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.)

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.

5 Reasons I am Voting NO on COMBAT

I will be voting NO tomorrow on the extension of the COMBAT tax. I've struggled with this decision, but a vote for COMBAT is a vote for arrogance in County government. Here are my reasons.

1. County Government Cannot Be Trusted with a $20,000,000 Slush Fund. Make no mistake - County government has cleaned up its act over the past several years, but the lack of news coverage focusing on it has caused it to care less and less about the public trust. For instance, the committee that handles the COMBAT funds has 2 out of 3 members with genuine criminal records - crimes centered on financial misdealings. I acknowledge that voters of a district can elect who they want, but for the Legislature to place those two people on a $20,000,000 committee seems to be an intentional poke in the eye to those of us who care about good government.

2. The Vote Yes Campaign is Trashing Our County. The utter contempt that the bigwigs have for those of us who live here in their fiefdom is shown on the latest "vote Yes" mailer. On it, in a bright orange box, is a quotation from a recovering addict - "Without COMBAT, Jackson County would be like Iraq . . . with drugs." In an age where our County and City are trying desperately to lure business, tourism and Johnson Countians to our community, the politicos are conjuring images of bomb craters and shell casings. It is irresponsible, dishonest and frankly disgusting to issue such a statement, and I cannot imagine rewarding such behavior with a "yes" vote. If for no other reason, caring Jackson Countians should vote "no" as a rebuke to everyone involved in this effort.

3. $800,000 Timing Mistake. Why are we having this election now, when the tax does not expire for another 17 months? Because some backroom politicians decided that holding a special election now, at a cost of $800,000, would be a clever move at keeping turnout low, rather than holding the vote during a regular election. It's arrogance, people - we're voting tomorrow because some bigwig decided we should, and damn the taxpayer expense.

4. COMBAT Funds Get Wasted. Now, let me be crystal clear on this - the vast majority of COMBAT dollars get spent on good programs for great reasons. But some of it gets wasted - like paying a thousand dollars for a blogger to put a sticker on his car. The fact that one of our best legislators was criticized for being "picky" when she questioned the expenditure of a thousand tax dollars further illustrates just how uncaring our legislature is.

5. If We Vote No, We'll Get a Better COMBAT. Here's the key to the whole thing - we have 17 months to get COMBAT fixed and then get it approved by the voters. Right now, if you ask questions about how the program is being administered and what the plans are to improve it, you'll be told that they're working on it, and are in the process of revamping everything. "Trust us, we'll make it better." Yes, they really do hope and believe that Jackson County voters are dumb enough to trust that the legislature will make improvements after they get their way. This is the same crowd of legislators that fought Ethical Home Rule for almost 6 months. Let them make their changes first, and then come to us for approval.
________________________________________

As a responsible citizen, I cannot in good conscience vote for the renewal of the COMBAT Tax at this time. I am not blind to the good it has accomplished, but one would be hard pressed to spend $20,000,000 every year without accomplishing some good. I want something better, and I think the Jackson County legislature deserves a rebuke, not a reward. I will vote NO on COMBAT.

Strangers on the Internet - Let's Be Careful Out There

I talked with a few people involved in politics recently, and confirmed what I had personally noticed. There seems to be an uptick in the number of new "acquaintances" on the internet eager to share dirt and rumors, or to seek information or opinions about local figures. I had one stranger recently share some outlandish lies about a few women involved in state and local politics.

We're a year away from elections, and the lying and elaborate deceptions are already starting up.

Personally, I'm glad to be on the sidelines these days. If you're in the thick of it, though, please be aware and don't take candy from strangers. Or give it, either.

Jackson County Dems Bringing in Fake Sarah Palin - Jennifer Granholm Coming to Truman Days

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm served as a stand-in for Sarah Palin while Joe Biden was preparing for the Vice Presidential debate. Frankly, I don't see the resemblance, other than the fact that they're both women governors who happen to be relatively young. Unlike the shrill and unqualified governor of Alaska, Granholm is smart, compassionate and successful.

She will be speaking at the annual Truman Days hosted by the Jackson County Democratic Committee. She's the real deal - political insiders see her as an up-and-coming leader on the national stage. Jackson County Dems are fortunate to have brought in such a leader for their annual conference.

I've never met a president, before or after they were elected. This could be my chance. You betcha!

Dave Helling - Daily Revisions

Dave Helling claims he needs a translator to understand my criticism of his column entitled "End of $2 million stadium subsidy could let JoCo off the hook for ballparks". Now he's claiming that his column was an attempt to offer a history lesson about a long-gone politician's version of a backroom deal done decades ago.

Sure, Dave.

If it's a history lesson, why the budget analysis (faulty again, but math has always been a weakness for Helling) based on today's dollars?

As for your claims that you weren't saying what you thought of the proposal to end the tax dollar give-away (even though you trotted out every BS argument opposed to it, and neglected to mention that the City has no legal obligation to make the donation), they are as weak as your argument that $2,000,000 dollars is not a lot of money because it shows up in a larger budget (much of which is non-discretionary).

It's not surprising he can't understand my point - he even whines that I misspelled his name when I merely misplaced an apostrophe. Helling's inability to understand what is going on around him is a hallmark of his writing. Whether it's worrying about the collapse of the Democratic party in 2008 or low voter turnout in a record setting year, Helling never seems to need a translator for current events.

But, until yesterday, I had no idea the poor guy doesn't even understand what he himself has written. His post on Monday was a defense of the status quo for stadium donations, and his post on Tuesday was a poor attempt to redefine his current argument as an irrelevant history lesson.

