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

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

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

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

Heny Rizzo voted for special insider privileges.

Dan Tarwater voted for special insider privileges.

James Tindall voted for special insider privileges.

Scott Burnett voted for special insider privileges.

Dennis Waits voted for special insider privileges.

Fred Arbanas voted for special insider privileges.

Bob Spence voted for special insider privileges.

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

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

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.)

Thoughts from Last Night's Ethics Forum

The Committee for County Progress hosted an Ethics Forum last night. Micheal Mahoney served as moderator, with panelists Rep. Paul Levota, Rep. Jason Kander, and David Levinthal, the Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics in DC. The panel was great, the discussion was informative, and the crowd was a who's who of up-and-coming politicos. I don't have time to do one of my typically verbose descriptions of the event, but here are a few observations:

Paul Levota is funny. At one point, Mahoney was pressing Levota on the unlikelihood that the Missouri Senate will accept contribution limits. Mahoney pointed out that little will be accomplished by sticking to the issue accept to use it as a campaign weapon. "That's the plan," Levota deadpanned.

Transparency is crucial. One of the big problems in Missouri is that donors hide behind committees. When checks get funneled from "Missourians for Good Things" to "Missourians for Awesome Things" and then to "Missourians for Nice Things" and then finally to the candidate, it's awfully hard to track the dollars back to the special interest pulling the strings.

Jason Kander is funny, too. Commenting on a fellow representative's $100,000 donor, Kander pointed out that the donor probably gets his calls returned faster than the representative's children. (Maybe that isn't funny.)

The Center for Responsive Politics is a tremendous resource. Levinthal was well-informed, completely balanced and thoughtful. The Center is non-partisan, and his straight-arrow style made clear that he is interested in good government, period.

The candidates are out to see and be seen. The crowd was peppered with candidates in up-coming races. I hate to mention names, because I don't want to neglect anyone, but Crispin Rea was a welcome presence, along with his campaign treasurer Theresa Garza Ruiz. I finally met Jeremy Ploeger for the 51st district, and Geoff Gerling, candidate for the 46th District.

Where were the County Legislators? The only County Legislator in attendance was the always-wonderful Theresa Garza Ruiz. This came as a bit of a shock, given that it was a forum on Ethics sponsored by the Committee for COUNTY Progress. After the legislature's embarrassing and anti-ethical attempt to avoid ethical home rule, it seems that more of them would have an interest in the topic. Fortunately, Henry Rizzo's opposing candidate and likely replacement, Crystal Williams, was present.

Speaking of Theresa Garza Ruiz . . . I had a brief opportunity to speak with her about her sudden removal as Chair of the Justice & Law Enforcement committee. Despite her degree and experience in law enforcement, she was unceremoniously dumped from the committee, and the "dumper", Henry Rizzo, didn't even talk with her about it first, before awarding the committee Chair to a convicted felon. Theresa didn't have much to offer by way of explanation of this baffling move, other than to point out that the claim that it's part of a normal rotation of chairs is demonstrably false.

Micheal Mahoney knows his stuff. Mahoney did a great job of moderating the event, and the high point came when he ran factual rings around a loud audience member who was claiming that money is the be-all and end-all of politics. Mahoney pointed to the Carnahan/Talent race, and when the blustery but ill-informed talker pushed on, he pointed out that the Mayor was also not the leading fundraiser in his election. It was an amusing and deft evisceration of an anti-Funkhouser activist who seemed to be substituting volume for accuracy.

It's wonderful that so many people care about ethics in Missouri. On a Thursday evening, a healthy crowd of people came out to a mid-town law office to participate in a high-level forum on the topic of dollars and politics. That's a pretty impressive level of interest, and the CCP deserves credit for putting on the forum.

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

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

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

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

January 22, 2010 by McKay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Arbanas Stepping Down from Jackson County Legislature? Democracy or Backroom Deal?

Fred Arbanas has served on the County Legislature since it was founded. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not - he was elected in the first class of legislators under the Home Rule Charter in 1973, and has served ever since.

