State Auditor Susan Montee was a guest on the Vincent David Jericho Program this morning. Listen to the discussion, which revolved around Missouri's low income housing tax credits and the commission which oversees that program (I haven't even had the chance to look at it myself).
Montee and her staff filed a report on the Missouri Housing Development Commission in June of this year. You can read the report here.
Thanks for the great programming, Vince!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label Vincent David Jericho Program. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vincent David Jericho Program. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Springfield City Attorney: City Manager Burris did Nothing Illegal, Actions Warrant no Further Investigation
In a Springfield News-Leader article published Saturday, April 11, Amos Bridges of the News-Leader reported a statement from Springfield's City Attorney:
The SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) held a press conference on April 9, charging City Manager Burris' actions, in forwarding an email to the President of Springfield Firefighters Local 152, had inserted the city manager into election politics, and possibly affected the outcome of the City Council election.
In the email, which was blind carbon copied to the city manager by one of the candidates, two City Council candidates were engaged in an ongoing discussion about possible modifications to certain benefits of the Police and Fire Pension plan. The email's contents were not characterized by the candidates or put into context in any way for Mr. Burris.
The day before the City Council election, Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley called local radio station KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program and stated the email had caused union members to question whether the candidates were lying to them, and had played a considerable role in the union's decision not to endorse the two candidates.
Burris, who did not deny forwarding the email to Kelley, has issued a statement in response and made the email available for public viewing.
SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright have said they believe the action was unethical, based on the International City Manager Association's Code of Ethics, and warrants Burris' resignation or removal from the office of City Manager.
Note: See my previous report on the SOS press conference, entered on Thursday evening, where a link to the KSGF podcast with Tony Kelley's comments was provided. A complete tape recording of the April 9, SOS Press Conference is available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When someone makes the charge that there's something illegal going on, I tend to look into it right away," he [City Attorney Dan Wichmer] said. "I have looked into it and I have found nothing that warranted any further investigation by council. But I'll pass my report along (if it's requested)."
The SOS (Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition) held a press conference on April 9, charging City Manager Burris' actions, in forwarding an email to the President of Springfield Firefighters Local 152, had inserted the city manager into election politics, and possibly affected the outcome of the City Council election.
In the email, which was blind carbon copied to the city manager by one of the candidates, two City Council candidates were engaged in an ongoing discussion about possible modifications to certain benefits of the Police and Fire Pension plan. The email's contents were not characterized by the candidates or put into context in any way for Mr. Burris.
The day before the City Council election, Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley called local radio station KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program and stated the email had caused union members to question whether the candidates were lying to them, and had played a considerable role in the union's decision not to endorse the two candidates.
"Whenever we had a candidate forum, one of the questions was, do you support benefit reductions to police and firefighters, and their answer was no, they don't support it. We found that to be disturbing, that I have an email where both of them were exchanging back and forth about what would be a benefit reduction and, you know, two weeks later we have a forum and they both say, 'no, we're not in support of that,' so that played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison." -Firefighter Union President Kelley, April 6 on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program.
Burris, who did not deny forwarding the email to Kelley, has issued a statement in response and made the email available for public viewing.
SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright have said they believe the action was unethical, based on the International City Manager Association's Code of Ethics, and warrants Burris' resignation or removal from the office of City Manager.
Note: See my previous report on the SOS press conference, entered on Thursday evening, where a link to the KSGF podcast with Tony Kelley's comments was provided. A complete tape recording of the April 9, SOS Press Conference is available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Save Our Springfield (SOS) Citizen's Coalition Calls for City Manager Burris' Resignation
The headline in a "Springfield News-Leader" article, published in the Thursday, April 9 issue speaks volumes: "Police, fire support affects election wins."
But, what would you think if you knew that Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris had directly effected the Firefighter Union's choice of candidate endorsements? Would it give you pause to question whether the City Manager had inserted himself into a City Council election? Would you consider such actions, if true, to be unethical actions for a city manager? If so, you might be be in agreement with the positions of SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright.
If, as the winning (and the losing) candidates seem to agree, police and firefighter union endorsements and support effect election wins, and the City Manager's actions contributed to the Firefighter Union's decision not to endorse General Seat A and B, City Council candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison, certainly, the losses of the firefighter union endorsement factored into their slim losses to their challengers. General Seat A candidate Robert Stephens beat opponent Tom Martz by about 500 votes. General Seat B candidate John Rush beat opponent Fred Ellison by a mere 208 votes, Chappell noted at a press conference early Thursday.
According to Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley, the receipt of an email forwarded to him by City Manager Greg Burris without sender Fred Ellison's permission, caused the Firefighter Union officials who decided which candidates the union would endorse, and which candidates they would not endorse for Springfield City Council, to suspect Martz and Ellison, "were lying to us to try to get our endorsement."
In the email Kelley referred to, General Seat A and General Seat B candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison were kicking around ideas which they thought might enhance voter support for a 1 percent sales tax initiative to fund the police and firefighters pension plan, Ellison said. Kelley understood the email to suggest the two candidates favored either reducing or cutting completely their return of contribution pension benefit.
Kelley called the Vincent David Jericho (VDJ) Program the day before the election and said, based on that email forwarded from Burris, the union chose not to endorse Martz and Ellison. At one point, Kelley asked Jericho, "Why would we endorse candidates that lied to us?"
On the VDJ Program Kelley explained:
Ellison spoke to JackeHammer after the press conference in which SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright called for Burris' resignation.
"My entire intent in forwarding the email to Mr. Burris was to suggest to him an additional basis for supporting or ensuring the success of the 1 percent sales tax initiative." Ellison said. "I felt like the return of contribution benefit is one of those that many citizens have expressed significant reservations about, and that had the police and firefighters been willing to accept some modification to that benefit that would have, as it were, played well with the voters of Springfield."
Martz and Ellison, members of the Missouri Liberty Coalition, had made several suggestions which were later included in a resolution the City Council passed with the intent to honor if the voters had approved the 1 percent pension sales tax initiative. That initiative failed in February.
Ellison said Kelley had not given him any indication, until the day before the City Council election on the Jericho Program, that he and the other Union officials who decided against endorsing him and Martz for City Council had suspected them of being dishonest with union members.