Too Much Cooperation? - Day 54 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

Cooperation is generally a good thing, but it has its limits. In the legislative world, too much agreement is a red flag that something is amiss. If a roomful of elected officials sworn to represent their constituents don't ever disagree, they are either not facing genuine issues or not having the courage to dissent.

Over the first 4 meetings of the 2009 Jackson County Legislature, Bob Spence is the only legislator to vote "no" on anything. No other legislator has broken from the herd even once. (To be completely fair, as always, I should point out that Fred Arbanas abstained from a vote to congratulate him on his birthday, and Scott Burnett abstained from the vote electing him Chair. So at least two legislators have a vocabulary that exceeds "aye". It's also worth noting that Henry Rizzo didn't abstain from the vote electing him Vice Chair, secure in his knowledge that ethics rules don't apply to the Jackson County legislature.)

During that time, the Legislature has spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, and changed the law in a fashion that will almost certainly cause children to be harmed in Jackson County, as well as property damage.

More tellingly, nobody has dared introduce an ordinance reversing the Legislature's anti-ethical exemption of itself from the Jackson County Ethics Code. I had correspondence with one legislator who agrees with me that the exemption should be reversed, but he won't introduce such a measure unless he knows it will pass. Sadly, going on record supporting ethics is less important than avoiding the wrath of the legislative leadership.

Folks, a good legislature is marked by spirited debate and respectful differences. A bad legislature is marked by fearful cooperation and gutless orthodoxy. A legislature that agrees on everything is not doing its job.

The Jackson County legislature is not doing its job.

Why Does the Star Ignore the County? - Day 52 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis

A few weeks ago, I was talking to a savvy former politician who told me that when he was being interviewed by TV people, and he said something he didn't want broadcast, he would drop an F-bomb into the sentence. Video editing capabilities of the day and pressing deadlines kept him out of the news when he didn't want to be there.

I have discovered a similar trick that works to keep the KC Star from putting something in the paper. Just mention "Jackson County". The Star will lose interest and flee from the story.

I attended an introductory meeting for an unofficial committee focused on city business last week, and I was not at all surprised to see two, count 'em two, Star writers there. I asked one of them afterward why they double-teamed a city issue, but nobody was writing about the fact that the Jackson County Ethics Commission was NOT meeting, because nobody had been timely named to it.

Similarly, there is nobody writing about the fact that this is Day 52 of the Jackson County Ethics Crisis, with the Legislators continuing in their refusal to be governed by a local ethics commission.

It's even reached the point that the Star downplays Jackson County issues on the Prime Buzz. Recently, I did two posts in one morning - one was about a minor argument I had with another local blogger, and the other was an analysis of whether anyone would agree to serve on the Jackson County Ethics Commission, and raising the question of whether it was even ethical to serve on it while it was barred from taking on the tasks assigned to it in the Jackson County Charter. The Prime Buzz's Blog Watch column ignored the post about an important issue for Jackson County governance and wrote about the other.

Who, at the Star, covers the City? Lynn Horsley, Deanne Smith (who I understand has a vested interest in keeping County coverage positive), Yael Abouhalkah, and anyone else with a spare moment and a scrap of paper. Who, at the Star, covers the County? Well, let's see - Mike Mansur does a decent job when he has the chance, but it's only one of his many assignments.

The result is that you have the Star double-teaming a committee meeting, but ignoring the Jackson County Ethics Crisis. The result is that the Star didn't even mention that the Jackson County Ethics Commission had resigned until weeks after it had happened. The result is that the Star STILL has not reported that the time has lapsed for the ethics committee selection board to appoint replacements, with the result that Mike Sanders now has that duty.

For some reason, the Star has decided that it should not flip over the rocks in Jackson County government. It's kind of sad, because the more I look, the more I find. I'd love to see what a real journalist could do with these stories.

Day 50 of Jackson County Ethics Crisis - Will Citizens be Forced to Use Initiative Petitions to Get the Ethical Governance Promised in Our Charter?

Jackson County Government has been in an ethics crisis for 50 days, and the crisis shows no sign of fading. Instead, it worsens.

Way back in the beginning of December, Sly James resigned from the Jackson County Ethics Commission. His resignation started a 30 day time frame for a new appointment by the ethics committee selection board. Unfortunately, that board failed to appoint a replacement in time, so, under the County Charter, Mike Sanders is now the only person with the authority to make that appointment. Similarly, the remaining ethics commissioners each resigned before Christmas, and the 30 day period for their replacement has passed, as well.

In the time when Jackson County has been without an Ethics Commission, the Jackson County Legislature has run amok. First, it passed an ordinance which illegally purports to rob the Commission of its role in overseeing Jackson County Ethics. As if to demonstrate its utter contempt for ethical standards, the County Legislature then selected as its Chair a member who has already been fined for a state-level ethics violation.

Why has Mike Sanders failed to appoint a new Ethics Commission? Probably because ethical citizens are hesitating to join a Commission which is directed by the Charter to do that which is barred by ordinance. It's an untenable position, and I certainly understand why good people would not want to be a part of an atmosphere that is rapidly descending from unethical to actively anti-ethical.

Is there a solution to this ethical toxicity created by the Jackson County legislature? We have a completely empty Ethics Commission, and it appears that nobody will fill those seats. At this stage, even if Mike Sanders were able to find willing participants, what kind of credibility would they have? For all concerned, it might be best to leave the Commission vacant as a symbol of the Legislature's disdain for ethical standards.

If the Jackson County Legislature persists in its rejection of local ethical oversight, citizens have two methods of fighting back for their Charter. As I've mentioned before, replacing the incumbents in 2010 may be relatively easy and bring a bunch of fresh faces to the legislative body.

