?)

4. Intellectually Dishonest. Was this ordinance focused at Gloria Squitiro? One admits "yes", one says "of course not". They claim that this is an ordinance focused on protecting volunteers, but first excluded the largest user of volunteers, and now are (apparently) excluding virtually all volunteers. Would you please make up one story, and stick with it?

5. Ineffective. The funny thing is, they have accomplished absolutely nothing. They've gone through all these contortions, and they won't get the change they want. They sought to regulate volunteers, and now they've excluded virtually all the volunteers from the ordinance. They sought to eliminate Gloria Squitiro (No, they didn't! Yes, they did!) from City Hall, and to run the Mayor's office, but it's not going to happen. All they've done is waste a lot of time and resources that could have been spent on real Kansas City priorities. While they're playing around with a dishonest ordinance that regulates volunteers but doesn't, all the priorities they were elected to address remain on the table.
_______________

Well, I could probably come up with more words than 5 to describe the debacle in the Finance and Audit Committee, but 5 will have to suffice. Fortunately, these councilpersons are not really the corrupt and inept cowards that they behaved like yesterday. These 5 words are intended to describe their actions yesterday, not their personalities nor their typical behavior. Yesterday, they behaved as I describe them, and I suspect they'll do the same thing today. They deserve our condemnation, and they will, I assure you, come to realize that they've made a mistake, just as they know they made a mistake in foolishly extending Cauthen's contract.

When they regain their sense, and look around, perhaps this will be the time that they realize that Mayor Funkhouser was right again. Their volunteer ordinance is a sham. Their extension of Cauthen was a mistake. And Funkhouser was right on both counts. It's not too late for them to start learning from their mistakes.

Kansas City Deserves Better From Its Council and For Its Volunteers

The Finance and Audit Committee is meeting this morning to hold its second hearing about the Anti-Volunteer Ordinance that the nine council members introduced a couple weeks ago. It meets at 8:15 in the morning, assuring that it will only hear testimony from insiders and the self-employed. The good people who work all week and volunteer in various capacities in their off-hours are effectively shut out from the process.

That exclusion is made even more complete by the legislative sleight-of-hand I understand is being cooked up for today in the back offices of the City Council. While the self-employed and privileged are invited down to testify this morning, they will be handed a NEW, REDRAFTED ORDINANCE when they get there. Good luck in preparing your thoughts and analysis ahead of time! Good luck doing any research to respond to the potential new flaws in the redraft of an already flawed ordinance!

(It should also be noted that the Fiscal Note for this ordinance is horribly flawed. It admits that the ordinance will cost $100,000 for criminal checks, but includes no provision at all for paying current staff or contractors for providing all the orientation and training surrounding "Anti-Discrimination/Harassment, Policy Against Violence in the Workplace, Drug & Alcohol Misuse Testing Policy, Policy Against Nepotism and instruction on conflicts of interest, confidentiality and proper use of City equipment and electronic communication devices". Somehow, that just happens for free.)

On the one hand, I'm pleased that the Council has seen the light and agreed with me that the ordinance they came up with was horribly flawed. It's refreshing to see that they realize that they made a mistake, and are endeavoring to fix it. In all seriousness, they had enough people cosponsoring the original, deeply flawed ordinance that they could have simply passed the flawed original if they truly didn't care.

But, in this case, redrafting the ordinance is simply insufficient. Is a good deed, half done, necessarily a good deed?

The Council is keeping its new ordinance under wraps until the hearing. Those of us who submitted thoughtful commentary on the original version are excluded from even knowing what will be in today's version. Given the muddled history and contradictory statements made by the cosponsors on what, exactly, this ordinance is attempting to accomplish, Kansas Citians have no reason to believe that this ordinance is much better than the version the council is now backing away from.

In this day of email and websites, there is no reason in the world for the Council to spring a new ordinance on an uninformed public at the same time it accepts testimony from that public. Volunteerism in Kansas City is an important issue, and an ordinance restricting volunteerism warrants complete and thoughtful attention.

