Semler Resigns

Frances Semler has resigned from the Parks Board.

So, I assume that the complaining will stop.

(I crack myself up sometimes . . .)

Can Funkhouser Save Us From Ourselves?

Another day, another "controversy". Another conversation with a well-connected political friend who claims she has heard "nobody" speak in favor of Mark, while all the "political crowd" is knocking him. Another blogger in high dudgeon because of something the mayor said that a smooth, antiseptic mayor would never have uttered. It all gets kind of exhausting sometimes, and there's a temptation to simply be done with with and join the Greek chorus of naysayers attacking our Mayor over trivialities and faux pas.

But I can't.

Something fundamental and important lies at the heart of why I continue to support our Mayor, even while disagreeing with him and criticizing him on various points. There's more to the picture than the latest gaffe, or the next one, and I sincerely believe that it's a minor battle in an epic war between those who believe in democracy and those who think we should be ruled by an elite class of politicos. The war on a national basis is going badly, with the "villagers" protecting DC as "their town", but I hope that, out here in the hinterlands, we might be able to keep a place for real citizens.

Funkhouser ran as a non-politician wanting to get the city working for regular folks. Remember that? If you don't, take a few moments and go look at the campaign website. It's a text-heavy, not-particularly-pretty website with a whole lot of focus on Mark's primary goal - getting the city to work for all Kansas Citians. I remember working on the campaign - it was a shockingly fun and amateur operation. We knew we weren't going to "out-smooth" the other operations, and we didn't particularly care to. The folksy, what-you-see-is-what-you-get persona projected waas genuine, not some Madison Avenue creation.

And the people responded. Out of a flock of primary candidates, they chose Funkhouser and Alvin Brooks to advance to the general election, by a huge margin. The next closest candidate drew just more than half the votes that Mark did. In the general election, Mark pulled out a squeaker of a victory in what was fundamentally a clean and respectful race. Brooks ran a fine and traditional campaign, with the bulk of the political establishment solidly behind him, and Funk ran a quirky and creative campaign, with orange as its color and a dog as his most popular endorsement.

When the election was over, I truly believe that the political establishment thought it had been out-Madison Avenued. Surely this folksiness had to be an act - a persona - a focus-group-analyzed, digitally-manipulated, carefully-calibrated sleight of hand pulled off by a political genius.

Because in their world, that's how it works - that's how it must work, or their entire world-view is threatened. Politics is image. Politics is shiny showmanship. Authenticity is the gold ring of slickness; if you can fake authenticity, you've got it all.

But they didn't realize that Mark didn't fake his authenticity. When he said he wanted to get the city to focus on basic services for regular Kansas Citians, they thought that he meant that his crowd of insiders would get a share of the pie that had been reserved for the TIF pigs, and they had better get in line. I was amused to see Jerry Riffel show up at the Flea Market toward the end of Mark's watch party on primary night. I was even more amused to see the crowds of dignitaries show up at the Beaumont Club on the night of the general election. "Meet the new boss, we hope he's same as the old boss."

But Mark has utterly failed to meet their expectations. He lacks the glittery, cocktail persona of Mayor Barnes. He put a bunch of barbarians on the Parks Board, a board that had previously belonged to the cream of the elite, where they worked to find things to name after each other. He has spoken bluntly, and allowed his wife (why won't that woman be seen and not heard?) to speak bluntly as well.

So the attacks have been relentless. One blogger has published attack pieces on Funkhouser and his family every day for months. At gatherings of political types, the mutually-reinforcing scoffing and disapproval has replaced the weather for banal small talk. A core of 5 or 6 commenters on the Prime Buzz turn any news into fodder for Funkhouser attacks.

All this is rolling toward the overwhelming question - can an authentic person serve in politics any more?

Because that, to me, is what it all boils down to.

Take, for example, the latest kerfluffle. Mayor Funkhouser, at a public forum, pondered whether it would help with minority recruitment to allow people with youthful felony convictions to pass hurdles and join the force. He was crystal clear that it was not a proposal he was making, but a thought for the audience to chew over (he knew he'd "get run out of town as a terrible person" for making such a proposal, despite the statistical fact that minorities have a much higher rate of felony convictions than non-minorities.)

So, how is the world reacting to this honest attempt at provoking creativity and fresh ideas to help minority recruitment? How is the "chattering class" responding to Mark's unwillingness to settle for under-representation of minorities on our police force?

They are horrified! The commenters on the Prime Buzz are aghast that Mark acknowledged the statistical facts concerning "those people". Coming a few days late to the party, the KC Blue Blog pitches a full-fledged hissy fit, opining "It's sad that we have this man as Mayor. It is insulting to all people who want to be involved in the political process."

They have a point. Mayor Barnes would never, ever, in a million years, have bothered to voice a thought about minority recruitment for the police force, unless that thought had been signed off on by a team of PR experts as well as the group of "race insiders" who have sat by quietly while minority recruitment remained stagnant. The political chattering class would never dare to speak on a topic touching on race without making certain every possible nuance to the statement passed the PC test. Humorously enough, even Mark showed awareness of the likelihood that a furor would label him as a "terrible person" for talking about the thought.

So, it boils down to whether we want Madison Avenue or the Mayor having an honest conversation at a church in the 18th and Vine Historic Jazz District. It boils down to whether we want a cagey political beast who knows precisely what questions to avoid and what issues to ignore, or whether we want a regular person to work hard to change things.

A little less than a year ago, the voters of Kansas City chose a regular person to work hard. The people who opposed that regular person didn't go away - they are still there demanding Madison Avenue. If they can't get Madison Avenue from Mark, they'll do everything they can to undermine him and make him so toxic that nobody will dare ally themselves with him and accomplish his goals. What kind of an idiot would a minority leader have to be to face the chattering mob and help Mark tackle some of these issues?

Fortunately, there are many such idiots. They are regular people, who care about our city and accept that Mark is working on their behalf. They accept that he's not perfect and he's not always polished, but he's a good man who appointed a Hispanic man to lead the Parks Board, who is willing to talk about racial issues, and who would rather take the heat for firing Cauthen than put up with his unwillingness to change his focus from serving developers to serving regular citizens.

Not surprisingly, the ordinary people who were at the forum where Mark made the "gaffe" that has the chattering class so upset weren't as aghast as they "should have" been. In fact, they appreciated the Mayor talking with them, and gave him a warm reception. They even called the SCLC leaders "fools" and applauded Gloria Squitiro. They understood the honesty and courage Mark displayed when he responded to a question about whether he is prejudiced by saying "I don't think so" instead of the dishonest but more Madison Avenue "absolutely not". In short, they accepted his authenticity and responded favorably to it.

But the chattering class doesn't accept that authenticity. When Mark behaves like a real person, they go crazy. They insist that he needs a "savvy political insider" to be his consultant, and tell him what he can and cannot say. They insist that he needs to be just as polished and just as smooth and just as antiseptic as a national candidate. They insist that his Christmas letter must be written by a committee of serious people in suits.

Are they right? Can Mark govern effectively even if his family Christmas letter is a little coarse? Is that really an issue that could matter? Can the thousand paper cuts inflicted by a furious group of insiders really bring down a Mayor who has set out to make this city work for regular folks? Will the voters who voted for a regular person be persuaded that they really wanted a slick, smooth-talking politician instead? Is the average Kansas Citian more concerned about one seat on the Parks Board than better basic services in our city?

What frightens me is that, if the chattering classes have their way, we could have neither. Ed Ford managed to foment and channel anger at Mark's handling of Cauthen's termination into a foolish attempt at sticking regular Kansas Citians with 3 more years of a bad City Manager. Will other City Councilpeople see that the political insiders don't support Mark, and fail to support him in his efforts to help our city? Will those who attack Mark for failing to be their Madison Avenue ideal prevent him from achieving his real world goals?

Can Mark Funkhouser save us from ourselves?

80,000 Reasons to Use a Pro

I know how to change my oil. I could figure out the basics of plumbing. I've done some decent carpentry work in the past. I've never done it, but I bet I could figure out how to roof my house.

Despite all these talents, I rely on experts to do all those things for me. Because they do it time after time, and are up-to-speed on any new techniques or materials, they are simply better choices. While I could do the job, they probably will do it better, and certainly more efficiently.

This morning, the Star is reporting that the Funkhouser campaign finance reports have an $80,000 discrepancy in them. Funkhouser assures us that an explanation is coming, but it's not here yet. The campaign treasurer has been Funkhouser's wife since Evert Asjes (an experienced campaign person) resigned a few months ago.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that anything sinister is going on here. I am 100% confident that there is a reasonable explanation, and that all the money will be properly accounted for.

But this is why it's smart to rely on a professional rather than doing everything yourself. A professional would have caught the discrepancy before the report was filed, and either corrected it or had a cogent explanation ready.

The next time my car needs an oil change, I'll bring it to a professional. That's one less thing for me to worry about.

Disagreeing with the Mayor

Funk has announced his support of the current smoking policy, which is that smoking is legal in bars and restaurants until 80% of surrounding areas enact a smoking ban. He explains:

I intend to follow through on the promise I made during the campaign for mayor, and that is to honor the current ordinance, which represents a compromise that was reached after a very long and sometimes contentious period of public debate. [. . .]