The second method, and one that is becoming increasingly attractive, is an Initiative Petition. With under 7000 valid signatures on Petitions, we could force a vote in Jackson County about whether we want our Jackson County legislators to be subject to local ethical oversight and local ethical standards.

If we time this correctly, we can gather the signatures on spring weekends and get the issue on the ballot in August. It's going to take a lot of work and a bit of money, but this is the sort of project that ought to catch fire. There are a lot of people who knocked on doors and organized successfully for the November elections, and new potential candidates for office should be eager to align themselves early with the pro-ethics side of Jackson County.

It's day 50 in Jackson County's ethics crisis. In the coming days and weeks, I'll be posting more about this problem. Stay tuned.

How to Help Bring Ethics to Jackson County

I've been on a bit of a roll lately, directing attention to the false arguments and nasty implications of the Jackson County legislature's refusal to submit to local ethics oversight. The attention is having an impact - KKFI has done a show on the topic, the Star has condemned the bad behavior, and, for the first time ever, the Jackson County Courthouse has climbed into my Top 10 sources of visitors! Folks, that's a lot of hits from one location, and I can't help but wonder if they're reading my coverage of their lack of ethics, or if they're checking out my "99 Bottles of Beer on the Blog" series. Either way, welcome!

While that's all been fun and good, a bunch of people have asked me in person and through email what they can do to help. People are sincerely angry that the Jackson County legislature is violating the County Charter and refusing to submit to local ethical oversight. By popular demand, here are a couple ways you can help in the effort to bring ethics to County government.

1. Write the legislators! This whole scandal stems from a belief that they could get away with this ugly subterfuge without anybody paying attention. They almost succeeded - if the members of the Jackson County Ethics Commission had not all resigned in response to the ethical shenanigans of the legislature, this whole issue might have escaped notice. Now, we need to let the legislators know we're paying attention. Here are their email addresses:

Scott Burnett - sburnett@jacksongov.org
Theresa Garza Ruiz - tgarza@jacksongov.org
Henry Rizzo - hrizzo@jacksongov.org
Fred Arbanas - farbanas@jacksongov.org
James Tindall - jtindall@jacksongov.org
Dennis Waits - dwaits@jacksongov.org
Dan Tarwater - dtarwater@jacksongov.org
Greg Grounds - ggrounds@jacksongov.org
Bob Spence - bspence@jacksongov.org

If you would prefer to call their offices or use old fashioned mail, you can find their phone numbers and addresses by clicking on their names on this page. Please contact them and let them know that you want ethics in Jackson County.

2. Talk to them. If you see them out someplace, like in a store or at a neighborhood event, politely mention your concern to them. Most of them are quite nice people, and most are unlikely to take a swing at you if you are polite and sincere. Truly, they are (mostly) fine public servants who are doing this job for good reasons, so the tone to take is one of gratitude for the many good things they do, but concern about this uncharacteristically unethical move.

3. Educate yourself about the County. I've posted links to the Jackson County Charter, the Ethics Ordinance and the Missouri Ethics Commission site on this website already, and, if you want your own copies, email me and I'll be happy to get them to you. The Jackson County Government does not get nearly the attention in the press that the City government gets, but it has a huge budget and impacts a broader geographical area.

4. Educate yourself about the Ethics issue. Unfortunately, if past behavior is a predictor of future performance, if you do contact one of our legislators about this issue, they will try to fool you with bad arguments, half-truths or outright lies. They may claim they are covered by the Code, or that the Missouri Ethics Commission has laws that apply to them. Ask them if they will be subject to ethics discipline if they show up to a meeting drunk, and that should stop them in their tracks.

5. Start talking to someone about running for the Jackson County Legislature. I mentioned above that the County doesn't get much press scrutiny, and the flip side of that coin is that none of the Legislators is all that well-known or popular. On top of that, every single one of them signed onto a law that exempts them from local ethical oversight! How simple will it be to pound on that fact in an election? How many voters (and donors) will respond to a simple promise to support an amendment of our Ethics ordinance so that it will apply to the legislators? How will any of the incumbents get around the fact that they supported the exemption? If you know someone who ran for office, but didn't make it, this is a grand opportunity for him or her to give it another try, with a built-in advantage. Call him or her and suggest this opportunity to run in 2010.

6. Write a letter to the editor. If you want to lift a line or an argument from this blog, have at it. The Star doesn't have anyone assigned to cover the County fulltime, so, if this issue is going to make it into ink, the letters page is the most likely candidate.

7. Talk about the issue to everyone you know with an interest in politics. Right now, this issue is generating a fair amount of buzz in the political community, and a few things are rumored to be coming up soon to keep it there. That's the kind of pressure that politicians respond to, so keep up the good work!

Obama Less Ethical than Rizzo?

While the rest of the country has been celebrating the election and inauguration of President Obama, Jackson Countians are stuck with the troubling realization that President Obama is less ethical than the sterling characters who rule the Jackson County Legislature. On his first day in office, President Obama suffered the ethical lapse of imposing new ethics standards and making them apply to himself, and enforceable by an entity that is part of the federal budget. Close observers weren't caught off guard, though, in that he committed the same gaffe in the Senate, when he joined in the push to increase transparency and ban lobbyist gifts, again with federal enforcement.

According to the ethical whiz kids at the Jackson County Courthouse, federal ethical oversight is unethical. Just as the Untouchables argue that they cannot be investigated by a group that is part of their budget (ignoring the Sheriff's department, the Prosecutor's Office and the County Courts), the same logic would demand that we ban local oversight of our federal government, as well. Perhaps we can get the government of Canada or Mexico to oversee our ethics, if local oversight is too corrupting for the sensitive souls on the legislature. Or perhaps the U.N. should step in and take control.