This morning, we will get to see what the Finance and Audit Committee is up to. If they submit a new ordinance and seek further comment, then they will demonstrate that the good of the city is at the top of their agenda. If they dodge meaningful public comment and ramrod through an unexamined ordinance, they will be responding to an urge somehow deeper than presenting the best possible ordinance to the entire council.

We get a clear result this morning.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree . . .

Let me start with an anecdote.

In litigation, many decisions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. While there are rules guiding who should be allowed to serve on a jury, or what evidence should be allowed to be presented, or dozens of other decisions that get made in the course of bringing a case to trial, many of them are left to the discretion of the trial judge.

When I was a young lawyer, I was helping one of my heroes try a case. After a long day of trial work, I was complaining that the judge had totally blown a decision to our detriment. "Dan, it was a decision within his discretion," he said, taking a drag on his pipe (yes, it was that long ago that he was smoking a pipe in the office). "He has the discretion to be wrong, too."

In other words, the judge's job is to make the decision and my job was to persuade. Complaining after the fact was pointless.

A friend who knows me pretty well emailed me this week asking whether I still support certain city councilmembers after they signed on to the misguided volunteer ordinance. Like me, this person views the attack on volunteers for the city as a premature over-reaction to an undecided lawsuit and a harmful restriction on the role of volunteers in our city. I've written to them all, in a very polite and professional manner, and only one (Jan Marcason) has even bothered to reply. (Yes, I'm disappointed with the other 8, some of whom are quite efficient in writing me when they're seeking support.)

I disagree with people all the time. I strongly disagree with people on occasion. I strongly disagree with nine members of the City Council on this. I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose.

It remains my opinion that this is a very bad ordinance, chock-full of unintended consequences and bad results.

But nine city councilmembers disagree with me. And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong.

Does this mean the rest need to be voted out? Does this mean that I can assume that the others are either so stupid they can't see things as clearly as I do, or so fearful of Tony's criticism that they panicked, or that they've joined with the entrenched development crowd to undermine Funkhouser's attempts to stop the give-aways? Are all 9 stupid, panicked and/or corrupt?

Of course not. (Not all 9, anyhow.)

Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, I'm somehow missing out on understanding how throwing up huge, expensive hurdles on volunteerism is actually a good thing.

Perhaps, as happens in real life, inexplicable and apparently wrong steps are taken in a journey toward a greater result.

Perhaps they're just wrong.

For now, I'm going to go with the final explanation. They have the discretion to be wrong, and they blew it.

That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or even bad councilmembers. I disagree with them on this. I disagreed with them on their irrational decision to shower Wayne Cauthen with money and job-security after he had been caught lying on his resume, and several of them now privately admit that they were wrong.

None of us is perfect, city councilmembers and bloggers most definitely included.

If a judge consistently makes bad calls with his or her discretion, smart lawyers start taking a "change of judge" (an automatic right to get the judge changed at the beginning of a case) when that judge gets assigned to their cases. But not after a couple of bad decisions. That's just disagreement - but you learn to be alert for a pattern.

Remember Cauthen's $2.50/gallon Gas?

While pumping gas recently at $3.75 or so a gallon, I happened to recall that a few short months ago, Wayne Cauthen submitted a budget assuming gas would be available for $2.50 a gallon. Even at the time he submitted the budget, you couldn't find it for under $2.80.

I hope the City Council people who gave Cauthen a cushy 3 year contract are ashamed of themselves. Rumor has it that several of them are admitting they made a huge mistake.

They did.

Mayor, Council do the Right Thing, Accept Raise

Earlier this week, the Kansas City Council accepted a 4% raise which had been passed by the prior council.

Naturally, this triggered the predictable chorus of knee-jerk criticism. The local joke blogger claimed that the Mayor lost credibility over the move (the joke, for those who missed it, was that the joke blogger knows anything at all about credibility), the KC Blew Blog blew it again, inexplicably "blaming" the Mayor for a unanimous vote (Gottstein missed the vote), and Darla Jaye proved herself to be at the same low level of insight by claiming that the Mayor and council were tone-deaf to approve a raise when cutbacks in staff are on the horizon.