I believe that it would be disrespectful to the process if we were to back away from the ordinance now. And I believe it would be dishonest and disingenuous if I were to break my campaign promise.

Well, I disagree with his position. The prior council's action was a backroom response to bar-owner bullying, and I expect Funk to rise above that kind of politics. Reading between the lines, it sounds like he shook hands with Nigro on this point during the election, and given the narrowness of his victory, it's possible it was a necessary handshake in order to put himself in position to become mayor and achieve his other reforms. If so, it was probably a smart move.

Fortunately, Mark's just one vote on the Council, and the signers of the petition have done the work to force the issue onto the ballot despite his opposition. I believe that the majority of the council will shepherd the issue through the process, led by Beth Gottstein, who has taken a leadership role in this issue. I trust the process.

I disagree with the Funk on this issue. It doesn't mean that he's a bad mayor, it doesn't mean that I want to recall him, it doesn't mean that the sky is falling. It certainly doesn't mean that I wish Brooks/Glorioso had won. It doesn't mean that I am going to turn this blog into a receptacle for a daily ani-Mayor rant.

It merely means that two people who care deeply about our city disagree on a point. The next time I see him, I'll politely express my disagreement. That's the way adults handle disagreements.

I Have a Feeling We've Been Here Before

In the interests of efficiency and clarity, I want to use the occasion of a Christmas letter to provide a written guide for Funkhouser over-reaction. Since it's quite clear that the people who prefer the status quo will continue to leverage every single opportunity to undermine those working for change, it will be to everyone's benefit if we all understand our roles. So here's the script - we all know our parts.

1. The Mayor or his wife does something unpolitic. While I remain a huge fan of the Mayor and am excited about the good things going on substantively, it would be dishonest to deny that most of the controversies arise from behavior of the Mayor's office that would never had occurred if we had a smooth, mainstream, poll-reading, establishment Mayor. The voters elected someone who ran an advertisement based on a dog's endorsement because they were ready for some fresh perspectives, but the political consultant class was aghast. The voters elected someone who ran his campaign out of a doublewide, but the political insiders are accustomed to slick varnish. So, when the Mayor's wife writes a letter that no member of the Junior League would ever write and no issue of the Independent would ever publish, the over-sensitive hot-house flowers who populate the political insider class begin to hyperventilate. Those people have not, will not, and cannot accept that a political outsider won a major election in "their" town, even though the voters seem pretty happy with their decision.

2. The blogs go into a tizzy. Tony's KC is one of the top 5 or 10 local blogs in terms of readership. It's just a joke blog, but most of us read it regularly, and Tony has posted something negative about the Mayor almost every single day since the election - often, more than one negative post per day. Again, it's just a joke blog, with a flair for racist and misogynistic humor, so most people don't take it too seriously, but it only takes a few nutcases to get overwrought by that brand of humor to go out and stuff the comment sections of more serious blogs with insanity.

3. Someone calls for a recall. This is the sympbolic "beginning of the end" for any Funkhouser controversy. Truly informed Kansas Citians know that people calling for recall are are stating boldly and clearly that they do not know what they are talking about, but they want attention nonethless. On the "controversy" about the Christmas letter, for example, people were hitting the recall button within hours of the "story" breaking.

4. After the "recall whistle" gets blown, most serious people realize they've been acting foolish, and begin catching their breath. Not all of them, of course, but the smart ones begin to look around and ask themselves questions like, "Why did I allow myself to get so excited about a Christmas letter?"

5. Meanwhile, our Mayor continues working on his priorities. Fortunately, Funkhouser continues to work for the good of all our city, being smart with the money and making the city work for regular folks, just like the majority of us elected him to do.

(A word for some of my commenters: Please read the above carefully before jumping to your conclusions. If you do so, you will probably notice that there isn't a defense of the Christmas letter itself in there. Personally, I would neither have written it nor sent it, but that's a matter of personal taste. Personally, I worked for Mark's election more for his desire to run an effective city without bankrupting it for TIF lawyers, not because I was under some mistaken impression that he was a smooth politician.)

Seems Unhinged

I wish I had some insight to offer about today's Council action, purporting to extend Cauthen's contract. Seems illegal to me, and it certainly seems like bad judgment. Seems like some people went way out of their way to be ugly today. Seems like they focused a whole lot more on vitriol and vengeance than on the good of the city.

I hope things aren't what they seem.

Update: Terry Riley Proposes Keeping Cauthen, Converting Channel 2 to Travel Channel

Terry Riley is choosing to get out in front of the Cauthen termination. Alerted that Funkhouser has no intention of introducing an ordinance to retain City Manager Wayne Cauthen after disclosure of his wild and extravagant personal travel billed to the taxpayers, Riley is fighting back.

His plan is to convert cable Channel 2, currently devoted to City Government, to a new Travel Channel, to be called Wayne's World. In it, Wayne Cauthen will chat about his world travels paid for by the taxpayers.

They're still working on the concept, but the first shows will be airing soon -

"3 Days of 'Work', 4 Days of Play" - a recounting of the lavish trip to Victoria, British Columbia with his wife, at which he spent less than half of his weeklong, three grand trip attending a "conference".

"Mile High Club" - how to spend more than $1500 on a flight to DC.

"What the Halifax?" - spending $1400 on a trip with no further explanation than "business conference".

"River Walking on the Taxpayer" - sometimes, on the way back from DC, you feel the urge for some Tex-Mex, so why not make it a three-city trip for $1500, even if you have no other apparent reason to go to San Antonio?

There's much more in development, of course. The jaunt to Paris, the visit to Bourdeaux . . .

Some of the other City Council members are complaining that they weren't fully informed about the change in Cauthen's outlook. Of course, as a taxpayer, I wasn't fully informed about their desire to change Channel 2 into a travel channel, but I won't complain. Like them, I should have expected something to change when I picked up the Pitch . . .

Cauthen Loses Sweet Gig

Today, Funkhouser announced he won't let Cauthen keep his job. Last week, the Pitch reported, "Cauthen spent $32,163 on 23 trips between January 1, 2006, and October 8, 2007." A lot of that expense was incredibly shady.

Any questions?

Funk's First 7 Months - a balanced perspective

A few commenters have asked my perspective on the first several months of Mark Funkhouser's administration. I've been tempted to avoid the request, because there is a vicious, vociferous gang of critics who have lost the ability to modulate their outrage at Mark and anyone who does not advocate public flogging for him. In typing this post, I realize that my motives, my rationality and probably my lineage will be attacked by anonymous commenters. But I hate to let the bullies silence a balanced perspective, so here goes.

Addressing the Big Issues:

First off, it's impressive that we're talking about big issues. No previous mayor has done such a forthright job of focusing attention on an agenda of major issues, rather than jumping between issues du jour. It's right there on his business card: Council, Finance, Downtown, Neighborhoods, Housing, Education, Crime, Sewers, Transit and Citizen Satisfaction.

By focusing on those issues, Funk and the council stand a chance of making lasting, systemic improvements rather than applying bandaids to the papercuts that happen along the way. His attention to the council has allowed him to lead as the first among equals, and achieve a majority on the votes that he needs. I am NOT claiming that Mark is buddy-buddy with the entire council, but I am happy to see that he's found ways of achieving concensus by focusing on common interests.

Finance is where Mark is likely to achieve his most important impact on KC. Let's face it, very few citizens and only a few city hall denizens really "get" city finances. Our prior mayor gave money out to clients of her friends like she had a printing press in the basement. Funk's job is to restore a sense of discipline and to find a way to pay the bills. In gaining passage of the Economic Development and Incentive Policy, Funk and the council have at least defined a rational set of policies. Now, if we can stick to it, we might begin to build our way out of our predicament. When you're in a hole, stop digging - Mark has stopped the digging.

Downtown was underway long before Mark took office, and it would be dishonest to claim its success or failure thus far depends on him. One telling anecdote about his character came in the handling of the Hannah Montana ticket shortage. Rather than taking the politically expedient route toward popularity and slamming AEG for not making more tickets available, he met with Brenda Tinnen, the Sprint Center General Manager, and learned what a good job she is doing. He wound up working with her and developing a positive relationship that can only help downtown succeed. By eschewing cheap political points, he helped KC and downtown stay on the road to success.

Neighborhoods and Housing, specifically on the East Side, have been a focus of Mark's tenure. The overwhelming passage of the Sales Tax Renewal was due to the shift in money to the neighborhoods. He is quietly and effectively directing the focus of the city to neighborhood support. Most recently, he appointed Alexander Ellison to the Citizen Advisory Committee on Housing Policy, to work on developing housing policies for the city. It's almost embarrassing that Mark gets to claim credit for moving the city toward a more engaged response to the declining housing stock in our city, but such is the history of neglect toward the impoverished in KC.

Funk's coming Educational Summit will be an attempt to assess where we are and find positive areas of common agreement in educating Kansas City's children. Here is an issue that Mayors have historically taken a "free pass", since they do not control any of the dozen plus school districts that educate Kansas City's children. "That's not my job, talk to the school board" has been the historical response of prior mayors, but Funk is seeking to engage and provide some positivity. At the very least, the TIF policy has slowed the redirection of tax money from the schools and into the hands of real estate developers.