Does that sound right to you? It's the exact same argument that our Jackson County legislators are trying to make.

Somehow, I have more faith in President Obama than in our Untouchables.

Jackson County Ethics - Is Someone Drinking on the Job?

Does someone on the Jackson County Legislature have a serious drinking problem?

One of the mysteries surrounding the Jackson County Legislature's violation of the County Charter has been their motivation for making themselves "Untouchables" for the Jackson County Ethics Code. They claim that they are covered by the Missouri Ethics Commission, but informed citizens know that the MEC is strictly limited by law to "enforcement of conflict of interest and lobbying laws (RSMo 105.450-498) and campaign finance disclosure laws (RSMo 130)." The MEC does not and will not enforce the Jackson County Ethics Code, and anyone who says they will is either lying or misinformed. Even if the MEC wanted to, Missouri law does not give it that power.

Obviously, there are major differences between the Jackson County Ethics Code (here it is in pdf format) and the Missouri Statutes policed by the MEC, but yesterday evening a political insider asked me for specifics. Beyond the point that one is enforced locally and in public, while the other gets enforced behind closed Jefferson City doors, I pointed out that they differ in various specifics. I was unprepared to answer the question forcefully, though, so, when I got home, I started looking at some of the differences.

There are a bunch, of course, but the one that jumped off the pages last night was this one:

In addition to being a violation of other laws, it is also a violation of this chapter for any public servant to: . . . Be found guilty of violating the County's policy prohibiting the possession or consumption by employees of alcohol or any controlled or illegal substance in any County facility, vehicle, or work site, including lunch periods and rest breaks; prohibiting public servants from driving or reporting to work, performing work, or visiting a work site while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled or illegal substance.

Setting aside the obvious fact that this provision completely demolishes Rizzo's argument that the County Legislators dislike "double jeopardy", this might be the key to understanding the whole thing.

The MEC will not investigate allegations of drinking on the job.

As a determined advocate for Jackson County ethics, I knew that it would help my cause to come up with a term that encapsulated the controversy in a phrase. A couple weeks ago, I tried out "Unethical Enablers", because the legislators had made it much easier for future, less exemplary politicians to get away with unethical behavior. At the time, I had no idea that their behavior could also be explained in terms of enabling other problems, but, wow, there it is. The Jackson County legislature has exempted itself from an Ethics Code that encompasses drinking on the job, or showing up at a Legislative session drunk.

Why?

Now that the voters are paying attention, will they amend their ordinance so that they are governed by the Jackson County Ethics Code, and overseen by the Jackson County Ethics Commission?

(Note on comments - this is not the place to speculate about whether any specific elected official has an issue, and I will delete all such comments.)

Who Will Appoint the Jackson County Ethics Commission? Is it Even Ethical to Serve on it?

Is it ethical to serve on a body which is statutorily prohibited from doing what the County Charter orders it to do? Is it ethical to participate in a sham when your predecessors resigned to expose the sham?

Those questions are probably being pondered as we speak by a few citizens of Jackson County. In fact, it may be that the County is having sufficient trouble finding willing participants that the duty of filling the seats has shifted from the Ethics Commission Selection Board to Mike Sanders, the Jackson County Executive.

According to the relevant Charter provision,

There shall be an ethics commission selection board, which shall appoint all of the appointees to the ethics commission. This board shall consist of the executive director of the Mid-America Regional Council, the dean of the Henry W. Bloc (sic) School of Business and Public Administration at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, and the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City. Within thirty days of the effective date of this section, the selection board shall appoint five residents of the county to the ethics commission. The commission members shall select their own chairman. Thereafter, within thirty days of the occurrence of a vacancy on the ethics commission, the selection board shall fill the vacancy. If for any reason the ethics commission selection board fails to timely fill any vacancy or position on the ethics commission, the executive shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy or position.

The first ethics commission resignation came in early December, so the selection board is no longer empowered to make the appointment, and the duty falls to Jackson County Executive. I'm not certain of the resignation dates of the others, but I believe they were completed before Christmas (though the Star did not report on the resignations until weeks later). It appears that for at least one, and perhaps all of the commissioners, the ethics commission board has failed to timely fill the vacancy, and now the executive shall appoint a qualified person.

It's no wonder that the selection board has faced a challenge in trying to fill the Commission. The Charter grants the Ethics Commission the power to hold legislators accountable, while a recent ordinance passed by the Legislators purports to strip that power away.

If a good, ethical citizen wants to take a seat on the Commission, his or her first duty will be to sue the Legislators to reverse their illegal, Charter-violating ordinance exempting themselves from local ethical oversight. If, on the other hand, you agree to simply ignore the Jackson County Charter, you are exposing yourself to clear questions about your ethical judgment and the legitimacy of your role.

Who wants to step into a mess like that?

Greg Grounds Fights Dirty - The Funding Issue

The Jackson County Legislature has pulled out all the stops in a desperate attempt to make their refusal to accept ethical oversight seem less offensive. One of the more shameful bits of misdirection they've employed, though, is a claim that they've excused themselves from local oversight because the Jackson County Ethics Commission ought not to "be subject to the people they are investigating not funding them."

What?!?!

For those not paying attention, Legislator Greg Grounds, in one fell swoop, impugned the ethics of the citizens serving on the Ethics Commission, accused his fellow Jackson County legislators of corrupt behavior, and misled the Jackson County voters.

Let's talk a little bit about the "funding" that Greg Grounds thinks he can use to control the Ethics Commission. How much do you think the Ethics Commissioners are profiting from their work on the Ethics Commission? If you read his nasty little insinuation, you probably imagine that they are paid something in the mid five figures to clean up after our legislators, but you would be horribly mistaken.