At issue for Chappell, co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright and KSGF radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho is not who won the election but, that by the forwarding of that email, City Manager Burris had injected himself into the City Council election. An action they view as unethical.
According to Chappell, whether a particular city manager is a member or not, the International City Manager Association's (ICMA) Code of Ethics is the national standard of ethics for city managers. Chappell cited Tenet 7 of the ICMA Code of Ethics:
Chappell, who holds a degree in public administration and teaches public administration, public finance and budgeting at Drury University,* believes that by forwarding an email, unsolicited, to the President of the Firefighter Union, Burris affected the election, and such an action is unethical. He made clear he was not speaking in connection with the university, but as a member of the Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition.
Chappell said he spoke to Martha Perego, ICMA's director of ethics. "She was shocked that any City Manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done," Chappell said. According to Chappell, Perego said such behavior would cause an ethics investigation to be considered immediately, which might result in censure or even loss of membership in the ICMA, however, Chappell said, "Mr. Burris is not a member of the ICMA, to my knowledge."
In response to a question, Chappell said that while he had not identified the city or named Springfield's city manager specifically when speaking to Ms. Perego, he had informed the Director of Ethics that the email was an "FYI," and, he reported, "she asked if the City is in active negotiations with the Union concerning a renegotiation of benefits and I said no, not at all." Chappell said she said, "there is absolutely no reason that the City Manager should have been in contact with the Union officials about the positions or possible positions or thought processes of two candidates for City Council. There is no justification for it whatsoever, from an ethical perspective," he said.
Co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright said such action also violates Springfield's City Charter, Wright read from Section 6.11 of the Charter, which, in part, reads:
"Candidates that may have been assisted in their campaigns, and who were elected, may feel beholden to the City Manager and lose their effectiveness as public officials," Wright said. "Other Council members may feel intimidated by the action of the City Manager and feel less inclined to challenge him or her on positions that may not be in the best interest of the citizens they represent."
The forwarded email in question was generated by Burris at 7:48 a.m. on Monday, December 8. Burris forwarded it to Tony Kelley, Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea, Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley, Assistant Fire Chief David Hall, and Mike Evans. While earlier portions of the email Ellison had blind carbon copied to Burris included several earlier exchanges, and as many as 12 email addresses, including the Missouri Liberty Coalition's google group address, the email in question was only sent by Mr. Ellison to three other email addresses. Those three recipients were Tom Martz; Carl and Linda Herd; and James Hornaday Jr.
Burris, Chappell said, had "warned" the 5 recipients to whom he forwarded the email with the note, "FYI, so that no one gets blind-sided by upcoming comments or suggestions by the Missouri Liberty Coalition."
Whether Burris intended it to have an effect on the City Council election or not, it is clear that it, in the words of Tony Kelley, "played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison," and as the News-Leader reported, "Police, fire support affects election wins," so, in essence, by effecting the Firefighter Union's choice of endorsement, whether intentional or not, Burris affected the City Council election.
Fred Ellison does not intend to challenge the election, "With regard to the election, the election is water under the bridge at this point so, there's nothing that's going to change the outcome of the election but, I certainly wish that this had not been a factor in the decision of the voters," Ellison said.
"I think it's very unfortunate that Mr. Burris has placed himself in this position and I really regret all of the negative sentiment that will result in the continuing damage to trust of the citizens of Springfield and their city and their city government," Ellison said. "That's the most dangerous thing that these actions have done, in that it's continued that atmosphere of mistrust the citizens feel toward the city government."
Beyond calling for the City Manager to resign or, if he refuses to resign, calling on the Council to fire Mr. Burris, Chappell and Wright have no plans to take other action but, Chappell believes a line must be drawn, "When the Director of Ethics at the ICMA (International City Manager Association) is shocked by this behavior, the City Council should be as well, the citizens should be as well," he said.
The City of Springfield issued a press release late Thursday afternoon with Burris' statement in response to the charges that he had acted unethically by forwarding the email exchange between the two City Council candidates to the Firefighter Union:
General Seat A Candidate Tom Martz said the email exchange was part of an ongoing discussion the candidates had been having for months as they sought solutions to the underfunded pension plan. "What I said prior to that forum (December 18) has no bearing," Martz said. "I've been consistent."
Chappell pointed out that the candidates had never deviated from their position that they did not favor a reduction in return of contribution benefits after December 18, 2008.
It is unclear why the Firefighter Union did not question them for clarification on the issue.
*Correction: Darin Chappell is an instructor at Missouri State University. Yesterday, during the news conference Mark Wright stated Chappell was an instructor at Drury University, I regret the error. -Jackie
Related:
"April 10_Hour 2_Who is Vince calling out and why" (KSGF podcast)
"April 10_Hour 3_Free For All" (KSGF podcast)
"Save Our Springfield group calls for resignation News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader"
"busplunge: Group Calls For Springfield City Manager Called To Resign: Allege Ethical Breach"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, what would you think if you knew that Springfield's City Manager Greg Burris had directly effected the Firefighter Union's choice of candidate endorsements? Would it give you pause to question whether the City Manager had inserted himself into a City Council election? Would you consider such actions, if true, to be unethical actions for a city manager? If so, you might be be in agreement with the positions of SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright.
If, as the winning (and the losing) candidates seem to agree, police and firefighter union endorsements and support effect election wins, and the City Manager's actions contributed to the Firefighter Union's decision not to endorse General Seat A and B, City Council candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison, certainly, the losses of the firefighter union endorsement factored into their slim losses to their challengers. General Seat A candidate Robert Stephens beat opponent Tom Martz by about 500 votes. General Seat B candidate John Rush beat opponent Fred Ellison by a mere 208 votes, Chappell noted at a press conference early Thursday.
According to Firefighter Union President Tony Kelley, the receipt of an email forwarded to him by City Manager Greg Burris without sender Fred Ellison's permission, caused the Firefighter Union officials who decided which candidates the union would endorse, and which candidates they would not endorse for Springfield City Council, to suspect Martz and Ellison, "were lying to us to try to get our endorsement."
In the email Kelley referred to, General Seat A and General Seat B candidates Tom Martz and Fred Ellison were kicking around ideas which they thought might enhance voter support for a 1 percent sales tax initiative to fund the police and firefighters pension plan, Ellison said. Kelley understood the email to suggest the two candidates favored either reducing or cutting completely their return of contribution pension benefit.