Among the County Legislators, however, he is the only one without an active campaign committee on file with the Secretary of State. His prior committee folded in 2003, a few years after the County Government took on the burden of cementing his name recognition and stature by naming a multi-million dollar golf course after him.

Since then, Arbanas has not faced a challenger in either a primary or general election.

The upcoming elections, though, present a vastly different picture. After the botched attempt to dismantle Ethical Home Rule brought shame to the Jackson County Legislature, and in the aftermath of the shot of adrenaline provided to young Jackson County Democrats by the election of President Obama, a lot of people are looking to run in 2010.

Change is in the air for the Jackson County legislature.

And, really, it can't be much fun anymore for Arbanas. It doesn't look like they are going to be naming any other public property after him, and he turned 70 in January. He hasn't done the hard work of campaigning - dialing for dollars, door-to-door handshaking - in years, and I doubt he wants to work that hard. It's tough to run an at-large campaign against spirited and ambitious competition.

The issue, though, is how the transition will be handled. My guess is that Mr. Arbanas has some deserving person (upper class white male would be my speculation) that he wants to hand his seat over to. My guess is that they would prefer to handle this on a backroom, handshake basis - Mr. Arbanas will not signal his intention to step down until moments before the filing deadline, in the hopes that nobody else will file to run against an incumbent golf course. At the last moment, his anointed successor will step into the unopposed election, and the winds of change will whistle past District 3.

But that's all guesswork. My hope is that someone great, with progressive ideas and a willingness to battle the good-old-boy network of the Jackson County Legislature, will pay attention. My hope is that we could get someone else with the energy and intelligence of Theresa Garza Ruiz to make a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 102 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout - the CCP Calls for Ethics for All!

Yesterday, over at Blog CCP, the Committee for County Progress issued the following press release:

COMMITTEE FOR COUNTY PROGRESS
P.O. Box 10462
Kansas City, Missouri 64171
info@committeeforcountyprogress.org


For immediate release:
March 18, 2009
CONTACT: Pat McInerney
(816) 983-8364
pat.mcinerney@huschblackwell.com

CCP Calls For Uniform Application of Jackson County Ethics Code

The Committee for County Progress, Jackson County's oldest political organization, today called on the Jackson County Legislature - and all Jackson County elected officials - to make themselves subject to the Jackson County Ethics Code enacted earlier this year by County Executive Mike Sanders. Following enactment of the code by Sanders, the legislature passed the code as an ordinance but exempted themselves from its provisions. By executive order, the code currently applies only to the County Executive.

"It's only right that every elected official should be bound by the new ethics code," said CCP President Pat McInerney. "Because they set the ethical tone for the county, the idea that there is one set of rules for elected officials and another for everyone else really undermines the idea of having an ethics code at all. The new Ethics Commission should immediately review the Ethics Code and recommend whether it will apply across the board or just to some. The code may need other improvements, but exempting the people elected to represent us is not the way to start."

McInerney said he expected the legislature to abide by the code and predicted that, once resolved, the ethics code issue would not be a campaign issue in 2010. CCP has been involved in previous Jackson County charter issues - urging and passing a measure reducing the number of legislators from 15 to 9 in 1985 - and has been a voice for progressive and open government since its inception in 1964.

That's good news for those of us who care about good government.

Day 100 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that the type of government Jackson County deserves?

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

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

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

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

Who is Dan Tarwater Working for? - Day 95 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

In the March 9 meeting of the Jackson County Legislature, Dan Tarwater usurped the role of Inter-Governmental committee members and abandoned the economic interests of his constituents. And he accomplished all this misbehavior in only 6 minutes.

An amateur video appeared in the comments of one of my prior posts, but I won't embed the video here because its producer has marred it with a title which engages in childish name-calling.

In the video (I will link to the official video when it is available), Dan Tarwater goes off on a rant about the Mayor's position on stadium financing. While it's kind of disturbing that he has his facts wrong, I wouldn't expect straight talk from someone who has sought to avoid Ethical Home Rule. Sadly, the dishonesty of my County Legislator is neither interesting nor surprising.