The members of the Jackson County Ethics Commission do not get paid for their service. Indeed, after they angered the legislators by holding a hearing, the County responded in petty fashion by refusing to pay their parking. While there are some other costs associated with the Jackson County Ethics Commission, any claim that the Commission is in thrall to the dollars is a red herring - a stinking, rotten red herring that Greg Grounds should be ashamed of tossing into public debate.

His argument also falsely impugns the ethics of the Ethics Commissioners. Does he really think that the Ethics Commission would "go easy" on the legislature because of a few dollars of funding, which will never, ever, come near to them personally? His suggestion that the legislature would actually have the guts to refuse to fund a legitimate investigation is also a huge insult to what I truly hope is a less corrupt body than he implies.

Finally, Greg Grounds' opinion that the legislature buys off whomever it funds is insulting to the law enforcement and court system that it does fund. By Grounds' logic, he should be immune from prosecution in the Jackson County Circuit Court if he embarks on a crime spree. The prosecutors would be unable to prosecute him, because they are funded by the legislature, and the courts would not be able to convict him, because their personnel are on the Jackson County payroll. In Greg Grounds' self-important mind, the jail could not dare to hold someone of his stature.

It is truly sad to see a Jackson County legislator believe that the entire mechanism of County Government is controlled by his almighty dollar. It is truly insulting to see a Jackson County legislator threaten a volunteer board with a cut in pay. Most of all, though, it is infuriating to see that Greg Grounds and his fellow legislators think we're dumb enough to fall for it.

Is It Time to Give Up on Jackson County Ethics Legislation?

It's been a little more than a month since the Jackson County Legislature violated the Jackson County Charter and passed ethics legislation that purports to exclude the Legislature from the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission. It's been weeks since the Ethics Commission responded to that "untouchable" approach by resigning, and sometime soon a committee (not the Legislature) will appoint a new committee (if they can find people willing to play along with an illegal sham of an Ethics Commission). It's a New Year. We have a new Chair of the Legislature. Is it time to let bygones be bygones, and move forward?

Not just no, hell no!

This is a battle that is going to drag on, even if the bodies won't hit the floor until 2010. The traditional media have started to pay attention to it. Rumor has it that at least a couple legislators are feeling like they were lied to when they were assured that it was legal, and that the Missouri Ethics Commission had the authority to enforce it. They don't want to take the risk of drawing a strong challenge in their next election, having already tainted themselves with a permissive attitude toward unethical behavior.

Here's the end game on this flap. I intend to focus on the Jackson County Legislature, its ethical shortcomings, and how to challenge each of the "Untouchables" until they reverse themselves on violating the Charter. I've talked to a couple well-connected people who share my disgust for what the Legislature has done, and they have promised to make a few calls to people who might be interested in running for the Legislature on a pro-Ethics platform. The next round of elections for the Jackson County Legislature is promising to be a battle between the Pro-Ethics candidates and the Untouchable Incumbents.

I won't predict that each and every incumbent will lose in the next race. Based on what I've seen and heard, though, I will issue my prediction today that, unless the Jackson County Legislature submits to local ethical oversight, at least 4 and perhaps 5 will, in fact, be driven from office. There are some bright people out there inspired to get involved in politics, and the Jackson County Legislature provides the next golden opportunity to run for office on an anti-incumbent, pro-ethics platform.

Some entrenched incumbents are going to lose their seats, and almost every one of them will face a serious and very expensive challenge, unless they reverse themselves on the Ethics Legislation, and do it soon.

Here are my predictions on this matter. The furor about this will not fade away. Scott Burnett's term as Chair of the Jackson County Legislature will be dogged by questions raised by the refusal to submit to local oversight, and the violation of the Charter. Several new members of the Ethics Commission will resign after questions are raised about whether it is ethical to serve on an Ethics Commission that is being barred from following the Charter that creates it. Other blogs and other media will join in the fun. Sometime over the next few months, someone will file an ethics complaint against one of the legislators, and the Ethics Commission will refuse to hear it, and will forward it to the Missouri Ethics Commission, which will also refuse to hear it. Regardless of the merits of the complaint, citizens will be outraged by the Untouchable legislators. A few of the legislators will develop a conscience and file legislation that will reestablish the oversight called for in the Charter. Rizzo, Burnett, Tarwater and a couple other "old school" will persist in arguing that they are above local oversight, and new candidates will start making their plans known. It will be a bloodbath.

And we WILL get a Jackson County legislature that respects ethics.

Jackson County Ethical Lies - It's Not Double Jeopardy!

Is it "double jeopardy" to be required to follow the laws of both the County and the State? Of course not. When Henry Rizzo argued that "The Legislature didn’t think it needed to subject itself to 'double jeopardy' by being under both state and county commissions", he was abusing an important constitutional term in an attempt to cover his own unwillingness to be held to ethical standards. Sadly, this appalling and cynical dodge of responsibility is being used by other legislators, as well - one of whom looked me in the eye and tried to claim that Scott Burnett's twice-examined and once-penalized ethics brouhaha was an example of "double jeopardy".

Nonsense.

Anyone who tries to argue that it is double jeopardy to be bound by both the Jackson County ethics code and state campaign laws is either ignorant or lying. Neither is an attractive trait in someone we have trusted to be a legislator.

Simply stated, "double jeopardy" is being tried twice for the same offense, and it is banned by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It does not apply, though, if you commit an act which is subject to prosecution by two authorities under separate laws. The LAPD officers who pounded Rodney King were convicted in federal court after being acquitted by the state court, because their behavior violated different laws for different levels of government. If you rob a bank, don't expect to get off easy by copping a plea to a speeding ticket in the getaway car.