Kelley called the Vincent David Jericho (VDJ) Program the day before the election and said, based on that email forwarded from Burris, the union chose not to endorse Martz and Ellison. At one point, Kelley asked Jericho, "Why would we endorse candidates that lied to us?"
On the VDJ Program Kelley explained:
"What had happened was, we received an email dated December 7th where Mr. Martz and Mr. Ellison were discussing back and forth about benefit reductions, basically, doing away with the return of contributions aspect of our pension plan," Kelley said. "Whenever we had a candidate forum, one of the questions was, do you support benefit reductions to police and firefighters, and their answer was no, they don't support it. We found that to be disturbing, that I have an email where both of them were exchanging back and forth about what would be a benefit reduction and, you know, two weeks later we have a forum and they both say, 'no, we're not in support of that,' so that played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison."
Ellison spoke to JackeHammer after the press conference in which SOS spokesmen Darin Chappell and Mark Wright called for Burris' resignation.
"My entire intent in forwarding the email to Mr. Burris was to suggest to him an additional basis for supporting or ensuring the success of the 1 percent sales tax initiative." Ellison said. "I felt like the return of contribution benefit is one of those that many citizens have expressed significant reservations about, and that had the police and firefighters been willing to accept some modification to that benefit that would have, as it were, played well with the voters of Springfield."
Martz and Ellison, members of the Missouri Liberty Coalition, had made several suggestions which were later included in a resolution the City Council passed with the intent to honor if the voters had approved the 1 percent pension sales tax initiative. That initiative failed in February.
Ellison said Kelley had not given him any indication, until the day before the City Council election on the Jericho Program, that he and the other Union officials who decided against endorsing him and Martz for City Council had suspected them of being dishonest with union members.
At issue for Chappell, co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright and KSGF radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho is not who won the election but, that by the forwarding of that email, City Manager Burris had injected himself into the City Council election. An action they view as unethical.
According to Chappell, whether a particular city manager is a member or not, the International City Manager Association's (ICMA) Code of Ethics is the national standard of ethics for city managers. Chappell cited Tenet 7 of the ICMA Code of Ethics:
"Refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body."
Chappell, who holds a degree in public administration and teaches public administration, public finance and budgeting at Drury University,* believes that by forwarding an email, unsolicited, to the President of the Firefighter Union, Burris affected the election, and such an action is unethical. He made clear he was not speaking in connection with the university, but as a member of the Save Our Springfield Citizen's Coalition.
Chappell said he spoke to Martha Perego, ICMA's director of ethics. "She was shocked that any City Manager would insert himself into a political campaign such as Mr. Burris has clearly done," Chappell said. According to Chappell, Perego said such behavior would cause an ethics investigation to be considered immediately, which might result in censure or even loss of membership in the ICMA, however, Chappell said, "Mr. Burris is not a member of the ICMA, to my knowledge."
In response to a question, Chappell said that while he had not identified the city or named Springfield's city manager specifically when speaking to Ms. Perego, he had informed the Director of Ethics that the email was an "FYI," and, he reported, "she asked if the City is in active negotiations with the Union concerning a renegotiation of benefits and I said no, not at all." Chappell said she said, "there is absolutely no reason that the City Manager should have been in contact with the Union officials about the positions or possible positions or thought processes of two candidates for City Council. There is no justification for it whatsoever, from an ethical perspective," he said.
Co-SOS spokesman Mark Wright said such action also violates Springfield's City Charter, Wright read from Section 6.11 of the Charter, which, in part, reads:
"No appointive salaried officer or employee of the city shall during the hours when he is on duty engage in any form of political activity calculated to favor or improve the chances of any political party or any person seeking or attempting to hold political office, nor shall he engage in any political activity when not on duty to such an extent that his efficiency during working hours will be impaired or that he will be tardy or absent from his work."
"Candidates that may have been assisted in their campaigns, and who were elected, may feel beholden to the City Manager and lose their effectiveness as public officials," Wright said. "Other Council members may feel intimidated by the action of the City Manager and feel less inclined to challenge him or her on positions that may not be in the best interest of the citizens they represent."
The forwarded email in question was generated by Burris at 7:48 a.m. on Monday, December 8. Burris forwarded it to Tony Kelley, Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea, Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley, Assistant Fire Chief David Hall, and Mike Evans. While earlier portions of the email Ellison had blind carbon copied to Burris included several earlier exchanges, and as many as 12 email addresses, including the Missouri Liberty Coalition's google group address, the email in question was only sent by Mr. Ellison to three other email addresses. Those three recipients were Tom Martz; Carl and Linda Herd; and James Hornaday Jr.
Burris, Chappell said, had "warned" the 5 recipients to whom he forwarded the email with the note, "FYI, so that no one gets blind-sided by upcoming comments or suggestions by the Missouri Liberty Coalition."
Whether Burris intended it to have an effect on the City Council election or not, it is clear that it, in the words of Tony Kelley, "played a lot into our decision to not endorse Martz and Ellison," and as the News-Leader reported, "Police, fire support affects election wins," so, in essence, by effecting the Firefighter Union's choice of endorsement, whether intentional or not, Burris affected the City Council election.
Fred Ellison does not intend to challenge the election, "With regard to the election, the election is water under the bridge at this point so, there's nothing that's going to change the outcome of the election but, I certainly wish that this had not been a factor in the decision of the voters," Ellison said.
"I think it's very unfortunate that Mr. Burris has placed himself in this position and I really regret all of the negative sentiment that will result in the continuing damage to trust of the citizens of Springfield and their city and their city government," Ellison said. "That's the most dangerous thing that these actions have done, in that it's continued that atmosphere of mistrust the citizens feel toward the city government."
Beyond calling for the City Manager to resign or, if he refuses to resign, calling on the Council to fire Mr. Burris, Chappell and Wright have no plans to take other action but, Chappell believes a line must be drawn, "When the Director of Ethics at the ICMA (International City Manager Association) is shocked by this behavior, the City Council should be as well, the citizens should be as well," he said.