What is surprising, though, is that he uses his tirade to attack the interests of his own constituents. Dan Tarwater's district covers a large number of Kansas Citians, who are bearing the burden of double taxation (actually, triple if you count the State money) for the Sports Complex. Those of us in Kansas City pay both as Jackson Countians and as Kansas Citians, to support the same cause.

As a representative of Kansas Citians, Dan Tarwater owes us a full measure of representation. Instead, he abandoned us and got caught up in an inter-governmental spat between the city and the county. In an "us" versus "them" battle, Tarwater foolishly believes that he is on the side of the County as an entity, when, in fact, he should be representing the interests of his constituents. I can understand that as a Jackson County legislator, Tarwater would prefer not having to face the struggle of having to replace the $2,000,000 that the County signed a contract for (but not the City), but not at the cost of having his constituents facing double taxation.

Dan Tarwater should be representing his constituents, not the Legislature.

It's easy to see how someone without intellectual rigor could miss this point, and perhaps that is why Tarwater was not chosen to serve on the Inter-governmental Affairs Committee, and ought not to be injecting himself into that committee's role, anyhow.

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Helling Beyond Satire

I've made sport of Dave Hellings' inability to do simple math and everyone agrees that his hilarious hand-wringing about the demise of the Democratic Party after a triumphal primary season was an unintentional masterpiece of cluelessness.

Dave Helling doesn't produce much copy anymore, but when he does publish something, it often carries that special glow of obtuseness that makes real political observers stop in their tracks and say "Huh?".

Yesterday's gem was this - Kansas City should raid its general revenue to support the stadiums because that is the same as Johnson County giving money. This is the actual title of Hellings' piece - and, no, I haven't altered it to make it seem more ridiculous - "End of $2 million stadium subsidy could let JoCo off the hook for ballparks".

Because Johnson Countians pay a portion of the earnings tax. Which goes into general revenue.

Absolutely incredible. The Kansas City Star actually published that analysis.

By the same analysis, the City can bestow the benefits of Bistate funding anywhere it redirects general revenue by laying off enough police officers and cutting enough basic services.

It's genius! If Kansas City uses every nickel of its money to support things that suburbanites like, a new Age of Aquarius will dawn, and regionalism will reign over the unpatrolled and unpaved streets of Kansas City. That's the way things work in Hellings' world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theresa Garza Ruiz WAY Ahead of the Game - Day 89 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Yesterday, I wrote about Theresa Garza Ruiz standing up against the "old dogs" on the Jackson County Legislature in her latest newsletter. It's an impressive act of political courage, and one which I believe will draw her favorable attention.

Perhaps even more impressive is that Theresa Garza Ruiz had the foresight to write about Ethical Home Rule months before the Jackson County Legislature decided to exempt itself from local ethical oversight. Way back in July of 2008, Theresa Garza Ruiz wrote a fascinating history of the development of Home Rule from the 18th Century up until present times. You should really go read it if you want proof that all our county legislators are not knuckleheads installed by dying political machines.

She also outlines the crux of the issue that consumes county-watchers during this Ethics Blackout:

The Ethics Commission is part of our county charter. In order to change any portion of our charter, it must come before the voters. The commission’s ability to thoroughly investigate a complaint is well within its power and is outlined in our home rule.

With that quotation, Garza Ruiz warned the legislature not to embark on its current path toward monarch. They ignored her, and now we are stuck without an Ethics Commission and with a public opinion of our legislators that has sunk to sewer level.

Why in the world is Theresa Garza Ruiz not the Chair of the Legislature? We would be in a far better position if she were . . .

(Honestly, I hadn't intended to do a post today, and was planning on saving this piece until a weekday, but an old friend sent me a link to this awesome Cobra, so I couldn't pass up the opportunity to use it.)

Theresa Garza Ruiz Gets It - Day 88 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Yesterday, I received an e-Newsletter from Theresa Garza Ruiz, the Jackson County legislator in the first district at-large seat. Her newsletter included the text of a column she wrote for The Examiner, expressing her feelings about her vote on abandoning Ethical Home Rule for Jackson County.