Crime is another area where the Mayor's role is limited. He has a seat on the Police Board, which Mark has taken seriously, but, in all honesty, I'd have to give him a grade of "incomplete" on this issue. Light rail, economic development, housing, education - these are all important issues which could have an impact on crime in Kansas City, but there's been no breakthrough or major development regarding crime in Kansas City.

What kind of a Mayor lists sewers on the back of his card as a priority? Our declining infrastructure requires that we begin work on upgrading our sewers, but most mayors have preferred attending ribbon cuttings than working on this non-sexy issue. Mark and the council have formed a Water Services Utility Funding Task Force to assist the Water Department in coming up with solutions, but it's going to be a long process. Again, hurray for getting us onto the right path, even though he hasn't solved the problems by a long shot.

Regarding Transit, the big issue is light rail in Kansas City. Despite the efforts of some naysayers to claim Mark is somehow against light rail in Kansas City, Mark has successfully guided the council toward repealing the misguided Chastain plan, and is working on leading us toward a regional plan. Regardless of whether such a plan is going to get approval in Topeka and Jefferson City, we will make real progress toward mass transit in Kansas City during his first term. By the end of 2008, we'll have a real plan, and that will be a huge success that has eluded this city for way too many years.

Finally, on Citizen Satisfaction, people are enthusiastic about Kansas City again. Parking has worked out for the Sprint Center. Mark has held numerous public forums, and listened and responded to average citizens in a way that would have frightened our upper-class prior Mayor. Listening to citizens who are not heavily involved in Municipal Government, I hear good things and a lot of evidence that Mark is viewed as a champion of "regular folks".

Listening to insiders and the people who are accustomed to arranging high-dollar TIF with a phone call to the Mayor's office, I hear a lot of dissatisfaction, which, frankly, pleases me. I had the pleasure of listening to a TIF lawyer from one of the large firms in Kansas City complain that "the process is so much tougher now." Awwww. I've heard arrogant "leaders" in a tizzy about a gossip column interviewing the Mayor's wife. I've seen bloggers devote literally hundreds of posts to slinging whatever mud can be found or imagined, and I've noticed the slackening amount of attention those posts draw. I've seen "savvy insiders" get exposed as blustering fools by huffing about schemes like "recall". In short, I've seen the people who fought hard to defeat a populist candidate complain that they're stuck having to deal with a populist Mayor.

Stumbles Along the Way:

No balanced perspective on Funkhouser's first 7 months can ignore the stumbles along the way. Though they seem kind of petty compared to the progress on major issues discussed above, Mark has given the nattering nabobs of negativity too much material to chatter about.

The Semler appointment should never have been made. In appointing a wonderful new Parks Board, chaired by the superb pick of John Fierro, Mark failed to fully vet Frances Semler, a rose-growing grandmother from the Northland who seemed harmless enough until her views on things other than parks and roses seized the spotlight. I still argue that Semler is a less pernicious appointment than Tim Kristl was, but that's a form of amoral relativism.

All told, though, it's kind of encouraging that the major strike against Funk after 7 months is one appointment to a board that, prior to that appointment, would have drawn a blank stare from all but the most insanely informed citizen if asked to name a single member. It's been a pretty darned good run thus far, and there are signs that Mark is growing in the sort of instinct necessary to avoid the sort of gaffes that get the perennially petty so worked up.

Looking Forward:

I've heard Mark compared to Jesse Ventura, and, while the analogy is intended to be insulting, I don't think it's totally inept. Both come from outside the usual breeding stables for political candidates, and both won with creative and populist campaigns pitted against a stagnant political elite. Both "politicians" have a tendency to step in "it" on occasion, and neither seems convinced that their highest priority ought to be avoiding controversy.

Ventura, of course, decided against running for a second term in the face of an increasingly negative political outlook. It turned out he was all style, and no substance.

Funkhouser presents the flip side of that coin. Mark is all substance, and very little style. It turned out that his quirky campaign and odd charisma eked out a victory over Same Old Same Old. Now, he is in a position to do the work he really wants to do. He's managing to get legislation passed. He's managing to keep focus on the big issues in our city. He hasn't been so seduced by a shiny soccer stadium at Bannister that he is willing to give away the Super-TIF farm (can you imagine how Kay would have gushed in her hurry to put on her ribbon-cutting outfit?), though he is working toward making it happen.

I'll go ahead and issue a prediction here. Mark will be reelected in 2011 by a margin greater than Barnes' 60-40 trouncing of Stan Glazer. He'll do so by continuing his dedication toward real improvement in our city, and by his constant contact with the voters of Kansas City. He won't be a stranger reintroducing himself after a four-year absence - he'll be a familiar (and distinctive) face they'll recognize from dozens of community forums and appreciate for his common sense focus on making the city work for them.

At least that is what it looks like at this point in time. There's a whole lot that can and will happen between now and then. So far, so good.

Trouble with the Treasurer

If you're coming here for inside skinny on Funkhouser's appointment of Gloria to serve as Campaign Treasurer, I'm sorely lacking. But the facts on the table are sufficient to spark some thoughts.

This is another classic Funkhouser dust-up. I am completely capable of arguing that this is no big deal. It's not, really. The campaign treasurer position is highly public, and, as Mark mentioned in the Star's article, people will have the opportunity to examine every detail of every transaction. Also, it's a stop-gap, temporary thing, during a time when the campaign isn't going to be raising or spending much money at all. No big deal. No blood, no foul. Sure, it looks a little bad, but don't be ridiculous - nothing bad is going to happen.

And, really, the people screaming loudest are performing their typical roles. Some hysterical commenter has started shouting about racketeering, and claiming that Funk has contempt for the people of Kansas City. It's tempting to argue in favor of the decision solely to poke the easy holes in the logic and language of commenters like those, and to distance myself from their sloppy, strident silliness.

My ego enjoys the sport of swatting fools (it's so darned easy!), and my stubbornness inclines me to launch the best valid defense available - which is, as argued above, that it's no big deal.

So, it's all laid out in front of us, and we all know our appointed roles. I'll be cool and logical and perhaps a bit defensive, and a few commenters (you know who you are) will be all over the place, making unsubstantiated claims and crazy leaps in logic. If that's what you came here for, I've laid it out already above, so have at it.

But I'm having some difficulty playing my part this time with any sincerity. Maybe it's a cold coming on. Maybe it's the sense of deja vu. Maybe, even though I am fully capable of explaining it away, the appearance of this particular problem is just a little too jarring for my explanation to bring me complete satisfaction. Really, if a good man like Evert Asjes resigns because of problems with payments involving Gloria, replacing him with Gloria might not be the best solution.

Surely there ought to be somebody, anybody, else. If Jeff Simon (the deputy treasurer, and one of the most ethical and clear thinking people in the city) was too busy with his work and family, they ought to have been able to find someone else. It concerns me deeply that there's nobody else around to step in.

But I've seen the damage done by the harping and attacking by the constant critics. It seems like the Funkhousers are relying only on each other. In her gossip column interview, Gloria said "What my husband lacks, I make up for," and asked "where do I begin and Funk ends?" I notice an absence there - an absence of other people. The "kitchen cabinet" hasn't met for a while, and has no meetings scheduled. If rumors are true, good, old friends are alienated. While it's understandable to circle the wagons when under attack by constant, thoughtless, unfair, vicious critics, but it seems like we're headed toward having only one wagon, and only two people on it.

I appreciate the motivation behind Gloria's involvement. I don't think it's bad that she plays a role in the Mayor's office. The Mayor's office is not a one-person shop. Unfortunately, it's not a two-person job, either. It's a team job, just like the campaign was. It's time to start bringing in some new people, or reconnecting with old people.

Appointing Gloria to be campaign treasurer looks bad, though I can argue that it's not. But allowing your circle to shrink so small that you have to turn to Gloria is bad, and has me deeply concerned.

Well-Played, Mayor's Office

I was surprised to see that Hearne Christopher scored the interview with everybody's favorite target for talk, Gloria Squitiro. Surely, given the incessant chatter among city hall gossips about the First Lady, the interview should have gone to one of the more serious people at the Star . . .

Upon reflection, though, it seems absolutely perfect that those who choose to focus on the sideshows of negativity while ignoring the strengths and accomplishments of the Funkhouser administration are now chattering about a freaking gossip columnist. It's a not-so-subtle clue that those who salivate at the thought of slamming Squitiro are simple-minded, frivolous gossips.

For an administration that gets accused (by those same people) of a lack of sophistication, I think we just saw a masterwork of putting the issue onto the proper agenda.

Bravo!

Tony Makes a Claim. Blogosphere Believes It. Again.

Cue Roger Daltry . . .

A local joke blog with a penchant for making stuff up about the Mayor (daughter in a towel) and other organizations (La Raza is coming) is now making assertions without evidence. Yawn. Blogs who were fooled before are making silly assumptions and demands based upon the probably-false "story". Snicker.

If that's what you're looking for here, or for a spirited game of "what if", you're going to be disappointed.

Kansas City Isn't Good Enough for La Raza?