The Mayor and Council did the right thing, and should be applauded for their idealism and courage in the face of the predictable but ignorant attacks.

Kansas City's elected officials are expected to devote the vast majority of their time to their elected roles. As council service grows in complexity and the demands of service ratchet upward, it appears that the days of part-time public service are long past, at least at the level of Kansas City Council.

Long ago, the decision was made to pay a reasonable wage to our City Council for their service. Keeping that commitment up-to-date, though, requires the political courage and good judgment on behalf of the Council to approve reasonable raises.

Less serious critics, however, can have a field day attacking the correct decision. Don't take a raise while layoffs are coming, they cry. They mistakenly assert that there is somehow an inconsistency between being smart with the money and accepting a reasonable pay increase. At a time when the city struggles to find money for basic services, they argue, it is wrong to accept a reasonable pay increase.

The critics believe that they are entitled to something for nothing. They believe they are entitled to quality service without paying for it. They think that those who devote a portion of their career to serving the city should not be entitled to reasonable pay for that service.

It's a common enough misconception. But would we bat an eye if the CEO of a plumbing supply company earned 4 or 5 times as much as the mayor? Wouldn't we be shocked to find high-level managers in a company with a budget the size of Kansas City's to be earning as little as our city council?

Is it reasonable to expect good people to accept the often thankless job of public service, and, at the same time, expect them to turn down raises which were announced and expected at the time they filed for the election?

Alas, such clear thinking doesn't cross the mind of those who are looking to take a political cheapshot at public servants.

I admire the Mayor and City Council for standing up for the pay raise, and not buckling to the unthinking ignoramuses who have launched their depressingly predictable attacks.

Subtle Brilliance - Funkhouser's Triumph of Leadership

When I went trout fishing over the summer, my guide would often whisper, "Do you see that one out there?", and gesture toward a patch of stream. Despite my polarized sunglasses and best efforts, I did not have the experience to see clearly into the moving water and distinguish the shape and color of a trout among the rocks and moss in the stream. "No", I would whisper back, but cast to the spot anyhow, knowing that my lack of vision didn't mean the fish wasn't there.

Various commentators have failed similarly in looking at the budget battles that ended this week. They think they know what leadership looks like, but they don't see Funkhouser standing out in the moving waters of the negotiations like they think a big fish would.

The visible leaders in the process were Deb Hermann and Jan Marcasson, and they deserve every bit of praise they are getting. They did a superlative job of crafting a budget that everyone could sign off on, blunting Cauthen's attempts to undermine it, and making the most significant steps toward fiscal responsibility this city has seen in a decade. We are miles and miles from Cauthen's "happy face" budget that he produced in February. Instead, we have a fiscally responsible budget that begins to tie hard numbers to citizen priorities.

If Hermann and Marcasson were the visible leaders in this process, why am I praising Funkhouser's triumph of leadership?

He's the guy that made it happen. Just as Grant and Sherman deserve credit for leading the Union Army to victory, Lincoln (another tall elected official without Hollywood good looks) was the leader that saved the Union. I'm not equating Funkhouser and Lincoln, but I am pointing out that great leaders are wise enough to create conditions for other great leaders.

Back when Cauthen issued his deeply flawed budget plan, Funkhouser did something that no other recent Mayor has done. He sent it out immediately to his cohorts on the council and to the entire city, demonstrating a commitment to exactly the sort of integrity, competence and transparency which guided the voters to elect him. He set out on an ambitious and well-attended series of forums, empowering people who have never been invited to a political backroom to participate in the process.

Most importantly, he directed the City Manager to come up with a budget that really solved the structural imbalance in our budget (offering Cauthen an opportunity to atone for one of the lies on his resume). Of course, that budget was a harsh document full of painful cuts that everyone knew was dead on arrival. But it set a baseline, and grabbed the attention necessary to create change. If Funkhouser had not demanded that document, of if he had created his own harsh budget, the budget passed this week would have been a tinkered version of Cauthen's fantasy-world opening budget, and we would still be speeding on the path to financial ruin.