Theresa Garza Ruiz agrees that the Ethics Blackout is wrong, and she call on the "old dogs" to fix it. It's a wonderful piece of writing, and signals hope that significant change will be coming to the dark underworld of the Jackson County legislature.

Ms. Garza Ruiz writes:

For far too long, Jackson County government and "ethics" have been somewhat of a running joke throughout the metro area. Honestly, when were these two items used in a good light in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence?

In spite of the progress the county has achieved in the past few years, I can understand why critics are skeptical on whether our hearts are truly into overhauling the rules that govern us. In my book, the fact that a Jackson County ethics code was even passed speaks volumes, but then I'm optimistic.

When decent people are faced with having to compromise due to situational choices, then an ethical dilemma has been presented. Ethical dilemmas can involve right-versus-wrong situations or right-versus-right situations - also known as no-win situations.

So, there it is. The ethics code is not perfect.

In an of itself, the admission that the code is imperfect is what I would call "Praising with faint damn". By excluding the legislature from Ethical Home Rule, the County Legislature has undercut the Jackson County Charter and established a arrogant, almost monarchic attitude toward ethics in Jackson County. "The ethics code is not perfect" is kind of like writing "The economy is not perfect" or "The intelligence on Iraq was not perfect."

But, thank goodness, Ms. Garza Ruiz was just getting warmed up. She next turns her focus on the wretched good-old-boys who have long viewed Jackson County Government as their fiefdom and family employment agency: "With no disrespect intended, as that old saying goes, 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks.' Not that it's impossible, it just takes time." So far, its been 88 days of time trying to get the old dogs on the Jackson County Legislature to learn the new trick of being ethical. Seems like Ms. Garza Ruiz is getting impatient in her role as the "dog whisperer" of ethics.

Finally, Ms. Garza Ruiz ends on two high notes:

The ability for any Ethics Commission to deal credibly and forthrightly with the issues that come before it depends on a governing body's willingness to reform its own ethical rules and behavior. As I said before, greater scrutiny and public awareness can help set a higher standard and force change from our leaders and our governmental institutions. In the end, no matter what's on the books, it still boils down to personal integrity.

As for the ethics commissioners who resigned, I was disappointed upon hearing the news. It was a good group of solid, decent, hardworking individuals dedicated to upholding the public interest.

In those two paragraphs, Ms. Garza Ruiz draws a line in the sand and dares her fellow county legislators to remain on the wrong side of it. Where Dan Tarwater attacked the citizens who served, and Dennis Waits accused them of playing politics, but Ms. Garza praises them. Old dogs snarl and bite when people want to look inside their doghouse, but friendly dogs welcome them.

More significantly, Ms. Garza Ruiz sets out the terms of the changes she seeks. By speaking of "a governing body's willingness to reform its own ethical rules and behavior", she is saying that the bogus reforms being bandied about by corrupt insiders that do not result in Ethical Home Rule will be insufficient.

It is wonderful to see an elected official embrace - even encourage - scrutiny of the Jackson County legislature designed to "force change from our leaders and our governmental institutions." It's going to happen, and Theresa Garza Ruiz is going to wind up on the right side of Jackson County history over this issue. Ethical Home Rule will return to the Jackson County Courthouse, and the smart legislators are getting on board.

Thank you, Theresa, for the leadership and encouragement. We're glad you're not joining of the pack of old dogs.

Cozy Cash Committees Closely Controlled - Day 87 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Why are the "Big Money" Committees on the Jackson County Legislature controlled by only 5 legislators?

Why are 3 legislators (Theresa Garza Ruiz, Greg Grounds, and Fred Arbanas), excluded from the three committees (Anti-Drug, Finance & Audit, and Budget) that have the most financial influence on Jackson County (Anti-Drug, Finance & Audit, and Budget)?

Dan Tarwater serves on all three of the Big Money Committees. Theresa Garza Ruiz serves on none.

James Tindall (convicted of income tax evasion) serves on two of the Big Money Committees (Budget and Anti-Drug). Greg Grounds serves on none.

Henry Rizzo (convicted of providing false information to a financial institution) serves on two of the Big Money Committees (Budget and Anti-Drug). Fred Arbanas serves on none.