The City of Springfield issued a press release late Thursday afternoon with Burris' statement in response to the charges that he had acted unethically by forwarding the email exchange between the two City Council candidates to the Firefighter Union:
"It’s disappointing to me that this group is trying to shift the focus of the City Council election outcome to one single e-mail exchange from four months ago instead of urging the community to pull together to support the newly elected Council members. There is simply no basis for their allegations. Nor have they approached me directly with their concerns since a phone call from a Journal Broadcasting radio show host on Monday asking for my recollection of the e-mail, which I didn’t even remember from December.
The e-mail they are citing already had several Missouri Liberty Coalition members copied on it and there was no indication it was supposed to be considered confidential, especially considering it was sent to a public official and would be open under the Missouri Sunshine Law. I simply forwarded it to the appropriate staff members who were involved in the police-fire pension tax proposal as an FYI to let them know points that Coalition members may raise at presentations or elsewhere. I’ve worked very hard to establish trust and open lines of communication with all of our employees, including representatives of our employee groups.
I’m also disappointed because I have similarly tried to respect the mutual interest I share with the SOS group in solving our pension underfunding problem. I have stated repeatedly that their proposal would be forwarded to the Citizens’ Task Force for their review and consideration and I forwarded a whitepaper prepared about the Capital Improvements Program to Mr. Wright and Mr. Chappell for their background information as a courtesy." - Greg Burris, City Manager
General Seat A Candidate Tom Martz said the email exchange was part of an ongoing discussion the candidates had been having for months as they sought solutions to the underfunded pension plan. "What I said prior to that forum (December 18) has no bearing," Martz said. "I've been consistent."
Chappell pointed out that the candidates had never deviated from their position that they did not favor a reduction in return of contribution benefits after December 18, 2008.
It is unclear why the Firefighter Union did not question them for clarification on the issue.
*Correction: Darin Chappell is an instructor at Missouri State University. Yesterday, during the news conference Mark Wright stated Chappell was an instructor at Drury University, I regret the error. -Jackie
Related:
"April 10_Hour 2_Who is Vince calling out and why" (KSGF podcast)
"April 10_Hour 3_Free For All" (KSGF podcast)
"Save Our Springfield group calls for resignation News-Leader.com Springfield News-Leader"
"busplunge: Group Calls For Springfield City Manager Called To Resign: Allege Ethical Breach"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 06, 2009
Firefighter Union Reaction Unmerited and Unreasonable
Correction:
Considering I just got word the attachment I wrote about yesterday was not attached to the original email sent to Tony Kelley, I have removed the original posting entered here last night.
Based upon the information I received, Ellison and Martz never, in public, suggested to the police or firefighter pension unions that they would reduce any benefits to the pension plan, therefore, the opinion posted that the Firefighter Union reaction was unmerited and unreasonable stands.
If you missed the posting yesterday, this entry may not make much sense to you as it stands.
I will write more on this topic later, and I regret any misunderstanding. - Jackie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Considering I just got word the attachment I wrote about yesterday was not attached to the original email sent to Tony Kelley, I have removed the original posting entered here last night.
Based upon the information I received, Ellison and Martz never, in public, suggested to the police or firefighter pension unions that they would reduce any benefits to the pension plan, therefore, the opinion posted that the Firefighter Union reaction was unmerited and unreasonable stands.
If you missed the posting yesterday, this entry may not make much sense to you as it stands.
I will write more on this topic later, and I regret any misunderstanding. - Jackie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, January 26, 2009
Jericho's Interviews with City Council Primary Candidates are Worth a Listen
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Pension Apples and Pension Oranges
Let's sort 'em out together
Back in the December 17 issue of CFP I was inspired to write a pension update (page 6) because of this News-Leader article's statement:
The story was very misleading and I felt it needed much stronger clarification than the News-Leader made the following day.
What Hall was saying was the pension fund's investments were bringing in more in returns than had been projected and the city opted later, due to the "surplus" returns, it lowered the amount of the actuarially recommended contribution the city was required to make.
Here's the update from CFP's page 6 of the Dec. 17 issue:
Hall is right, as is City Manager Greg Burris, when they say the police and fire pension system is a very complex issue. Hall was right when he said, because of the complexity of the issue, it can easily lead to misunderstanding. In the case of the above article, the pension fund's investments were confused with the actuary's recommended contribution. While the city can decide not to make the actuary recommended contribution any given year, the city cannot withhold "surplus" investment returns.
Today, when I read, "State can take some of city's pension tax funds," though I feel I have a very good grasp of the pension issue, I got that familiar feeling of apples and oranges being all mixed up until you didn't know which was the apple and which was the orange any more. I'm not slamming the News-Leader but I don't feel it is at all helpful to the public to mix two separate issues up, discussing one, then the other, returning to the first, without proper clarification. It was more confusing than enlightening and so, here I am again, trying to straighten out the facts so that perhaps, at least the readers of JackeHammer, won't come away confused and befuddled.
In the News-Leader's article today, the writer started off discussing the State's practice of withholding 1 percent of the city's sales tax revenue in order to compensate itself for the administrative costs of collecting it and dispersing it back to the city in the form of a monthly check.
The State of Missouri collects all of the city's sales tax revenue. That is why you hear the City Manager refer, at times, to his inability to tell the City Council or the public what the sales tax receipts for, let's say, October, are until the first week or two in November, or until they receive the check for their portion of the sales tax revenue the state has collected on behalf of the city.
The writer of the article did a fine job defining that in the first part of today's article however, I wondered about Burris' statement:
I think it is important to note here, that the $400,000 would be the state's 1 percent handling fee on the $40 million the city estimates it will take in for the pension fund annually, if the pension sales tax initiative passes.
The next part of the article is where it gets a little applesy-orangey to me:
You see, the State has always withheld a portion of all of the city's sales tax revenue to, like I wrote above, compensate itself for administrating the revenue. As the News-Leader article pointed out:
So, I'm not sure why the city or the public should have a problem with the State including the standard fee DOR has always collected for handling sales tax revenue. Why did it only become questionable when it was included in the law the state passed to force the city fund the pension system? I also think it might have confused the reader as to whether the city opposed the law or the city opposed the state's standard fee, identified within the law, to withhold 1 percent of the gross sales tax revenue as a handling fee.