She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
'Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over.'
- T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

It's disappointing that the national convention of La Raza is rejecting Kansas City because it disagrees with the politics of a member of the Parks Board, but, really, I'm glad it's all over. The drama and headlines were getting awfully tedious - especially when you realize that they were all over a convention that will take a few phone calls to replace. Yawn.

One of the amusing sidenotes to this controversy is the "economic impact" argument. People with no regard for the truth (and joke bloggers) will claim that La Raza just took $5-7 million away from Kansas City. Those numbers are made-up, porous nonsense. We do, however, get a free $75,000 because La Raza breached its contract. Love it.

Another amusing sidenote is that La Raza is having its next convention in San Diego! No, really, they are going to take their convention to a place where the STATE REPRESENTATIVE (that's a slightly more important office than Parks commissioner) is a huge, vocal supporter of the Minutemen, and much of the population is active with the organization. When asked about the hypocrisy inherent in the discrepancy, Janet Murguia claimed that it was somehow better that the state representative had been elected by the citizens!

WHAT?! Does that make any sense in any universe? La Raza would rather go someplace where racism has been embraced by the populace, rather than Kansas City, where there's an insignificant parks board member who supports the Minutemen?? Really?!

Maybe, just maybe, there's something else going on here. Maybe somebody talked a bit too much, and tried to spin this into a bigger power play than he could handle. Maybe vocal parts of the local Hispanic community got behind the loudest and most strident voice, instead of the most responsible and smartest voice. Maybe the local Hispanic community is going to be seeing a little shake-up in its leadership.

Or, maybe not.

La Raza thought it could bully our mayor around. In fact, they could have. Who doubts that he would have gone pretty far with concessions and compromises? But La Raza made the mistake of drawing their line in the sand, and pushing for the right to control every single appointment in this city, down to the Parks Board. And nobody in his or her right mind wants that.

So, La Raza is off to sunny San Diego, where they can see Minutemen supporters on every corner of every street. I wish them a safe and happy journey. Whichever convention takes their place here in Kansas City will see a far more tolerant community that can only be pushed so far.

Thank you, Mayor Funkhouser, for your good-faith efforts to bring the La Raza National Convention to Kansas City. Thanks, also, for not caving into La Raza's ridiculous demands. The vast majority of Kansas City appreciates your handling of this manufactured showdown.

Ten Dollars for Tony's City Hall Credibility?

Back in mid-July, when Tony became "One Trick Tony" with his "Bash-a-Day" obsession over Kansas City's Mayor, he started a "Cauthen Countdown", because he was convinced that Funkhouser was going to fire City Manager Wayne Cauthen.

While I had never discussed Cauthen with Funkhouser or anyone on his staff at the time, I knew that Tony knew as little about City Hall politics as he does about Sprint Center parking, so I offered a little wager - I'd donate $10 to a charity of his choice if Cauthen was gone by 10/26, and he would do the same to a charity of my choice if Cauthen was still in place.

It's now looking like I was right, though the date hasn't yet passed. Is Tony still confident that he was correct in his "Cauthen Countdown"? Or was it all just a shout for attention - one that he would rather forget now that events have undercut his credibility on the issue?

Kind of places his talk of Funkhouser's lack of popular support into a different perspective, doesn't it? It certainly sets the credibility bar for Tony's talk of recall . . .

Why is Joe Serviss in My Funny Pages?

Why in the world would Hearne Christopher treat us to Joe Serviss' thoughts on Mark Funkhouser's administration? (No link because the Star's webmasters are probably making the editorial call that the FYI editors failed to make.) Serviss was one of Kay's closest cronies, and now he's chatting with Hearne about how he would improve on Funk's mayoral performance. I happen to know and greatly enjoy Joe Serviss - he's a KC original, and a true character - but his views on Funk are neither informed nor newsworthy - not even to the minimal standards of a Hearne Christopher column.

Making it even a little more creepy is the fact that he wrote about "fantasiz[ing] about what it might be like to party like a politician in former KC Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Joe Serviss’ bachelor boudoir" on Sunday. This is getting unhealthy.

I've personally heard Joe say some outrageously foolish things about Funk, but never thought to report on them here, partially because I like the guy too much to embarrass him. I also see no need in encouraging the Barnes camp to continue its poorly thought-out campaign against Funkhouser when they are supposed to be running against Graves. (Yes, there are Funkhouser supporters who would much prefer that Barnes defeat Graves, but everytime Glorioso or Serviss opens their mouths about Funk, our enthusiasm wilts.)

Irony 501, Remedial Logic 101

Sr. Theresa Torres teaches in the Sociology Department at UMKC, and her column about Funkhouser and Semler manages to combine a graduate level of irony and a remedial level of logic. While decrying the harmful impact of inflammatory language, she violates Godwin's Law, and draws a comparison between those she presumes to lecture and the Nazis. Yes, indeed, she criticizes inflammatory language with a Nazi comparison. Wow. The nuns who taught me would have rapped my knuckles with a ruler for such a gaffe.

She then actually argues that Funkhouser should back down on his principles if they prove costly. Wow. The nuns who taught me would have sent me to Sr. Anita's office if I had made such an unprincipled, immoral argument.

I share her wish that Semler would resign, but I think that she should stick to sociology, and leave the logic to her superiors.

(Here's a link to the article as it appeared in the paper. The original link leads you to the Prime Buzz Blog, which is free again.)

Mayor's Education Summit - Brave Idea - Can We Pull It Off?

One of Kansas City's greatest civic concerns is the education of children in its urban core. For the past several decades, parents of school-age children in Kansas City, Missouri have struggled with either finding schools they like, or moving to the suburbs. Much of the growth of Johnson County can be attributed to the perception of educational opportunity.

Despite the prominence of education as a civic issue, Kansas City's mayors have been granted a "free pass" on getting involved. The Kansas City, Missouri School District is not under the governance of the Mayor - it is an entirely separate beast. "Not my problem" has been the general attitude of city government toward education in Kansas City.

Mayor Funkhouser was elected to eliminate politics as usual in Kansas City, and this is one area where he is making some progress. He is working on putting together an educational summit in January to find areas where the community is "on the same page" about education. "It is time to stop talking about the city this, the schools that, it's time to get on the same page," Funkhouser said.

I've been involved in some of the early planning for this summit, and it's important to keep in mind that this is a community issue - not a KCMSD event. Education in Kansas City's urban core comes in many forms - there are private schools, charter schools, home-schoolers, and religious schools. Students, parents and teachers are obviously interested in the issues, but so are employers, real estate developers, unions, police, suburbanites, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if we could draw people from all over our community and find five or so areas of agreement on urban education in Kansas City?

It's almost sad that we are at such a fundamental stage, but we are. Already, I can see that there are those who want this forum to be a referendum on Mr. Amato, or a sales job for the community schools idea. Already, I can see that some people want the whole thing to be about the KCMSD - and I think that would be misguided in a half-dozen different ways.

Education in Kansas City's urban core is a community issue, and, if this education summit is going to be more than just another "bitch and defend" session about the KCMSD, it needs to draw in the entire community.

I hope that every community-spirited individual in the Kansas City metro region puts a tentative "save the date" note on January 15, and starts thinking about education in Kansas City's urban core. Mayor Funkhouser could have washed his hands of this issue, but he's trying to accomplish something positive. It is an issue for the Mayor, and it is an issue for all Kansas Citians.

One Trick Tony? A Voice Becomes a Single Note.

A commenter on Tony's Kansas City today called him "One Trick Tony" and speculated "What will Monday morning's baseless attack on Funkhouser be about?". While the comment seems a little harsh, it did raise an interesting question. While Tony used to be a site that was notable for its varying content, it has evolved into a one-stop shop for reliably negative commentary on one pet subject - Mayor Mark Funkhouser.

I did a little quick tallying, and it appears that Tony has posted 26 separate posts attacking Mayor Funkhouser in 24 days he has posted so far this month. That's more than one a day. He's also attacked Mark's wife 7 times, and even attacked his child.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Tony's obsession. Blogs exist with all sorts of single-minded purposes. I used to contribute to one devoted to Matt Blunt, but I think we all grew bored with the constant negativity. But there are blogs devoted to knitting, to cats, to roses, and, now, one devoted to hatred of our Mayor.

One of the funniest notes in the month by Tony was his claim that he was "every bit as rough with [Kay Barnes'] administration". Out of curiosity, I checked out what he was writing during this month of last year. Oddly enough, Kay Barnes received only 7 mentions in July of '06. And none of them rose to the level of bile that Tony has been dishing day in and day out toward Mayor Funkhouser.

It can be difficult, as a blogger, to come up with something to write about. Tony has apparently found his subject, just as Boswell found Johnson. He might not be as interesting or unpredictable as he once was, but he certainly is reliable. What will Tony's Funkhouser attack be about tomorrow, and which member of the family will he go after?

Subsidized Saturday

Without thinking about it, I double dipped two scoops of municipal pleasure on Saturday, with a round of golf at Minor Park Municipal Golf Course and an evening of jazz at the Blue Room. In both instances, I was able to access first-class services at prices that made it affordable - I doubt I would have had it in my budget to pay the going rate for a round of golf at a private golf course, and I expect that the opportunity to hear the Will Matthews Quartet in an intimate venue would not even exist in Kansas City without the subsidized Blue Room.