It can't be based on experience, because Fred Arbanas has been on the County Legislature since it started.

It can't be based on knowledge, because Theresa Garza Ruiz is completing a Master's Degree in Public Administration with an emphasis on Government Business Relations and Public Management.

It can't be based on qualifications, because Greg Grounds has over three decades of government and business experience, including a stint on the Jackson County COMBAT Commission.

It can't be based on public trust, since two of the Financial Five (controlling 4 of the seven seats on the Budget and Anti-Drug committees) have criminal records for financial improprieties, while none of the other three have rap sheets.

It just doesn't make sense. Any auditor knows "there is safety in numbers", meaning that you should have as many people as possible involved in oversight of financial matters - a rule that would apply with special force where some of individuals involved have been caught and convicted of financial improprieties.

At the same time this bizarre and unsettling committee structure was being set up, the Jackson County Legislature decided (in violation of the Charter) that it should not have to answer to the Jackson County Ethics Commission anymore.

Why does the Jackson County Legislature oppose Ethical Home Rule? Is there Big Money involved?

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

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

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

My apologies for any confusion.

Tarwater Vulnerable? - Day 85 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

It has been 15 years since Dan Tarwater was first elected to the Jackson County legislature. I remember the election well - it was my first exposure to how slimy Jackson County politics can be. Tarwater cruised to a victory over a young lawyer named Matt Davis, partially by recruiting a woman named Mary Davis to appear on the ballot as M. Davis. Tarwater was part of the Bill Waris operation, and Matt Davis was like that brave student in Tiananmen Square, only the tank didn't even slow down.

Since that time, Tarwater hasn't faced a serious opponent. According to Missouri Ethics Commission reports, it's been well over a decade since Dan Tarwater has raised more than $500 to support a campaign. Even in 2008, when other unchallenged politicians were raising money for their more embattled friends, Tarwater sat on the sidelines and only made token contributions to a couple organizations.

While Tarwater was a tank in 1994, 15 years can gather a whole lot of rust. Since that time, he has gathered bad publicity in the form of a brawl with another legislator, on-again-off-again bribery issues asserted by former Chair Katheryn Shields concerning COMBAT funds (he's the only one on the Anti-Drug Committee who hasn't been convicted for criminal financial behavior), and he's given his aide lavish bonuses from county funds. Et cetera.

Now that Tarwater has come out aggressively against Ethical Home Rule, he has made himself an attractive target for a spirited campaign in 2010. I've heard rumblings that some budding politicos in the south Ward Parkway corridor are talking to friends about running on a pro-Ethical Home Rule platform.

Here's a map of the district. Take a second and think about all the good people in that district, who could really bring something fresh and positive to the Jackson County legislature . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crunch Time for Ethics Commission Selection - Day 82 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

The Jackson County Ethics Selection Committee has set the end of February as an informal target for applications to join the Jackson County Ethics Commission. Fortunately, they have said that they will continue to accept applications until the Commission is filled.

Either way, though, the best time to apply is now. The application form is online, so you can submit it over the weekend.

Technically, the appointments will not be made by the Selection Committee. The time for them to make such appointments according to the Charter has long since lapsed, and the appointments are now in the hands of County Executive Mike Sanders. Unlike the County Legislators, though, Mr. Sanders is smart enough to recognize a hot potato when he sees one, so he has agreed to appoint whomever the Selection Committee chooses. It's great to see an example of a Jackson County elected official working to make Ethical Home Rule a success instead of a sham.

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

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

Henry Rizzo 27.3% 30

Scott Burnett 16.4% 18

James Tindall 15.5% 17

Dan Tarwater 14.5% 16

Theresa Garza Ruiz 11.8% 13

Dennis Waits 10.9% 12

Fred Arbanas 1.8% 2

Greg Grounds 0.9% 1

Bob Spence 0.9% 1

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

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

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

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

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

"Someday a Real Rain will Come . . ." - Day 80 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

From the phone calls and emails I've received, 2010 promises to be a watershed year for the Jackson County legislature. A new generation has taken over in Washington, and the 2010 Jackson County elections are the first opportunity for fresh blood to get transfused locally. Candidates choosing to run for the Jackson County legislature will face incumbents dogged by questions about why they have refused to accept Ethical Home Rule, and why they fear local oversight.