Rizzo's claim of double jeopardy is rendered even more silly by the fact that the Jackson County Ethics Code and the laws enforced by the Missouri Ethics Commission do not even overlap entirely. The Missouri Ethics Commission is limited to enforcement of STATE "conflict of interest and lobbying laws (RSMo 105.450-498) and campaign finance disclosure laws (RSMo 130)." Even if they wanted to enforce the standards of local Jackson County voters, they would not be authorized to do so.

Rizzo and other legislators who invoke the Double Jeopardy clause are trying to wrap themselves in our Constitution while shielding themselves from local ethics laws. It is a despicable trick, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Dan Tarwater Responds, but Appears Not to Know What is in the Jackson County Charter

Dan Tarwater is my in-district County Legislator. I wrote to him and the rest of the Legislators expressing my dismay at their refusal to support local ethics review, and asking them each three specific questions. I also promised to publish their answers, unless they requested that I not do so. Here's what I got from Dan Tarwater:

1. Do you support empowering the Jackson County Ethics Commission to have authority to "receive complaints and conduct investigations" regarding Jackson County legislators?
Yes I do and the legislature does authorize and allow the Ethics Commission to have authority to receive complaints and investigate but then it is to be passed on to the Missouri Ethics omission. The reason for that is that the Jackson County Ethics Commission is appointed by us and it could have a conflict of interest since we also fund them. There are already provisions in place to avoid this conflict and that is the Missouri Ethics Commission.

2. If not, why not?

3. Do you believe that the Jackson County Charter supports your
interpretation, or do you believe that it needs to be changed to
allow for the exemption of elected officials from local oversight?

I do believe that the County Charter does support this position. I feel that we as elected Officials should be help to a higher standard than anyone else. If an elected official does something that is wrong they should be suffer the consequences. Any act that is deemed to be a violation should be investigated by an authority that does not have ties to body. We would not want someone to look at a ruling and say they did not find them guilty because they had a conflict of interest.

So there you go. Let's take a look, though, at the truth of what he said.

"The reason for that is that the Jackson County Ethics Commission is appointed by us". That, folks, is a pure, unadulterated LIE. The County Legislature does not appoint the Jackson County Ethics Commission! While supporting legislation to rob Jackson Countians of ethical oversight, Tarwater doesn't even have a passing familiarity with how the current system works!!

Here, for those who care about the truth, is what the Charter, not Dan Tarwater, has to say about how the Commission is appointed, and it's linked to the real Charter, in case you want to read the entire Charter by yourself:

There shall be an ethics commission selection board, which shallappoint all of the appointees to the ethics commission. This board shall consist of the executive director of the Mid-America Regional Council, the dean of the Henry W. Bloc School of Business and Public Administration at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, and the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City. Within thirty days of the effective date of this section, the selection board shall appoint five residents of the county to the ethics commission. The commission members shall select their own chairman. Thereafter, within thirty days of the occurrence of a vacancy on the ethics commission, the selection board shall fill the vacancy.

That's a lot of technical language, but it raises a vital question.

Does Dan Tarwater not know what he's talking about, or is he lying to his constituents? It's one or the other, and neither answer is acceptable for someone making decisions about how Jackson County voters can hold their legislators accountable for unethical behavior.

Tarwater's second answer also includes a major blunder about what is in the Charter. He claims that the Charter supports his position on robbing Jackson Countians of the right to oversee the Legislature's ethics. Once again, let's go to the primary sources.

The Charter: "The commission may receive complaints and conduct investigations of violations of the conflicts of interests, financial interest disclosure, and lobbying registration and disclosure provisions of the charter, the code and ordinances, and the statutory and common law of the state of Missouri as it applies to county officers . . ."

The Ordinance Dan Tarwater and the rest of the Jackson County Legislature enacted: "the Jackson County Ethics Commission shall be without jurisdiction to hear complaints [[filed with the Jackson County Ethics Commission]] concerning the compliance with any provision of this chapter of any actions or conduct of any County elected officials . . ."

So, the Charter specifically authorizes the Commission to look into ethics violations by county officers (including elected officials), while the ordinance specifically robs them of that jurisdiction, and Tarwater seems to think the two are consistent. Once again, we are left wondering, "Does Dan Tarwater not know what he's talking about, or is he lying to his constituents?"

It's an interesting question, but does it really matter?

Jackson County Ethical Shell Game

Somebody at the Jackson County legislature must have read Catch-22, and taken it to heart.

Here. buried on page 48 of noble-sounding ethics legislation, is the key to the whole thing:

Given that the County Legislature and the County Executive are the elected officials ultimately responsible for approving the budget for, promulgating rules to govern, and entering into contracts for the Jackson County Ethics Commission, it is necessary to avoid even the appearance of influence over Commission actions and decisions. Therefore, [[any]] the Jackson County Ethics Commission shall be without jurisdiction to hear complaints [[filed with the Jackson County Ethics Commission]] concerning the compliance with any provision of this chapter of any actions or conduct of any County elected officials, and any such complaint shall be forwarded to the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The kicker is that the Missouri Ethics Commission will not enforce the Jackson County Ethics Code! Not their job! Sorry! Might as well forward it to the Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners!

As for the nonsense about overseeing the Ethics Commission, I suppose the County Legislators believes that State Reps don't have to answer to the State Courts or the Highway Patrol, and Senators are exempt from the FBI. How stupid do they think we are?

Never before in the history of Jackson County fraud has the legislature ever so brazenly sought to mislead the public.

Will we let them get away with it?