Both experiences were excellent. Minor Park Golf Course lacks the hills, breathtaking beauty and ball-swallowing challenge of Swope Memorial (one of the best municipal golf courses in the nation), but it is a great place to go out with a few friends and walk the course. Despite Minor Park's reputation at a beginner's course, we finished our round in a little under four hours. The club house had signs up that the back nine holes will be closed from July 25 through August 10 at they install zoysia fairways. Next time I play, it will be wonderful to see those zoysia fairways, and, dare to dream, maybe even land in one.

That evening, my lovely spouse and I went to see Will Matthews, a jazz guitarist whose solo CD I discovered in a cut-out bin and bought on a whim. I've seen him live a couple times since, but this was the best show yet. All four members of the quartet launched into great solos - with the drummer shining in particular - and they put it all together for some great originals and classics. Body and Soul stood out as a highlight of the evening. We were able to get a great table right near the band, and enjoyed the smoke-free atmosphere of the Blue Room immensely. BTW, I grabbed a card for their Indigo Hour, which is an every-Friday happy hour from 5 - 7:30, with $2 drinks and appetizers, and door prizes. Sounds like a good thought for a culturally-aware blogger meet-up, don't you think?

In both cases, an argument could be made that taxpayers should not be subsidizing my pleasure. Dogmatic limited-government types would claim that dollars spent on golf and jazz are dollars diverted from crumbling inner-city streets and police protection.

In a sense, they are right, but they are wrong on the larger point. I love living in Kansas City because of what makes the city what it is. Minor Park and the Blue Room make Kansas City more than just a bunch of homes and businesses connected by steel-plated roads.

This morning's Kansas City Star reports that Mayor Funkhouser is directing his Parks Board to increase citizen satisfaction. According to a recent survey of Kansas City residents, 49 percent were satisfied with park maintenance and 19 percent were satisfied with youth athletic programs. The real room for quick improvement, though, lies in the 32 percent of the more than 4,100 respondents who said they seldom or never visited the parks.

KC Blue Blog: WTF (Wildly Trashing Funkhouser)

While I think the KC Blue Blog is one of the top 5 political blogs in the area, its writers have been in a petulant funk ever since the voters of Kansas City dared to elect Mark Funkhouser to be our Mayor, ignoring the KC Blue Blog's endorsement of his opponent. Since that time, the KCBB has been frothing in its hatred of Funkhouser, which is sad but not unusual for the losing side in an election, even those who advise that after an election we should "move into a united community of progress".

Lately, though, the anger has spilled over toward those of us who dare to voice or write supportive things about Funkhouser. I attracted the ire of the KCBB for pointing out that I'd rather have Joe Miller assisting Funkhouser than a snake oil salesman like Steve Glorioso (a pretty noncontroversial position that KCBB found necessary to misrepresent before attacking). This morning, Star Columnist Mike Hendricks drew the fury of voter-scorned KCBB for his column making the similarly noncontroversial point that Gloria Squitiro, like Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and other political spouses, has the ear of her spouse. Yeah, really, "they" did it. (KCBB writers have adopted the royal "we" as a mark of their superiority.)

To work themselves and their Brooks-supporting dead-enders into a frenzy, "they" once again misrepresent the point of Hendricks' column. Laughably, "they" claim that mentioning Gloria Squitiro in the same column as Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton means that Hendricks is somehow claiming that there are no major differences between the three women. "They" then go on to claim that Hendricks is comparing Funkhouser to Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Of course, he makes no such claims, but KCBB has a strange need to be angry about anything which is not hateful about Funkhouser, so the truth is sacrificed on the altar of false reading. KCBB builds straw men, and burns them to make the sacrifice complete.

It also seems that KC Blue Blog has fallen victim to a sad lack of humor - a common malady of the self-righteously indignant. Despite Tony's frequent warnings that "TKC is a joke/humor blog", KCBB misses his humor and claims that Mike Hendricks rips off Tony's posts. Some bloggers have a vastly over-inflated sense of blog influence. The fact that the Kansas City Star writes about current events in Kansas City does not mean that they are ripping off blogs which are also writing about current events in Kansas City. Of course, no Kansas City Star journalist would get away with making such a goofy charge without even a citation, as KCBB has allowed itself to publish.

The political world is not always gentle, and I understand that even intelligent and good-willed people can have their feelings hurt by a candidate who dares to succeed where they have intoned that they will fail. But, really, it doesn't do one's credibility any good to attack Mike Hendricks for "pretending to know a single thing about politics" for writing a column mildly supportive of a candidate you predicted would lose.

Criticizing Funkhouser where he is wrong is certainly justified. Personally, I have disagreed with his selection of Semler for the Park Board, and I pointed out that accepting the Honda was not the smartest thing he could do. I called his appointments outside of the application process "a bonehead play".

But there is a line between legitimate criticism and constant, irrational slamming of a new Mayor who is getting his feet underneath him. Please, KCBB, get over your disappointment and move on. Right now, you and Tony (again, a joke blogger) are distinguishing yourselves in your unrelenting attacks on Funkhouser and anyone associated with him. At least Tony is trying to be funny.

Today's Defense of Funk

I suspect I will get a few blog-hits from people wondering what my defense of Mayor Funkhouser will be in light of the Star's report this morning. In a nutshell, Funk has established a wonderful open application process for his appointments to city boards and commissions, but then went around that process to appoint Frances Semler and Tyrone Aiken to the Parks Board without having them apply.

My defense is . . .

Umm, I can't really defend this decision. It was foolish to undercut the good work of setting up an open process by using the back door for personal favorites.

The foolishness is heightened by the fact that it could have been avoided so easily. If he had called and told them to fill out an application because he would like to appoint them, nobody could really complain, and the same result would have been reached. They could have come in through the front door by filling out a simple form.

This flap is all the more surprising because respect for process is one of the real strengths of Mayor Funkhouser. His auditor background and well-earned reputation for substantive competence should have prevented this headache. The problems he has run into up until today have stemmed more from political inexperience - he failed to foresee the ferocity of the anti-Semler sentiment, and he didn't anticipate the PR cost of the Honda deal - but nobody could really complain that he wasn't following transparent rules in either case.

So, yeah, I'll agree with those that want to call this a bonehead play.

But, to avoid disappointing those who come here to attack a Funk supporter, here are a few further points to consider:

1. It was a bonehead play to skip the application process, but let's remember that every single appointment made by Mayors Pendergast through Barnes skipped the application process, too. I'm glad Mark has set up the process, and I hope and expect he'll be using it religiously in the future.

2. It was a bonehead play to skip the application process, but let's not over-react. It's not like he incurred millions of dollars in debt on a risky development scheme, or gave away school money for TIF developers. It's not like he invaded another country on false pretenses. This is a mistake, not a scandal.

3. It was a bonehead play to skip the application process, but the timing of it is worth remembering. It's hitting the papers today, but the mistake was made way back before Semler was appointed. It's not like Mark is waking up every day and blundering into a fresh faux pas before lunch time. It feels like Funk is making new mistakes all the time, but we're really just learning new aspects of an old one.

4. It was a bonehead play to skip the application process, but let's hope he's learning from his mistakes.

Let's Be Careful What We Wish For in Funk's Office

The "cool kids" of conventional wisdom are decrying the absence of a "seasoned political pro" in the Mayor's office. Kraske and most local bloggers repeat this conventional wisdom with the blase' confidence of people who simply don't have a clue about what they're saying.

Like most conventional wisdom, it is heavy on the conventional and light on the wisdom. What they're really saying is that Funk needs a savvy political insider who knows how to "get things done". What they're really saying is that things run more smoothly when you have someone like Steve Glorioso or Pat Gray running things in the Mayor's office. What they're really saying is that the rag-tag group of volunteers and friends that ran Funk's successful campaign (while people like Kraske were predicting he'd finish way back in the pack) aren't savvy like they are.

My bet is that it just isn't going to happen. Mark didn't fight this fight so that conventional political insiders can continue to manage the message. He ran because this city needs change, and he's going to bring it. And he's smart enough to know that you can't alter the way things are done by acting like nothing's changed.

I 100% agree that a seasoned political pro could have helped Mark avoid the Honda flap, and I also agree that it would have been better, at least in the short run, if he could have avoided that flap. I'll even agree that it's quite possible that the coming months will see similar dust-ups when Mark says or does something that bothers people - especially when he upsets the current power structure.

Here's some free advice from someone who understands how Funkhouser thinks far better than Steve Kraske does: Get used to it - it's going to be okay.

I've alluded to the fact that these next four (perhaps eight) years are going to be a civics lesson for us all. We're going to see how decisions get made, and we're going to see the real battles that are going on in our city. A seasoned political pro might have figured out how to get Semler on the Parks Board by cutting a backroom deal with Hispanic "leaders" before the announcement - perhaps by agreeing to put Fierro in as chair and a couple other concessions (probably involving city contract dollars for the "leaders"). The result would be almost the same, but it would happen in back rooms and we would know nothing about it. There would be a Friday afternoon press release that nobody would notice, and things would continue on in their Barnes-like way.

The only way to keep everyone happy in our city is to make no hard choices, and to spend money like a drunken sailor. If Mark wants a smooth term of office, he knows how to accomplish that. He's seen it done.