Regarding the "deficiency," according to the News-Leader article:
I think the "deficiency" Burris may be referring to is the below 60 percent funded ratio of the pension plan. That is the deficiency which causes the state law to kick in. I don't know what other "deficiency" he, or the state, could have been discussing in regards to the pension plan.
The article goes on:
You see, the reason the law was made moot by the city's full payment in the current fiscal year is because, by making the payment, the city bought four years before they are required, by law, to make a full actuary recommended contribution again. The only thing making the full actuarial recommended contribution in the next year will accomplish is to keep the four years they bought this year by making the full contribution remain at four years, instead of decreasing to three years.
The next statement in the article...:
...is one of the most confusing and troubling statements in the article. The statement, by not telling the reader when or why the state could withhold up to $18 million from the city if the council doesn't make full pension payments, might lead the reader to believe that if the council doesn't make the full actuarial recommended contribution in the next fiscal year the state could withhold up to $18 million from the city in the next fiscal year. This simply cannot happen because, the city, in this fiscal year (2008-09), stopped that action for four years by making the full contribution in this fiscal year.
Then the article defines a very convoluted foundation for the figure of $18 million the City Manager claims the state could withhold. I can't begin to decipher what it may be getting at. You see, because the city made the full contribution in the 2008-09 fiscal year, the state cannot withhold 25 percent of the city's sales tax revenue unless they fail to make a full actuarial contribution again in the next four years.
The fact is, the city could wait until fiscal 2013-14 before making another full actuarial recommended contribution to the pension plan and only if they failed to make another full actuarial recommended contribution in one of the years between the next fiscal year through fiscal 2013-14 could the state begin to withhold 25 percent of the city's sales tax revenue. The reason the state would withhold 25 percent would be so that they could put that 25 percent into the pension fund because, they would feel the city has not displayed a good faith intent to fund the pension plan. The state simply wants to make sure the city does the right thing. Remember, the city did not pay the full actuarial recommended contribution on its own from 2005-2008.
Later in the article, under the section outlining how the tax can be repealed, the reader is advised:
I'm not sure what that has to do with how the tax can be repealed but, I think it does change that 4 year deadline. I believe what is being said here, is that if the city brings a sales tax initiative to the ballot in an effort to fix the pension plan they are allowed an extra year because they have shown they are making an effort to remedy the problem and fund the pension plan.
That would be the reason for a statement made in a previous News-Leader article, "Burris: Shortfall costing city more every day," I believe it was published yesterday:
Sometimes you just gotta wonder if an already complex issue isn't being made even more complex to discourage understanding. After all, if it gets complicated enough, maybe you'll just decide not to care and trust the solution offered instead of really understanding it.
I liked the comments made by Council candidate Nick Ibarra on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program this morning. He articulated the issue very well and showed a deep understanding. (If you read this after Wednesday night, the 21st, try this link to listen to Nick Ibarra instead).
Anyway, if you hung with me this long, I hope this helped your understanding and resolved a bit of the confusion. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back in the December 17 issue of CFP I was inspired to write a pension update (page 6) because of this News-Leader article's statement:
"Assistant Fire Chief David Hall, a pension board member, said the city now is facing "a really tough lesson" because of mistakes that were made in the past.
He said the pension fund investments were making double-digit returns in the 1990s, but city leaders chose not to reinvest all of that "surplus" in the fund.
"That should have been done," Hall said. "The city took the extra and used it elsewhere, rather than put it into the fund for future years when the market took a downturn.""
The story was very misleading and I felt it needed much stronger clarification than the News-Leader made the following day.
What Hall was saying was the pension fund's investments were bringing in more in returns than had been projected and the city opted later, due to the "surplus" returns, it lowered the amount of the actuarially recommended contribution the city was required to make.
Here's the update from CFP's page 6 of the Dec. 17 issue:
"Recent news might have caused a misunderstanding among the public regarding investment returns of the police and fire pension system. Pension trustee David Hall set the record straight for CFP.
"All investment returns are at the sole discretion of the pension board and can only be used for benefit payments," Hall said. "The city is unable to take any funds out of the pension system."The city's actuarial recommended contribution is separate from the investment returns. According to Hall, the city has never withheld any investment returns from the pension fund. Every year, the pension board actuary determines and recommends a contribution amount to the city.
"Except for the fiscal years 2005-2008, the city has been making the actuarial determined contribution amount," Hall said. "The issue with the police and fire pension system is a very complex issue, which can easily lead to misunderstanding."
If you would like to read pension trustee David Hall's full statement, go to http://www.cfpmidweek.com/ and click on the online supplements to the print edition link."
Hall is right, as is City Manager Greg Burris, when they say the police and fire pension system is a very complex issue. Hall was right when he said, because of the complexity of the issue, it can easily lead to misunderstanding. In the case of the above article, the pension fund's investments were confused with the actuary's recommended contribution. While the city can decide not to make the actuary recommended contribution any given year, the city cannot withhold "surplus" investment returns.
Today, when I read, "State can take some of city's pension tax funds," though I feel I have a very good grasp of the pension issue, I got that familiar feeling of apples and oranges being all mixed up until you didn't know which was the apple and which was the orange any more. I'm not slamming the News-Leader but I don't feel it is at all helpful to the public to mix two separate issues up, discussing one, then the other, returning to the first, without proper clarification. It was more confusing than enlightening and so, here I am again, trying to straighten out the facts so that perhaps, at least the readers of JackeHammer, won't come away confused and befuddled.
In the News-Leader's article today, the writer started off discussing the State's practice of withholding 1 percent of the city's sales tax revenue in order to compensate itself for the administrative costs of collecting it and dispersing it back to the city in the form of a monthly check.
The State of Missouri collects all of the city's sales tax revenue. That is why you hear the City Manager refer, at times, to his inability to tell the City Council or the public what the sales tax receipts for, let's say, October, are until the first week or two in November, or until they receive the check for their portion of the sales tax revenue the state has collected on behalf of the city.
The writer of the article did a fine job defining that in the first part of today's article however, I wondered about Burris' statement:
"Would we rather keep that? Absolutely," Burris said. "Is it a reasonable? I don't know what the state's overhead is. ($400,000) seems like a lot to me."