I've not been authorized to release any names, but a majority of the districts are going to see vigorous, serious challenges - some involving big names and solid experience. So, let's take a little survey - assuming a viable, reasonably well-funded challenger, who do you think is most likely to lose in 2010? (The names are listed in alphabetical order.)If you choose to explain your vote, that's what the comment section is for.

Slapping Paint on the Wreck of JaCo Legislators' Ethics - Day 79 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

I've been told by those who know a lot about these things that the Jackson County Legislature is going to make changes to the Ethics Ordinance. They will refuse, however, to bring themselves under the oversight of the Jackson County Ethics Commission, as required by the Jackson County Charter. All this will happen after a new Ethics Commission is chosen, the timing being a petulant gesture of classless disrespect to the prior Commission.

Like crooked car dealers, they're going to try to slap a coat of paint on the wreck, and try to sell it as fixed.

While it's a slimy, sneaky, cynical tactic intended to fool inattentive citizens into thinking they've done the right thing, I could not be happier that they may be dumb enough to give it a try. Bogus "improvements" to the Ethics Code will backfire on the Legislature, and may save the political careers of those legislators smart enough to abandon the majority.

As an advocate of ethical government, I am thrilled that the Jackson County Legislature will bring this issue up again, for a fresh round of publicity and attention. I've talked and corresponded with several of them, and they have absolutely no defense for their refusal to accept Ethical Home Rule. "Double jeopardy" is the best argument they have, but it holds no water, and nobody is going to feel sorry when those who begged for our votes whine about the terms of their office.

Will a fresh ordinance that excludes Ethical Home Rule pass unanimously? I think the leadership might be in for a surprise. Why would anyone but the most arrogant and recalcitrant hack vote again to create a bright shining issue for the 2010 election? Why not distinguish yourself from the "Go along to get along" corruption on the County Legislature, and inoculate yourself from those who will be running on a pro-Ethics platform in 2010? A new ordinance will give the good legislators an opportunity to distance themselves from the bad ones. If certain political clubs weigh in by tying support for Ethical Home Rule to their endorsements, voting with the anti-Ethical majority will be too much obedience to expect.

Revisiting the Ethics Ordinance without accepting local oversight demonstrates an electoral death wish. Fortunately, our Jackson County Legislature may be dumb enough to blunder into the trap.

Hush, Hush, JaCo Legislators "Lawyer Up" - Day 78 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

At last week's County Legislature meeting, Chair Scott Burnett introduced an ordinance authorizing the legislature to go into secret session during today's meeting. Given the legislature's penchant for doing things in private and avoiding public oversight, it's tough not to speculate on what will be going on today.

Here's the description of today's secret meeting, as set forth in last week's agenda:

A RESOLUTION authorizing the Jackson County Legislature to hold a closed meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009, for the purpose of conducting privileged and confidential communications between itself and the Jackson County Counselor under section 610.021(1) of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, and closing all records prepared for discussion at said meeting.

Wow, they're talking to their lawyer!

What will the topic be? Will they be talking about their ethics ordinance, which illegally contradicts the Jackson County Home Rule Charter? Will they be talking about whether it was legal for them to name a public facility after Fred Arbanas, giving him an unfair advantage in the 2010 elections? What fresh outrage will the legislature be dreaming up today, behind closed doors?

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

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

Not in Jackson County world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Brief History of Jackson County Home Rule - Day 74 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Few people in Jackson County realize what a gift our Home Rule form of government is, or how recently the gift was given. As recently as 1972, Jackson Countians existed under a crude form of government derived from 1815 territorial government. Legislative and executive power were concentrated in the hands of three judges, and the "Public Administrator", like a Roman tax collector, collected fees that made the Jackson County PA the highest paid public official in the state of Missouri.

A brief history of the process of creating a new form of government for Jackson County may be found here, in the papers of Judge John R. Gibson. It's impressive to think that so recently, such a bipartisan group of great men and women worked together to create a new form of government for Jackson County.