Smoothness may be a political virtue, but it's not high on Mark's list of values. In our discussion of the Honda flap, Heidi reminded me of the page where Mark set forth why he was running. On that page, Mark says that the four qualities Kansas City needs in a leader are authenticity, integrity, competence and transparency. That's what our little orange revolution was about - not smoothness and business as usual. If that is what we wanted, we had a fine man representing those values as his opponent.

I know that there are those that question whether Mark's integrity has been compromised by the Honda flap, or by the Semler appointment. I also know that if Joe Miller (Funk's director of communications) were more like Steve Glorioso, we might never had discussed those issues. They would have been "handled" outside of our view, and Kraske would never have noticed.

I'm not really an insider, but I'd bet you a thousand dollars that Joe Miller is not getting chewed out by Funkhouser for failing to avoid the public reaction to the Honda deal or the Semler appointment. Instead, I'm reminded of a conversation Joe reported on in his blog a while back:

I said to him, "I've been thinking about these insiders we keep talking about" -- a big part of our campaign platform was against The Insiders -- "and it occurred to me that a lot of these people were reformists 30 years ago."

At this, Mark kind of laughed and nodded his head.

"So do you ever wonder if we'll wind up the same way?" I asked.

Mark immediately said no, claiming he's "too old" to fall into such pitfalls. "Besides, that's why I have you," he added. "To keep me from (messing) up."

But, he admitted, there is this thing known as "The Iron Law of Oligarchy." It's an old political science theory, advanced by a man named Robert Michels in the early 20thn Century. Michels studied labor movements in Europe in the 19th Century and he found that they invariably lost their democratic and populist spirits and were taken over by exclusive groups of insiders. They inevitably became oligarchies.

When I pressed Mark a little bit on his optimism and resolve, he admitted, "I'm as human as anyone." But, he said, "I have a lot of faith in democracy."

That, my friends, is why we're not going to see a seasoned political pro come in and protect Mark from public opinion. I expect that as time passes, Mark will get a little better at anticipating and avoiding unnecessary outbreaks of negative public opinion (such as the Honda deal), but it's not really his highest priority. He accepts his own fallibility, and doesn't really want to appear perfect. He's not perfect, and what's the point in trying to lie about that? More importantly, though, he doesn't fear public opinion. In fact, he's counting on it. His Director of Communications is not there to protect him from public opinion, he is there to seek it out. And to keep him from falling in with the insiders.

Now do you see why Joe Miller is there instead of Steve Glorioso?

Clear Thinking About Funk's Car

The Star and a few bloggers have been striving mightily to manufacture a scandal out of the fact that Mayor Funkhouser has accepted a Honda Hybrid Civic from Tiffany Springs Honda. The Star managed to keep the nonstory front and center for at least 4 days, and several bloggers (like Tony and Heidi - who has a funny take on it, I must admit) have whipped themselves into a frenzy over it.

People, if you stop to think about it, it might not be the smartest thing he could have done, but it is certainly No Big Deal. Let's take a few seconds and walk through a few points.

1. It's not illegal. Governments run by rules and laws. There is no rule or law preventing this gift. If we want to pass one, let's do that, but let's not get the cart before the horse.

2. It's not anything new. People have given gifts to mayors in the past, and nobody has squawked about it. Why should this mayor be held to a different standard? Because Mark is so determined to be up front about everything, we happen to know about this one, but we have no idea who paid for what in prior administrations. And you'll note that nobody's talking, either. Methinks that's a can of worms nobody wants to open. Mark, on the other hand, is doing this the right way.

3. Our other politicians get free gifts all the time. Go through the lobbyist disclosures if you want to see free gifts. Check out how Kit Bond went fishing in Alaska. I know that "everybody's doing it" is a pretty weak moral justification, but, the fact is that everybody IS doing it, and it's legal, and you don't see the Kansas City Star flogging the story on the front page for days on end. Why the double standard?

4. It's Too Late. If a politician is going to be bought by gifts, it's not going to happen when s/he's in office. Funkhouser just wrapped up a campaign season of calling everyone in town and asking for money. (As did every other candidate.) If you are concerned about grateful politicians, look at their campaign disclosures. (Note that the Republicans have abolished limitations on donations in Missouri.) Why pretend that Tiffany Springs Honda, which was probably only looking for a little favorable publicity, is a bigger threat to governmental integrity than the law firms, real estate developers and political clubs who give money when politicians are really desperate? If you want money out of politics, you need to look at public financing of campaigns.

5. "It doesn't look right" is fuzzy thinking. When pressed to justify their complaints, many of Funkhouser's critics resort to the last refuge of fuzzy ethics - "It just doesn't look right." That question draws the question of "Why doesn't it look right?", and there's no good answer. It's not illegal, it doesn't violate any ethical codes, and it's nothing new. The only thing that makes it attract any attention is that the Star and a couple bloggers have decided to try to manufacture a controversy out of it.

***********

The only reason we even know about the car deal is because Mark Funkhouser is running the most transparent administration in Kansas City's history. As a result, we're going to be treated to a bit of a civics lesson. If Barnes had accepted a gift (who paid for all those damned flowers?), we wouldn't hear about it and we wouldn't have to think about it. I like this way a lot better.

I Was Wrong About Semler

After reading comments here and elsewhere, reading a great email from a friend, discussing it with my lovely spouse, and weighing my own feelings on the matter, I've realized that I'm wrong about Semler, and that Funk ought to do whatever he legally can to get her to step aside from the Parks Board.

My defense of the appointment centered on a flawed proposition. I argued that her position on border security is irrelevant. As stated, I still think that's essentially correct, but it ignores the fact that the Minutemen are not solely about border security. In her own statements, she's gone further and suggested that all immigration should be stopped. From what I've read, the Minutemen are a disturbingly nationalistic group with an anti-immigrant stance.

If they really were a group solely concerned with humanely stopping the illegal and dangerous (to all) flow of immigrants through the desert, I might have had a leg to stand on. But they aren't, and they're a bad enough group that I wonder if Semler really could serve effectively on the Board. Would she support bilingual information where appropriate? Would she support ethnic festivals?

Similarly, I was right in theory but wrong in practice when I argued that "If Funk withdraws every appointment he makes that has a questionable view, he's going to be subjecting himself to an impossible and unprecedented standard." Semler is not simply a person with a questionable view - she's a person whose beliefs are nationalistic in the sense that the Nazis were nationalistic. I'm correct in arguing that appointments shouldn't have to pass everyone's PC purity test, but I'm wrong in implying that belonging to the Minutemen is simply a failure to be PC.

Finally, I ignored the fact that, as a Parks Board member, she would be a leader in Kansas City. I don't insist on perfection from my leaders, but I do expect sanity. Just as I didn't feel well-represented by TIF pigs and millionaires, I shouldn't accept leadership whose views are repulsive. We deserve better voices.

So, thanks to the commenters who voiced their concerns and disagreement. I was wrong, and you were right, and you convinced me.

I'll resume being infallible with my next post.

Funkhouser Remakes the Parks Board - Bring on the Funk!

I tend to run in traditional liberal circles, and a lot of my friends could not bring themselves to place faith in a bean-counting white dude to make real changes in the way our city runs. People even whined when he opened up the inauguration ball to the whole city, and disclosed who paid for it.

Mark took another step toward opening up the city in today's announced Parks Board. He has appointed John Fierro, the Executive Director of Mattie Rhodes center (and a heck of a good guy) to be president. John is one of the community's most respected voices focused on improving life for the Latino community, and his appointment as president is a message that the Latinos on the West Side and in the Northeast will be heard.

John is the only incumbent - he will be joined by the following:

• Tyrone Aiken, executive director of the Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey.

• Frances Semler, a Northland neighborhood activist.

• Aggie Stackhaus, a former City Council member and former chairwoman of the Land Trust of Jackson County.

• Ajamu Webster, a founding member of the Kansas City chapter of the National Black United Front and president of DuBois Consultants Inc.

I don't know which one of these will have the honor of displacing Tim Kristl, but I like to think that Aggie Stackhaus will take his seat. The beauty of having a scrappy woman-of-the-people like Aggie replacing Tim "TIF Pig" Kristl would rival the beauty of any of Kansas City's wonderful parks.

I'm pretty certain that the average income of this important board has dropped by at least a digit.

Thank you, Mayor Funkhouser, for your work in giving us a government that reflects our city.

Time to Abandon the Funk?

Recent coverage of Mayor Funkhouser has provided a case study of perspective. I've made no secret of the fact that I have backed Funkhouser from the day he announced, and I continue to do so. I think he'll make positive changes to our city, and change the atmosphere of "Rich developers first, common folk last" that, in my opinion, is what the Barnes administration morphed into. But this post is not intended to focus on the merits of Funk.

Now, I see the Star and some of my fellow bloggers turn on Mark, and it's odd to be in a pro-mayor mindset. He throws a free party for the city, and discloses who paid for it, and people attack him. He keeps driving his economy car instead of an ugly behemoth Barnes chose, and people attack him. He pays his Chief of Staff a typical salary, so the Star adds in money he had already earned and attacks him for it. He shows up at a George Clinton concert, and people attack him.