I think it is important to note here, that the $400,000 would be the state's 1 percent handling fee on the $40 million the city estimates it will take in for the pension fund annually, if the pension sales tax initiative passes.
The next part of the article is where it gets a little applesy-orangey to me:
"The fee is detailed in a 2007 pension reform law that also allowed Springfield to seek a one-percent sales tax to help solve its pension fund shortfall.
The law, which the city of Springfield fought unsuccessfully, carries a big stick.
It was crafted after Springfield police and fire representatives complained to state lawmakers that the city wasn't adequately funding the pension plan. Lawmakers agreed and created a costly penalty if the city failed to make full recommended payments determined by the pension fund's actuary.
The law allows the state to withhold city revenue equal to 25 percent of what the city fails to pay into the pension fund, as recommended by the actuary.
Burris said it remains unclear how the state intends to calculate that "deficiency.""
You see, the State has always withheld a portion of all of the city's sales tax revenue to, like I wrote above, compensate itself for administrating the revenue. As the News-Leader article pointed out:
""That one percent is a standard fee DOR collects for handling sales taxes from every city," Farnen said."
So, I'm not sure why the city or the public should have a problem with the State including the standard fee DOR has always collected for handling sales tax revenue. Why did it only become questionable when it was included in the law the state passed to force the city fund the pension system? I also think it might have confused the reader as to whether the city opposed the law or the city opposed the state's standard fee, identified within the law, to withhold 1 percent of the gross sales tax revenue as a handling fee.
Regarding the "deficiency," according to the News-Leader article:
"Burris said it remains unclear how the state intends to calculate that "deficiency."
I think the "deficiency" Burris may be referring to is the below 60 percent funded ratio of the pension plan. That is the deficiency which causes the state law to kick in. I don't know what other "deficiency" he, or the state, could have been discussing in regards to the pension plan.
The article goes on:
""The goal here is to make it moot," Burris said. "That's why the city made a full payment this year, and why I'm recommending we continue to make the full payment that the actuary recommends."
You see, the reason the law was made moot by the city's full payment in the current fiscal year is because, by making the payment, the city bought four years before they are required, by law, to make a full actuary recommended contribution again. The only thing making the full actuarial recommended contribution in the next year will accomplish is to keep the four years they bought this year by making the full contribution remain at four years, instead of decreasing to three years.
The next statement in the article...:
"In public presentations, Burris says the state could withhold up to $18 million from the city if the council doesn't make full pension payments."
...is one of the most confusing and troubling statements in the article. The statement, by not telling the reader when or why the state could withhold up to $18 million from the city if the council doesn't make full pension payments, might lead the reader to believe that if the council doesn't make the full actuarial recommended contribution in the next fiscal year the state could withhold up to $18 million from the city in the next fiscal year. This simply cannot happen because, the city, in this fiscal year (2008-09), stopped that action for four years by making the full contribution in this fiscal year.
Then the article defines a very convoluted foundation for the figure of $18 million the City Manager claims the state could withhold. I can't begin to decipher what it may be getting at. You see, because the city made the full contribution in the 2008-09 fiscal year, the state cannot withhold 25 percent of the city's sales tax revenue unless they fail to make a full actuarial contribution again in the next four years.
The fact is, the city could wait until fiscal 2013-14 before making another full actuarial recommended contribution to the pension plan and only if they failed to make another full actuarial recommended contribution in one of the years between the next fiscal year through fiscal 2013-14 could the state begin to withhold 25 percent of the city's sales tax revenue. The reason the state would withhold 25 percent would be so that they could put that 25 percent into the pension fund because, they would feel the city has not displayed a good faith intent to fund the pension plan. The state simply wants to make sure the city does the right thing. Remember, the city did not pay the full actuarial recommended contribution on its own from 2005-2008.
Later in the article, under the section outlining how the tax can be repealed, the reader is advised:
"If voters reject the proposed sales tax, the city gets a one-year extension to make a full payment into the pension fund, without penalty from the state."
I'm not sure what that has to do with how the tax can be repealed but, I think it does change that 4 year deadline. I believe what is being said here, is that if the city brings a sales tax initiative to the ballot in an effort to fix the pension plan they are allowed an extra year because they have shown they are making an effort to remedy the problem and fund the pension plan.
That would be the reason for a statement made in a previous News-Leader article, "Burris: Shortfall costing city more every day," I believe it was published yesterday:
A: It (the sales tax initiative, even if voted down?) bought us an extra year. The way it's been describe to me is that it's like a five-year moving window, and so it (making the full contribution in 2008-09?) bought us four more years.
If City Council would elect not to make the full recommended contribution, legally they could do so for the next four years."
Sometimes you just gotta wonder if an already complex issue isn't being made even more complex to discourage understanding. After all, if it gets complicated enough, maybe you'll just decide not to care and trust the solution offered instead of really understanding it.
I liked the comments made by Council candidate Nick Ibarra on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program this morning. He articulated the issue very well and showed a deep understanding. (If you read this after Wednesday night, the 21st, try this link to listen to Nick Ibarra instead).
Anyway, if you hung with me this long, I hope this helped your understanding and resolved a bit of the confusion. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Stringing Together some Community Thought on Public Safety and Crime Issues
Wow. There are some striking similarities between conditions on the ground in St. Louis and in Springfield, Missouri as evidenced in this Springfield News-Leader article, Alderman encourages residents to arm.
Read in light of an article published in the current issue (out today) of the Community Free Press, it gives one pause. In "City Cop Shortage is ‘Dog Gone Cold’," Brian Brown wrote that based on advice from Springfield's new City Manager, Greg Burris, and according to "Springfield Police Chief Lynn Rowe, the department is short 25 officers, and staffing levels aren’t going to be addressed before the city stabilizes the department’s pension situation." Brown goes on, "Burris said it doesn’t make sense to bring in new officers right now because new hires would be Tier II employees under the current system, and the city is trying to get switched over to the state’s LAGERS system."
Personally, I'm thinking that sort of depends upon one's priority. If public safety is the number one priority, it certainly DOES make sense to bring in new officers right now but, one could determine, considering the City failed to adequately address the underfunded pension problem for many years, that even though it's been identified as such, public safety hasn't really been the number one priorty issue in our City for many years.