Time for YOU to Start Thinking About Running for Jackson County Legislature?

Do you have a hankering to run for political office, but don't want to give up your career? Do you see the local politicians on TV and think "Somebody better ought to get involved"? Do you want to break up the cozy circle of local politicos who elevate self-interest over ethics?

Maybe you should run for the Jackson County legislature. And maybe you should start putting your campaign together now.

The Jackson County legislature is vulnerable. Every single one of them, with the exception of Fred Arbanas (who was absent), is ON THE RECORD exempting themselves from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission, in violation of the Jackson County Charter.

If they don't reverse themselves on that point immediately, it should be a relatively easy matter to run against a Jackson County politician who has gone on the record supporting less ethical oversight for him or herself. Better yet, you will have your choice of two candidates to take on, since you can run either "in district" or "at large". To figure out which candidates you could run against, just find yourself on the district maps appearing under each legislator's name. You will be in two legislators' districts - one of the "at large" legislators and one of district legislators. Check out both, because they are not the same.

The only qualifications you'll need to run, as defined by the County Charter, are: "Each member of the Legislature shall be a qualified voter in Jackson County for at least three years preceding his/her election and a resident in his/her district for at least one year preceding his/her nomination." The filing deadline is not until later in the year, but now is the time to start talking to people who know the county and the districts. The elections will be in 2010, so you have more than a year to get your name out there if you get started soon.

If you've been wanting to get into politics, how often are you going to face your choice of two candidates who have publicly come out against ethics? This is a golden opportunity.

Jackson County Ethics Fiasco - Making Corruption Easier

Why would the Jackson County Legislature violate the Jackson County Charter, and exempt itself from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission?

That's a hard question to answer, but one point is crystal clear. The Jackson County Ethics Fiasco orchestrated by Mike Sanders and the Legislature is certainly not designed to improve County government or to make themselves more accountable to voters.

Now, I'm not claiming that the Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature are engaged in rampant corruption. Of course not. I am saying, however, that Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature have just made it easy for themselves to get away with rampant corruption.

Why??

Honestly, who among us thinks that a legislative body that has in recent years engaged in actual fisticuffs, and which includes a man convicted of a federal crime, ought to be shielding itself from local ethical oversight?

One of my prized possessions is a copy of the County Charter given to me by Harold Fridkin, one of its authors, and a man I greatly admire. Perhaps I'm just a sentimental sap, but I take that document seriously, and it pains me to see Mike Sanders and the Jackson County Legislature use it as toilet paper, ripping from it the pages that empower the Jackson County Ethics Commission to "receive complaints and conduct investigations" concerning our Legislature. It pains me to read that Mike Sanders, rather than standing up for local ethics enforcement, proposes to solve the problem by amending the charter to gut the ethics commission.

I have the deepest respect for several of the Jackson County legislators, but I am at a complete loss to explain why they would make corruption easier in our county, and refuse to be held to the same ethical standards as other county employees. The state ethics commission will not enforce county ordinances, so they can violate our new ethics code with impunity. Why would they give themselves that option?

Even if they complete their terms with honor, their misdeeds surrounding the Ethics Code will be the root of future scandals. Even if they are not crooks, they will be the ones that enable future crooks.

It ought to bother us that they cannot explain why they choose to exempt themselves from the oversight of the Jackson County Ethics Commission, which is the only body authorized to enforce the ethics code. It ought to bother them, too.

It ought to make them sit for a few minutes and think about whom they are serving with their actions. Future crooks, themselves, or the citizens of Jackson County? And whom were they hoping to serve when they first got involved in public service?

The citizens who drafted the County Charter expected our legislators to submit to the oversight of the Jackson County Ethics Commission. Why, now, is that too much to expect?

Jackson County Non-Ethics On Jay Leno!

On Monday night, the Tonight Show mocked Mike Sanders' version of Jackson County "ethics" code, which has been carefully drafted to avoid covering the Jackson County Legislature. The thing is, it's really not funny. It's scandalous that our legislators are conspiring to exempt themselves from oversight.

David Martin Explains the Jackson County Legislature

Money quote: "What I learned from paying closer attention: County government is, at its highest level, a mostly inconsequential exercise conducted by tedious people." I'll argue that they're not all tedious, but they all should be ashamed of themselves for not getting the Ethics Legislation passed. Even the good ones . . .

Bottoms Up! Put the Top Down! - Jackson County Legislature Keeps its Privileges

Theresa Garza Ruiz represents the best of the Jackson County legislature. So it came as no surprise that she came up with a workable solution to the awkward and unfair system of "first come, first served" ballot filing for County positions. Our current system, where candidates are made to wait outside the courthouse or obtain early access through favoritism, is simply an embarrassment. Rather than cursing the darkness of insider politics, Garza Ruiz lit a candle of fairness and proposed a lottery system for first-day filers, similar to the one that has been working effectively at the state level.

Garza Ruiz's common-sense solution got rejected 7-2 by a County Legislature that refuses to surrender its insider perks for the good of the County.

This may be a little thing, but tt's the little things that show character. Garza Ruiz showed that she is working for the improvement of the County. The 7 who voted against her showed that they are in it for themselves.

There will be a future round of elections for those 7 legislators, and I am quite confident that they will eagerly use their insider access to gain themselves the fruits of the system they have protected from improvement.

I propose that those of us who reject their ugly system of privilege launch a campaign to encourage voters to punish them by rejecting those at the top of the ballot. Perhaps the slogan could be "Bottoms Up!" or "Put the Top Down!", and it could foster the sort of anti-incumbent fever we need to rid our legislature of the self-serving seven.