Another great stroke of leadership was to get behind the Hermann/Marcasson budget, even though it did not match up to some of his goals, such as putting 20 new cops on the streets, etc. Those are promises that will simply have to wait until our financial house is in better order, and a great leader is one who recognizes and supports solid work by others. Hermann and Marcasson crafted a solid budget based on financial reality, and Mark would have been foolish to let his version of the best become the enemy of the very, very good.

Remember a couple months ago, when people were actually talking about recall? Here we are, 8 weeks later, and we have a Mayor with more political capital than ever, a council with a dozen responsible members, and a budget that reflects our Mayor's values instead of our City Manager's fantasy world.

Sometimes, leadership means standing up alone in the howling storm and, through incredible feats of strength and courage, changing the future. If you were expecting Funkhouser to seize the podium at City Hall and, through a dominating personality and brimstone-filled speech, force the Council to accept a budget that was his, all his, you were probably one of those who wondered where Mark's leadership was this week.

Some people aren't very good at seeing beneath the surface.

Did Wayne Cauthen Lie on his Resume?

A lot of us were hoping that Wayne Cauthen would get the job in Austin. It would have been a positive end for him, it would have given the city an opportunity to hire someone more in line with the new council's priorities, and it would have allowed the Nine Councilpersons off the hook for the silly petulant tantrum they threw when they tried to stick us with Cauthen for 3 more years.

Alas, it didn't happen. And I think I may have found out why.

Take a look at the resume Wayne Cauthen submitted in his quest for the Austin job. Pay attention to his very first bullet point: Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget.

What?!?!

Friends, that's what we call a whopper.

Contrast Wayne Cauthen's recent resume with his recent memorandum submitting the budget to the Mayor, with the subject line City Manager’s Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Pay particular attention to the section entitled "The City’s Structural Budget Problem":

Kansas City, like a lot of major center cities in the country, has a structural budget problem. A structural budget problem occurs when costs of current and future expenses exceed current and future revenue streams. There are four criteria for a city budget to be structurally balanced and they are as follows:

1. Current ongoing revenues equal or exceed current or ongoing expenditures;
2. Planned or future revenues equal or exceed planned or future revenues;
3. Reserves are at an adequate level; and
4. Infrastructure maintenance is at an adequate level.

This budget that is presented for your consideration meets none of the above criteria. While significant progress is being made on the funding of infrastructure maintenance, and we have made progress on our reserves, the proposed budget uses a significant amount of one-time resources to balance the budget for next year; the projected deficits in the out years continue to grow and our reserves remain below desired levels.

This City has wrestled with its structural budget problems for decades. Previous budgets made great strides in dealing with the expenditure side of the equation through workforce attrition efforts such as consolidation of services; span of control reviews; middle management staffing reductions; and an early retirement program that significantly reduced overall staffing levels. In addition, the City has better aligned annual salary increases closer to annual revenue growth. Even with these significant changes, the structural budget problem persists. When revenue growth is strong, as it was anticipated just one year ago, the underlying structural budget problem is mitigated, but when there is uncertainty as to the strength in the local economy and new expenditure commitments are made, such as the City’s commitment to increased maintenance spending, the City’s structural problems re-emerge.

For a guy who claimed on his resume to have corrected our structurally imbalanced budget, he doesn't seem to have a problem submitting a structurally imbalanced budget. He even includes a segment on page 14 entitled "Staff Initiatives to Address the Structural Imbalance."

Lying on resumes is serious stuff. It's not only a major lapse in fundamental integrity - it shows a willingness to engage in fraud to accomplish personal goals.

Can anyone explain to me how the Wayne Cauthen's claim on his Austin resume was not a lie? If not, can anyone explain to me why he should not be told to clean his desk out and escorted to his car on Monday morning?