According to Brown's article, "“The [hiring] freeze will occur at least until February 3,” Burris said. “If the tax passes, then we can start new academies. If the tax does not pass, we will have to reassess, and figure out what we’re going to do.""
Some months ago, I believe during budget discussions, some members (at least one) of the City Council were questioning what exactly ARE core City services? Council woman Rushefsky was seeking definition of that term. They've spent some time since then trying to get a vision of the direction the City should go. City Manager Greg Burris has questioned individual members regarding what they'd like the City to look like in 15 years. He brought along a 1999 Council resolution to one of those luncheon meetings to outline, I guess, the most current resolution of the Council regarding priorities. Council Bill 1999-438 was filed on December 7, 1999. It can also be referenced by Resolution number 8721.
Public Safety was at the head of the list. Tom Finnie was City Manager at the time. Proposed Action Step Priorities, under the explanation to the bill, for the Public Safety category included, but weren't limited to, interestingly, an "Implementation of Law Enforcement Sales Tax for; Additional Officers (City committed to 60 new officers and 12 non-sworn staff. By July, 2000, 45 officers and 9 non-sworn personnel will be hired. All 60 officers and 12 staff personnel scheduled to be hired by July, 2001.); Space Needs; Mobile Data Terminals and; Records Management System." Another category of interest was: "Determine Action on Photo Red Light Enforcement."
Again, personally, I would have preferred to have seen more "long range planning" dedicated to public safety than to Vision 20/20 projects. But, that's just me.
This morning, Vince Jericho said, "Times of great stress and strain also provide times for great opportunity," before he brought up a struggle being faced due to crime on the west side of downtown Springfield. Jack Pugh, a renovation contractor, has redeveloped houses on the west side of town in an effort to revitalize the area. He said:
It gets even more interesting, if you can call it that, maybe "alarming" would be a better word. Listen to the podcast. They touch on the article I referenced from the News-Leader, too.
I'd like to see our City Council continue to make an effort to define what core city services are for our City. It's a basic thing. Sometimes I think the citizens of this City understand core services better than the Council or City officials. In my opinion, they seem to want to expand core City services into something not "core" at all.
A Council in 1999 listed public safety first when listing their 6 priorities. Whatever long range vision they have practiced apparently didn't extend to how to protect the public and provide for law enforcement. Hinging public safety issues to whether the tax payers are willing to pass a sales tax to fund the police and firefighter pension system doesn't strike me as the most well thought out plan.
In the meantime, I think, just as a citizen of Springfield, watching our City Manager lead our City Council through feel good discussions of what you'd like to see our City look like in 15 years or what kind of a catch phrase we could identify our City by seems a bit high schoolish in light of the serious issues facing us, and don't get me wrong, I understand the City cannot have tunnel vision and ignore every aspect of our City and its growth other than public safety. I understand they have to have peripheral vision but, I'd like to see them stop giving public safety lip service as the highest priority and actually make it the highest priority.
Read in light of an article published in the current issue (out today) of the Community Free Press, it gives one pause. In "City Cop Shortage is ‘Dog Gone Cold’," Brian Brown wrote that based on advice from Springfield's new City Manager, Greg Burris, and according to "Springfield Police Chief Lynn Rowe, the department is short 25 officers, and staffing levels aren’t going to be addressed before the city stabilizes the department’s pension situation." Brown goes on, "Burris said it doesn’t make sense to bring in new officers right now because new hires would be Tier II employees under the current system, and the city is trying to get switched over to the state’s LAGERS system."
Personally, I'm thinking that sort of depends upon one's priority. If public safety is the number one priority, it certainly DOES make sense to bring in new officers right now but, one could determine, considering the City failed to adequately address the underfunded pension problem for many years, that even though it's been identified as such, public safety hasn't really been the number one priorty issue in our City for many years.
According to Brown's article, "“The [hiring] freeze will occur at least until February 3,” Burris said. “If the tax passes, then we can start new academies. If the tax does not pass, we will have to reassess, and figure out what we’re going to do.""
Some months ago, I believe during budget discussions, some members (at least one) of the City Council were questioning what exactly ARE core City services? Council woman Rushefsky was seeking definition of that term. They've spent some time since then trying to get a vision of the direction the City should go. City Manager Greg Burris has questioned individual members regarding what they'd like the City to look like in 15 years. He brought along a 1999 Council resolution to one of those luncheon meetings to outline, I guess, the most current resolution of the Council regarding priorities. Council Bill 1999-438 was filed on December 7, 1999. It can also be referenced by Resolution number 8721.
"REAFFIRMING City Council's six priorities of Public Safety, Transportation/Traffic, Quality of Life and Economic Development, Communication with Citizens, Center City Revitalization, and Long-Range Planning/Vision 20/20 for next year, as discussed at the City Council's annual workshop on November 20, 1999."
Public Safety was at the head of the list. Tom Finnie was City Manager at the time. Proposed Action Step Priorities, under the explanation to the bill, for the Public Safety category included, but weren't limited to, interestingly, an "Implementation of Law Enforcement Sales Tax for; Additional Officers (City committed to 60 new officers and 12 non-sworn staff. By July, 2000, 45 officers and 9 non-sworn personnel will be hired. All 60 officers and 12 staff personnel scheduled to be hired by July, 2001.); Space Needs; Mobile Data Terminals and; Records Management System." Another category of interest was: "Determine Action on Photo Red Light Enforcement."
Again, personally, I would have preferred to have seen more "long range planning" dedicated to public safety than to Vision 20/20 projects. But, that's just me.
This morning, Vince Jericho said, "Times of great stress and strain also provide times for great opportunity," before he brought up a struggle being faced due to crime on the west side of downtown Springfield. Jack Pugh, a renovation contractor, has redeveloped houses on the west side of town in an effort to revitalize the area. He said:
"I tell you, good things do not happen to people who come here, on the Vince Jericho Show, especially when they speak against the status quo and the good old boys and girls that like to run this town.
"Since I was here last, I've had one building put on the dangerous building list because I absolutely refused to, along with David, to put any more money in this house on South Main because crime is so bad out of control there and, we even have a building standing open down the block where all the vagrants are living in at night. We just can't put more money in this and have it torn out. It's boarded up, which is not in compliance with the City's ordinance simply because 3 of the windows have been broken out since we started working on it. So, we shut it down, we boarded it up hoping the City can get crime under control on that street again."