We do not need to speculate about the motives of this group of civic-minded leaders. Fortunately, they set forth their goals quite clearly in the introduction to the Jackson County Home Rule Charter. They wanted Jackson County government to be controlled by Jackson County, not Jefferson City.

The Constitutional Home Rule Charter presents basic home rule for Jackson County, for it is a constitution prepared by residents of Jackson County for the operation of Jackson County's government, and providing within it a method for amendment by residents of the county. The Charter places in the hands of the people of Jackson County the power to effectively operate its government without going to the State Legislature for changes.

The preamble to the Jackson County Home Rule Charter makes the point in eloquent fashion:

We, the people of Jackson County, Missouri, in order to perfect the structure and enlarge the powers of our county government, to insure that it is just, orderly, efficient, and fully responsible to the people, and to secure the benefits of home rule and self-government for Jackson County to the fullest extent possible under the Constitution of the State of Missouri, do adopt this Charter as the fundamental law for the government of this county.

Today, the Jackson County Legislature is trying to stymie this impulse toward self-government. In a recent ordinance, the Jackson County Legislature has sought to rob Jackson Countians of the right to oversee the ethics of their elected officials (as set forth in the Home Rule Charter itself), and outsource that job to Jefferson City's Missouri Ethics Commission.

Back in 1970, over 60,000 citizens of Jackson County sought "to secure the benefits of home rule and self-government for Jackson County to the fullest extent possible under the Constitution of the State of Missouri". In 2009, 9 legislators decided that Home Rule is too much supervision. They don't want open meetings of Jackson Countians to look at their ethical lapses and corruption. If they want to hire an in-law into a cushy county job, or maybe take a tiny bribe, they don't want anyone in Jackson County to call them to justice.

Instead of Home Rule, the Jackson County legislature yearns for the days of closed-door deals in hidden Jefferson City offices. A 6 member panel of people from all over the state is less likely to notice or care about Jackson County's problems than a group of 5 local citizens focused on keeping Jackson County clean. Indeed, the Jefferson City panel refuses to even enforce the local standards that the Legislature imposes on everyone else in the county.

The principles of self-governance means something to Jackson County. It's in our Charter, and it's in our political heritage. The Jackson County legislature's attempt to subvert those principles will come back to haunt them in 2010.

Starting Your Political Biography - Day 73 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Has the thought of running for office ever run through your mind? Have you ever looked at the politicians on TV or at neighborhood meetings and thought, "I could do that as well or better than him (or her?), and I would do a better job of looking out for the people of this area"? Have you been thinking someday, when the time is right, you will seriously look at launching a political career?

The time is right in Jackson County. You can start your political career with a victory in 2010.

How does this sound for the start of your political biography?

_______________ started his/her political career in Jackson County, Missouri. In 2010, inspired by the election of Barack Obama, ______________ decided to take on an entrenched incumbent who had grown arrogant in office. His/her first opponent was a member of a cozy cabal of old-school politicians who existed in a dim world of prearranged, unanimous votes and a lax attitude toward ethics. In 2008, the Jackson County legislature went so far as to exempt itself from local ethical oversight, and _______________ realized that if real change was going to happen in Jackson County, it was not going to happen with the entrenched incumbents controlling the Courthouse.

______________ was swept into office as part of a group of reformers whose first priority on the campaign trail was to "Bring Ethical Home Rule to Jackson County". The Ethical Home Rule Slate of candidates turned the tide when they began winning the endorsements of reform-minded political groups, and campaign donors followed suit.

The Ethical Home Rule Campaign of 2010 succeeded in defeating a majority of the anti-ethics legislators who had controlled the Jackson County legislature. After serving two terms on the Jackson County Legislature, ______________ successfully ran for an open seat in the Missouri General Assembly . . .

If you've been thinking about jumping into politics, you will never face a better opportunity than running for Jackson County Legislature in 2010. The fundraising demands for a county office are manageable, and the incumbents have all come out against Ethical Home Rule for Jackson County. Many of the candidates have documented problems with ethics and the law, so their attempts to avoid ethical scrutiny will be impossible for them to explain on the campaign trail.