The thing is, I get it. It's a matter of perspective. As a contrarian, it's your habit to pick up whatever nugget of information you can get, and inspect it. Hold it up to different kinds of light. Turn it upside down. Compare it to other nuggets. And, if you can find something negative about it, scream it from the rooftops.

I just can't get there right now. Sorry.

When I began supporting Funkhouser, I thought he was a policy wonk with a straight-shooting, call-it-like-it-is approach and a quirky charisma. Nothing has happened yet to change my view. It's not that I'm being stubborn, or a pollyanna, it's just that I haven't seen anything that changes my mind about him.

But, here's where it gets interesting (well, I guess you're the judge of that). I know myself well enough to admit that, if Brooks were mayor, I might take shots at his inauguration party, no matter what form it took. I might question his choice of car, or Chief of Staff. (I wouldn't criticize him for going to a George Clinton concert, though - that's just wrong.) Maybe I wouldn't, because I genuinely like Brooks, but I sure as hell would if Barnes were somehow still in office . . .

More frighteningly, I probably wouldn't even know I was doing it. My hypocrisy would be unconscious and, thus, probably incurable. I wouldn't be taking cheap shots at Barnes - I would be exposing her corruption and wrongheadedness. I would be full of the same moral superiority that the Funk-slammers are feeling now.

And I'd think that anyone who defended Barnes was ignoring the signs of her corruption and spinning the truth to avoid facing it. Stupid kool-aid drinkers.

A part of me wants to get back onto the attack. And, I promise I would if Funkhouser really did do something that altered my view of him. But the fact that he won the election was not enough to turn me around.

Truth be told, I think bloggers are more valuable in the role of critics of power, and Funk now has some power (though not as much as the status quo). But I can't bend my view of the truth just to jump back to my preferred role.

The guy I helped elect is, in my opinion, doing a good job so far. The criticisms thus far have struck me as strained and artificial. When I read about what he's doing on the inside, I'm wildly impressed. He wants to strenghten and broaden communications between his office and regular voters - I genuinely believe that. And he's insisting that his people remember to be good people first. I know Mark, I know Gloria, I know Joe Miller, I know Ed Wolf - I trust them. Maybe I'll be disappointed in them at some future date, but I haven't been so far.

I had a lot of fun recently with a commenter who did not have his facts straight, and wanted to accuse Funk of being paranoid. One of the things that struck me in the exchange was that he felt entitled to be wrong - that if his attack was in the ballpark of the truth, it ought to stand unchallenged.

Sadly, I acknowledge that, in other circumstances, I might stand alongside him. I see people take quotations from rightwingers out of context or twist their words slightly so that they say something egregious, and then bash away, and I don't often correct them.

I'm not going to jump over and join the "gotcha" crowd on Funkhouser. I still see him as a good man with great priorities. But I hope that the experience of supporting the man in titular power forces me to be more self-critical in the positions I take in opposition to those I oppose.

And if I ever criticize someone for liking George Clinton, my son will boycott Father's Day.

At the Scene of the Crime - The Funk's Inauguration

I was there. I saw it with my own eyes, and, now that it's attracting media attention, I might as well come clean. I was at the Inuagural Ball that the Star reports is drawing criticism for its expense. I'll even admit that I was at the more restricted pre-party, where the drinks were free and deals were being cut in the dark corners of the room.

It was awesome. By virtue of being there, I have a municipal judgeship lined up for myself, my wife is getting 10% of the action on the next Briarcliff expansion, my daughter has a summer job lifeguarding at the Miller Nichols fountain, and my son has received a lucrative commission to write a play about the election, with Adam Brody playing Joe Miller and Yao Ming in a breakout role as the Funk. All that, plus the turkey sandwiches were good and the Boulevard Pale Ale was cold.

Just as the critics of the party have pointed out, that is exactly how it works. The Star, in its almost-helpful manner, lists the $10,000 sponsors, but hides the complete list of donors behind the wall at PrimeBuzz, where absolutely nobody can see it.

The list of donors is crucial to understanding why this party was so important. If not for this party, such entities as the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and JE Dunn Construction and DST would not have any opportunity whatsoever to influence policy in this city for the next four years. Bill Dunn, Pete Levi and Tom McDonnell would be stuck waiting for an opportunity to try to get through on one of Funk's upcoming call-in shows for their voices to be heard at all if they had not sponsored the party.

I share with the critics a certain nostalgic yearning for the good old days, when Mayor Barnes threw her party for only $30,000, and stuck taxpayers with the tab, without inviting the entire city. Ahh, yes, those were the days, when the city administration was above influence by wealthy donors. And she didn't pack Union Station with a bunch of commoners who picked up their tickets for free at a community center - instead, she limited access to those who could afford to pay for a ticket. It was so much nicer then - you didn't have to worry about seeing poor people at the inaugural ball and you got to make taxpayers pay for most of the party. Wine tastes so much better when it's paid for by those unsophisticates who don't know how to get TIF status.

Yes, I was there this time. I was one of the couple hundred people jammed into a concrete room where I could barely hear anything. Let me tell you, it was a bacchanalian carnival of power and influence.

Though, frankly, I prefer the old way, when those $10,000 donors simply met quietly and privately with Mayor Barnes in a cozy booth at the Capital Grille, and nobody had to know about it, and no list of donors appeared in the paper.

More on Funk

In the comments to my post about Funkhouser's refusal to go along with Kay Barnes' decision to stick him in an ugly car, several commenters have chosen to ignore the attempted humor and act like this minor flap is full of portent for the next four (or 8!) years. In the funniest hissy fit, one anonymous commenter wrote: "I voted for the man twice and as Roberto de Vicenzo said 'what a stupid I am.'" When I expressed my amusement at his fickle support, he elaborated: "It's not just the car. The car is old news, as far as I'm concerned. It's the special treatment he requested for Ed. It's the fact that he thinks he has a mandate even though he only won by 850 votes. It's the whole inauguration issue, not wanting to use the ballroom. It's the paranoia. It's the salaries he's paying his people."

I'm responding with a front page post because Funk's performance as mayor-elect is a legitimate topic of thoughtful conversation, beyond whether he should ditch the car idea entirely and fire up a Harley . . .

First off, I think my anonymous commenter and people like him are awfully quick to throw up their hands in worry. He's not even in office yet! The car thing is a silly diversion, and it's a silly diversion brought on by Kay Barnes waking up the morning after the election when her candidate lost and deciding to make an autocratic (pun intended) decision messing with Mark. The fault is on Barnes. Same thing with ballroom - Kay wanted it to be her party, and Funk wanted it to be the people's.

Anyone who wants to question Mark's choice of Ed Wolf for Chief of Staff doesn't know Ed Wolf. He is the best man for the job. Period. If you'd rather have the sort of mayor who would fail to do what is best for city government because he is afraid to change an ordinance, I don't understand why you voted twice for Funk.

Finally, as for the mandate - what do you propose? I agree that the margin was slim, but he's the mayor. He's not mayor 51% - he's our mayor 100%. Do you think he should govern as if he didn't really win? Whether he won by one vote or one hundred thousand votes, he's not going to govern effectively if he is afraid to make decisions or is filled with self-doubt. And he's not - in the times I've seen him since the election, he has seemed strong, confident, and purposeful. He's exactly who I knew him to be and exactly what this city needs right now. The margin of the last election is yesterday's news - after four years of better services and a stronger city, I predict his margin for reelection will set records.

Finally, a word about the "paranoia" label. It started with Glorioso, and that fact illustrates its absurdity. It may be impossible to be sufficiently paranoid when Glorioso is involved. He is the Jeff Roe of the backroom democrats - the subclass of the party that prefers to cut deals in smokey rooms and make sure the current elite stays on the inside. He'll manipulate and spin anything to make his side (the side that has made city hall into a hog trough) retain power. Anybody who wants to change things in Kansas City cannot be too paranoid of Steve Glorioso.

See you at the inauguration party!

In Defense of the Brooks Campaign - 10/10 Hindsight

As mentioned below, the pundits are having a field day criticizing the Brooks campaign for coming up 1010 votes short in Tuesdays election. Typical is Steve Kraske, who is beginning to resemble that guy in the Fed Ex commercials who is always wrong, and is shocked to learn they don't get "French benefits". He wrote:

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign. The mayor pro tem’s campaign at times appeared invisible. So much ammunition was at his disposal, such as the former city auditor’s call to privatize the water department or raise trash fees, not to mention his startling one-time advocacy for school vouchers.

All that’s fair game. It didn’t have to mean “going negative.” But Brooks, a former cop, only flicked a jab or two at forums and his campaign, led by venerable tough guy Pat Gray, forgot to step on the gas.

“It never got off the ground,” said former City Councilwoman Teresa Loar of Brooks’ campaign.

From the start, this was Brooks’ campaign to win. He had every advantage: the money, the campaign team, the big-time endorsements, the name identification, the title of mayor pro tem, the unwavering backing of Barnes and decades of community service in his hip pocket.

But that wasn’t enough to sufficiently motivate his base. His numbers paled in comparison to another prominent black politician, Emanuel Cleaver. As good a guy as Al Brooks is, as much as he’s contributed going back decades in this community, he’s no Cleaver.

His campaign gave him no help in making up the difference.