Insiders (No, Literally, Insiders!) Want to Keep Control

One of the rites of Jackson County politics is the camp-out the night before the filing deadline for County races, in an attempt to gain the first spot on the ballot. This year, the silliness fell apart into a display of temper, whining, and favoritism. None of those things are new to Jackson County politics, but it's disheartening to see them displayed so prominently in the pregame show.

The dirty secret is that people who have connected friends, or who are incumbents, get to enter the building early. Simply stated, the system is unfair and undignified. Jackson Countians deserve a better system.

Theresa Garza Ruiz has a better way. She is proposing a lottery system, so that ballot position is decided by chance among those who file on the first day. “It needs to be a level playing field, and this is the way to do it," Ruiz claims. This is the same system that created rare agreement in the thread about the Sheriff's race that sprung up (strangely enough) under my post about Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island.

Of course, it's impossible to disagree with her, right?

Not surprisingly, a few "insiders" prefer the system that makes regular people wait out in the cold. Henry Rizzo and Dan Tarwater have said that the current system works fine for people with special courthouse access, and, since they have it, they see no need to change.

“The only ones unhappy about it are the ones who couldn’t get in early to file,” said Dennis Waits, the chairman of the legislature. In other words, who cares about the losers that don't have Dennis Waits to sneak them in the back door?

The current legislators have courthouse access, but the rest of us don't. They and their friends have an advantage that they have used to play games with our ballots. We should not allow their gamesmanship to continue.

The proposal by Ruiz is a sensible one. She is taking a small but important step against cronyism and "insider" politics (literally). Any legislator who opposes this proposal announces clearly that he is prefers insider games.

Meeting John Bullard, Candidate for Jackson County Sheriff

A while back, I posted "Can I Get a Little Help?", seeking input on what the Jackson County Sheriff does and which candidate would be best. 3 weeks later, having read up on the candidates and meeting one of them, I'm on board with John Bullard.

I met John for lunch on Friday, along with my friend Kanga. John reminds me of Andy Sipowicz cleaned up and with more hair. John is the model "good cop" - polite, modest, smart, informed and pleasant. Even with assurances that I wouldn't write about his response, he had nothing bad to say about his opponents, preferring, instead, to talk about what he would do in office. (Darn him!)

John Bullard is well-prepared to move the Jackson County Sheriff's Department forward. He alone has the credentials among real law enforcement professionals to build cooperation among the many law enforcement agencies in Jackson County. (Some of the other candidates puff up their resumes by listing "weekend warrior" reserve service, but John is the genuine article.) He has ambitious plans to seek Homeland Security money for upgrades to equipment and communications. He plans to open satellite offices to increase accessibility (Do you know where the Sheriff's office is? Could you get yourself out to Lake Jacomo by bus?) and visibility.

It's been fun but kind of frightening to learn about the Sheriff's Department and the candidates who seek to run it. We are blessed with a few good candidates, but one of them stands out because of his professionalism, experience, and vision. That candidate is John Bullard, and I'm looking forward to voting for him in the primary and again in the general election.

Can I Get a Little Help?

My knowledge of sheriffs comes entirely from reggae and Westerns. I know we have one here in Jackson County, but I've never seen him outdraw someone on Main Street, or string up any rustlers over yonder by the corral. In short, I reckon our current sheriff is a complete failure, but he's not running for reelection, so I see no need to pull a Bob Marley on the lowdown varmint.

More seriously, the Missouri Ethics Commission shows 5 active candidates for the job, and I have no idea who's the best candidate, or even what makes a candidate best for the position.

Please share with me who I should be supporting and why.

What's the Going Rate for Backroom Deals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Group Political Blog - BlogCCP

With the demise of the KC Buzz Blog, Kansas City needs a new political blog with multiple voices and varied topics. The Committee for County Progress, a "Democratic political reform organization established in 1964 to reform and restructure Jackson County government" has launched BlogCCP to meet that need. It's just getting started, and your comments, criticisms and advice could help form it into an attractive political gathering place for Kansas Citians interested in politics.

It is set up now so that each of the 150 members of the CCP is allowed to do original posts, and anyone can comment. Anonymous comments are allowed. Blog posts do not reflect official positions of the CCP, so the debate should range far and wide.

Maybe Shields was Right?

I've long been a bemused supporter of Katheryn Shields. She's a gutsy, fearless person who walks her own path and does what she thinks is right, even when the polls suggest she should do otherwise. Of course, she also does some foolish things (like that ridiculous, hideous mural) with the same bullheaded lack of concern for public opinion.

I remember way back in the early 90s when she did the grunt work to protect KC from a sloppy and homophobic ballot initiative - she didn't get many thanks, but she did get sued for her effort. She won, but she had to work hard to defend herself and her motives, when she was really doing the right thing.

A person like Katheryn is easy to ridicule and dislike. She doesn't always suffer fools patiently, and her willingness to eschew the popular approach doesn't earn her a ton of popular goodwill. She tends to work her political magic through skilled manipulation of the needs of different constituencies and interest groups rather than unifying everyone behind a common vision. As a result, for much of her career, Katheryn Shields has had many allies, but few friends.

Katheryn Shields has always been kind to me and my family, but I sat silent when the indictment came down. When she claimed the whole affair was politically motivated, I kind of rolled my eyes.

Now, a scandal is gathering around the politicization of the US Attorneys office, and Gonzalez is likely to wind up bounced from public life because he has, in fact, been a conduit for White House use of the US Attorney's Office for political vendettas and selective prosecution of Democrats. "Nearly 80% of all federal investigations undertaken by the Bush DoJ and targeting elected officials or candidates were aimed at Democrats, with under 18% targeting Republicans. Around the country, that's 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 investigations of Republicans."