If you don't take this opportunity, who will? If you are waiting for the right time, when will the time be better?

Now's The Time to Apply for the Ethics Commission - Day 72 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

As of a week ago today, only two applications for the Jackson County Ethics Commission were under consideration by the Selection Committee. The blame for the lackluster turnout rests squarely on the shoulders of the anti-Ethical Jackson County legislature, which has done everything possible to make clear that the new members will face a fight if they dare to do their duty and follow the Charter.

Under the Jackson County Home Rule Charter, the Ethics Commission is directed to investigate allegations of ethics violations against the legislators. The legislators have attempted to excuse themselves from that Charter-directed oversight through an ordinance. The situation is a time bomb, and any informed individual who applies to the Commission knows that he or she is risking a metaphorical knife fight against an unscrupulous legislature. The legislature has made clear that any attempt by the Ethics Commission to do its duty under the Charter will be met with attacks, lies and probably litigation.

Do it anyhow.

Go to the Ethics Commission Selection Committee's website and fill out the application. For your effort, you will receive no money, no fame, and little, if any, official thanks. You will be expected to attend meetings, pay your own parking, and be scrutinized by those who want you to fail. If you do your work ethically and diligently, nobody will name a golf course after you.

Do it anyhow.

We need good, honest people to do the dirty work of policing Jackson County ethics. It's thankless but important work. If good people don't apply, the positions will be filled by insiders and stooges. We can't have that, not while millions of dollars are being spent by a committee where the majority has a rap sheet. Not while the County Legislature is usurping the naming rights to public facilities. Not while the Legislature is using an ordinance to defy the Home Rule Charter.

Public service is calling good people to take the challenge. Please do it. Fill out the application and help return ethics to Jackson County.

Rename Fred Arbanas Golf Course Because of Ethical Holes - Day 71 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Should a County Legislator have a popular county park facility in his district named after himself? Should the county then go ahead and spend tens of thousands of dollars every year promoting the golf course and the name of this sitting legislator, in his district and around the County?

I call upon the Jackson County legislature to change the name of the Fred Arbanas Golf Course immediately, or to acknowledge that any funding it allocates to the Jackson County Parks and Recreation Department is an illegal contribution of public funds to a sitting politician.

It's never a good idea to name a public facility after a living politician. Too often, today's golden image winds up tarnished. There are public facilities up in Alaska that now bear the stigma of the corrupt Senator Ted Stevens, including the Anchorage Airport. Too often, living politicians turn out to be deeply flawed human beings.

In the case of Fred Arbanas, he has allowed his name to be sullied by his connection to the Jackson County Ethics Crisis. It's ironic that he did so, given that he was the most forthright member of the legislature back when it was being investigated for improper handling of attorney's fees, and he even managed to dodge the voting on the Ethics Ordinance (though he was a sponsor).

Golf is a sport based on ethics. Where football and baseball players are expected to fake catches they missed, golfers are expected to take a higher road. Every season, we hear stories of golfers turning themselves in for playing the wrong ball or other transgressions.

Fred Arbanas does not meet that standard. He allowed a Jackson County golf course to be named after him in his district, by the Parks Department he supervises. He votes to promote his name and his golf course with public funds. Now, he wants to avoid any local supervision of his ethical compliance.

The Fred Arbanas Golf Course should be renamed the Longview Golf Course, and Mr. Arbanas should be directed to pay an amount equal to the fair market value of the taxpayer-funded publicity given to his name into a fund to be used to support his challengers in the 2010 election.

It's only fair.

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

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

My friend is correct.

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

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

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

Finance & Audit
Dennis Waits, Chairperson
Bob Spence
Dan Tarwater

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

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

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

Land Use
Fred Arbanas, Chairperson
Bob Spence
Theresa Garza Ruiz

Public Works
Bob Spence, Chairperson
Greg Grounds
Theresa Garza Ruiz

Rules
Greg Grounds, Chairperson
Henry C. Rizzo
Dan Tarwater

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

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

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

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

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

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