I've got to call bullshit here.

While it's true that Brooks and Funkhouser both ran remarkably positive campaigns, and it's true that, all things being equal, it might have grabbed some attention if Brooks had gone negative, it is not true that such a move would have resulted in an uptick of votes for Brooks.

Such thinking assumes that the Funkhouser campaign would have remained static. Sure, I could beat the hell out of Mike Tyson, if I got to throw all the punches. Who knows how Funkhouser would have responded? I'm certainly not going to go negative now, but I suspect Funkhouser could have responded with similar, fact-based material that would have weakened Brooks' positive image.

Those who are decrying Brooks for running a clean, positive campaign, and claiming they could have done better, are using sloppy logic. Yes, some pointed criticism of certain audits drawn out of context could have changed the landscape, but the response from the Funkhouser campaign would have changed the landscape further. Perhaps the changed world would have resulted in a Brooks victory, but such a result is by no means certain.

The only thing that would have been absolutely certain is that Kansas City would have had an uglier Mayors race.

To claim that Brooks ran a bad campaign because he didn't go negative and came up 1010 votes short is to engage in utterly false hindsight. The race was run on the high road, and both candidates were wise and honorable to stay up there.

Back When We Were Foolish

Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Mark Funkhouser on November 22, the day that I heard he was going to make a run for the Mayor's office:

Thank you for being willing to take on the job. You'll be a great mayor. I don't have access to polls and I haven't talked to the "insiders" (like the ones who were so confident that Wheeler would win), but I can see you coming in first with a plurality in the primary, and riding a populist wave. I think you're going to wake up with a huge job on your hands come March 28th.

From his response:

I like your analysis of the situation a lot. I heard a political insider say I'd finish 7th or 8th and my response was "I'm going to win this thing."

So, I was a couple hundred voters off from him winning the plurality in the primary, but that's not too bad an analysis for an amateur. Meanwhile, the "serious" and "informed" "experts" were providing "analysis" that said things like Funkhouser was a 10:1 long-shot to even make it out of the primary. The "experts" told us things like "Voters won't care about TIF - it's too complex a message," and "You can't win with that name." I cannot count the number of times I had people smarter than me tell me that this was a fool's errand and a waste of time. But when I looked around the campaign committee and saw people like Joe Miller and Jeff Simon and the Wolfs and Ruth Bates - I saw good solid people full of hope, and it was contagious.

Even today, the know-it-alls are insisting they know it all. From Kraske's column this mornning:

Funkhouser, who padded a fairly stodgy persona with his “The Funk” moniker, pulled off a win even though he was outspent 2-1 and operated the most unorthodox campaign I’ve ever covered.

No campaign manager. No phone banks. No fancy high-dollar consultants. No focus groups. No polls. Just a few good folks down at the “doublewide,” as the campaign cleverly referred to its 18th and Summit trailer-turned-campaign headquarters.

And gaudy orange-orange, for gosh sakes, as a trademark campaign color.

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign.

The column then goes on to lay out how the brilliant Steve Kraske would have won the race for Brooks.

Yeah, whatever.

My point in writing all this is not to claim I'm a political genius, because I'm not. And it's certainly not to gloat - my respect for Alvin Brooks remains untarnished.

But what I am trying to say is that the emperor/experts aren't wearing any clothes. The "experts" who say that money is everything are wrong. The "experts" who say that endorsements make the difference are wrong. The "experts" who say that "serious" campaigns have self-proclaimed wizards like Pat Gray or Jeff Roe running them are wrong. They are lying to you.

If Funkhouser can win, we can get some Latino representation on the Council, maybe even Rita Valenciano. If Funkhouser can win, Mark Forsythe and Deth Im can win future races.

That's not to say that money, endorsements and experienced campaign consultants won't help. It's not like saving Tinkerbell - merely wishing and clapping won't do it. And even if things go well, there are more losers than winners in Kansas City politics. But it can be done, and don't let the people who are supposed to be smarter than you about these things tell you otherwise.

Every now and then, a naive amateur has more sense than Steve Kraske.

FUNKY Town

Now get out and vote for the man who drives Barnes crazy!!!!!!!

Call me a cab . . .

Among the countless details I've learned about our two mayoral candidates, today's Star brings the innocuous but potentially upsetting detail that Alvin Brooks does his jogging at midnight.

I don't know about you, but, before today, if I were driving home at midnight and saw Alvin Brooks jogging, I'd pull over and call a cab to drive my drunk ass home.

Briarcliff TIF Pig Kristl Abuses His Seat on the Parks Commission

Tim Kristl is notorious for his, umm, moral flexibility in juggling many roles to benefit himself and his clients at the expense of Kansas Citians. Not surprisingly, he is one of the biggest TIF pigs behind the "Briarcliff TIF Boondoggle", the absolute nadir of Kay Barnes' free-spending cronyism.

In today's Kansas City Star, Kristl abused his seat on the Kansas City Parks Commission to lash out at Funkhouser once again. Tim, we understand that you have been feeding at the TIF trough for years, and that you fear that Funkhouser is going to bring some sanity to a system which has made you insanely wealthy. We understand how frightened you must be, knowing that the TIF audit Kay Barnes and Al Brooks are hiding is going to expose you and your cohorts when it finally comes to light. We understand that your history of seeking money from boards you are serving on has lowered your standards of personal behavior.

But get this straight, Mr. Kristl. Your duty as a member of the Parks & Recreation Board of Commissioners is "To improve the quality of life by providing recreational, leisure and aesthetic opportunities for all citizens and by conserving and enhancing the environment." Your duty does not include lying about what Funkhouser's audits have accomplished. Your duty does not include taking advantage of your position to try to attack the man who will be ending your ride on the gravy train.

One of the best things about seeing Funkhouser win this election will be watching him drive snakes like Tim Kristl from positions of influence and back under the rocks where they belong.

Is the Barnes TIF Tax-Give-Away Train About to Leave the Station?

One of the fascinating aspects of this mayoral contest is the inability of Mayor Kay Barnes to cope with the fact that she is finished. She is twisted up inside about the fact that Mark Funkhouser is likely to win, instead of her chosen Mayor pro tem, Alvin Brooks. She's ranting to anyone who will listen, and rumor has it that she is willing to say or do absolutely anything to prevent a new voice in City Hall.

Tony's Kansas City reports on what must have been one of the oddest scenes in Kansas City's strange political history. Kay Barnes held a secret gathering of "her people" to warn them that the gravy train for TIF pigs would end if Mark Funkhouser wins the election. Tony reports (apparently via the KC Prime Buzz, where the Star puts the material it doesn't believe Star subscribers deserve),

Mayor Kay Barnes endorsed Alvin Brooks for mayor at a private meeting she held last Thursday with a select group of KC business leaders.

Barnes secretively arranged the 8 a.m. breakfast at the Downtown Marriott, which Brooks attended.

In her invitation on Feb. 28 to about two dozen people, Barnes wrote:

"I wish to discuss with you my thoughts on the general election which will be held only 27 days from now. I am concerned that the progress we have achieved, in large part because of your efforts, is now in jeopardy."

Among the persons invited by Barnes: Lawyers Herb Kohn, Jack Craft, David Fenley, Jerry Riffel, Michael T. White and Mike Burke.

What kind of panicked insanity is this? Each of those lawyers is a TIF tax give-away lawyer - each of those lawyers makes hundreds of thousands of dollars by shifting tax dollars from our potholes and police into the pockets of wealthy developers.

Why are all these TIF tax give-away lawyers so excited to have Alvin Brooks step into Barnes' shoes? Because Alvin Brooks, in his 8 years as council person and Mayor pro tem, has never, ever voted against a single TIF give-away. Not a single one. Every time that some developer came to him and said "Rather than having tax money go toward helping Kansas Citians, I want you to give that money to me," Alvin was there to say "Yes". When 88% of tax dollars were going to the wealthiest districts, Alvin was there to ignore the East side in favor of the wealthy.

Did Alvin Brooks stand up for the poor when the Briarcliff zillionaires wanted tax dollars to line their pockets? Of course not. Instead, he stood up at breakfast with Kay to ask those TIF lawyers for campaign contributions.

At the Flea Market last night

The evening started out the way the campaign began - kind of a ragtag, polyglot collection of true-believers and political neophytes. Many of us wore orange, but a lot of us hadn't gotten the word, so we didn't even look like a spiffy campaign group. But it was a warm and friendly group of nervously optimistic people who gathered to crack wise and wait for numbers at the Flea Market. Not a tie to be seen, except for Mark's orange one.

Flash forward a few hours and several Boulevard Irish Ales . . .

Holy Crap! It really happened! We're in the general! And the people who weren't there at the beginning start rolling in. Jerry Riffel is chatting with a reporter. Mike Sanders and Charlie Wheeler have both come by. Kansas City's political insiders crowd around the star of the hour, Kansas City's next mayor.

Joe Miller is on a bar stool off to the side, and I finally get to meet Allie. She's charming and happy and way too good for Joe, but that's the way most successful couples are.

We have a whole new campaign now - 4 weeks in a race between two vastly different people. I've always liked Alvin Brooks, and I hope that nothing over the next 28 days changes my mind.

I bet there'll be more ties at the next watch party . . .