It gets even more interesting, if you can call it that, maybe "alarming" would be a better word. Listen to the podcast. They touch on the article I referenced from the News-Leader, too.
I'd like to see our City Council continue to make an effort to define what core city services are for our City. It's a basic thing. Sometimes I think the citizens of this City understand core services better than the Council or City officials. In my opinion, they seem to want to expand core City services into something not "core" at all.
A Council in 1999 listed public safety first when listing their 6 priorities. Whatever long range vision they have practiced apparently didn't extend to how to protect the public and provide for law enforcement. Hinging public safety issues to whether the tax payers are willing to pass a sales tax to fund the police and firefighter pension system doesn't strike me as the most well thought out plan.
In the meantime, I think, just as a citizen of Springfield, watching our City Manager lead our City Council through feel good discussions of what you'd like to see our City look like in 15 years or what kind of a catch phrase we could identify our City by seems a bit high schoolish in light of the serious issues facing us, and don't get me wrong, I understand the City cannot have tunnel vision and ignore every aspect of our City and its growth other than public safety. I understand they have to have peripheral vision but, I'd like to see them stop giving public safety lip service as the highest priority and actually make it the highest priority.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
City Council Candidate for Zone 1
Interviewed by Vince Jericho this morning
Wow, Kourtney made this easy:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, Kourtney made this easy:
"Why is one Springfield resident running for council- zone 1 and what is his three step solution to fixing the Springfield pension problem? Click here to listen to Nick Ibarra's interview with Vincent David Jericho. Click here to learn more about Nick Ibarra and click here to view his proposal on the pension." - Source: KSGF
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Vince Jericho hosted pension discussion with pension board members
Local KSGF radio host Vincent David Jericho hosted a discussion about the Police and Firefighters' Pension System this morning.
Assistant Fire Chief and Firefighter representative to the Pension board David Hall; Ron Hoffman, appointed citizen representative of the board and longest serving member and; Ken Homan, retiree representative of the board, were on hand to give their experienced and knowledgeable input.
It's well worth a listen if you are interested in the pension plan issue.
I'd also like to remind you that there will be a 7 p.m. presentation of the proposed solution to the pension plan given by City Manager Greg Burris tonight at Big Momma's Coffee and Espresso Bar. The Missouri Liberty Coalition has scheduled the meeting and wants the public to know they are welcome! Get details here or here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Assistant Fire Chief and Firefighter representative to the Pension board David Hall; Ron Hoffman, appointed citizen representative of the board and longest serving member and; Ken Homan, retiree representative of the board, were on hand to give their experienced and knowledgeable input.
It's well worth a listen if you are interested in the pension plan issue.
I'd also like to remind you that there will be a 7 p.m. presentation of the proposed solution to the pension plan given by City Manager Greg Burris tonight at Big Momma's Coffee and Espresso Bar. The Missouri Liberty Coalition has scheduled the meeting and wants the public to know they are welcome! Get details here or here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Missouri or Nonpartisan Court Plan
In New judge selection plan proposed, Dirk VanderHart of the "Springfield News-Leader" explained the Missouri Plan:
"Question 1" will be presented on the Greene County ballot in November. The group promoting it, Vote Yes for Question 1, gives some history of the Missouri Plan, which they call "the Nonpartisan Court Plan:"
...And, Vanderhart noted, the proposed plan has support in Greene County, among them, the League of Women Voters, the Greene County Commission and the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce.
The Missouri Plan has been studied by the Show-Me Institute. I made this topic a "Recommended reading" in mid July when I posted a link to Show-Me Institute's article, "Is the 'Missouri Plan' Good for Missouri?" Quoting myself:
On June 21, 2007, Governor Blunt spoke to the Kansas City Lawyers Chapter about the Missouri judicial selection process.
About two months later, the Show-Me Institute published an article about the Missouri Plan. The article, written by policy analyst David Stokes, was titled, The Missouri Plan, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lawyers, and in it, Stokes claims a few changes to the plan could make it better.
The plan, as previously noted, is already used in Missouri's Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as well as the circuit courts of Jackson County and Saint Louis City and has been expanded to include circuit judges in Saint Louis, Clay, and Platte Counties.
Stokes, in the 2007 article wrote, "The system has worked very well for Missourians, taking some of the politics out of judgeships and efficiently filling vacancies."
He then recommended it could work better with a few changes.
Stokes wrote that a Supreme Court opening had, "raised to new prominence the simmering dispute over the true non-partisanship of the Missouri Plan:"
(...and remember, Vanderhart noted that the group "Better Courts for Missouri" had noted that, "17 of the last 18 nominees to the Supreme Court had been Democrats.")
Stokes indicated he thought changes needed to be made but the plan shouldn't be completely done away with in his 2007 article. To read about the changes the Show-Me Institute policy analyst thought could improve the Missouri Plan in more detail, click here.
In summary, his suggested changes were:
> "Making the appointed positions’ term coincide with the governor’s own term would serve to respect the wishes of voters and whatever candidate they choose to elect."
> "Add(ing) one appointed position to each commission, making the number of appointments equal to the number of judges and attorneys on the commission."
...and finally,
> "The Legislature should take steps to make it clear to all that the various judicial commissions’ actions are covered by the state’s sunshine law."
I think it is also important to include this tidbit from Stokes article:
An effort to make changes to the Missouri Plan failed earlier this year. Stokes ideas were not a part of the proposed changes, rather, HJR 49 would have increased the number of candidates the Appellate Judicial Commission would recommend to the governor from three to five and the governor would have been able to veto the list, at which point the commission would have had to submit a new list for the Governor to consider.
Vince had a fairly heated discussion about "question 1" on the Vincent David Jericho Show this morning and I hope, at some point, to be able to provide a link to the podcast here. At the moment, it is not available from their Web site.
"Already in use in circuit courts around St. Louis and Kansas City --as well as the Missouri Supreme Court and Court of Appeals -- the Missouri Plan does not require judges to run in partisan elections.
Instead, a "nonpartisan judicial commission" of five members screens applicants for an open judgeship, then forwards three finalists to the governor.
The governor has 60 days to select one of the finalists. If no selection is made, the judicial commission makes the choice.
The public becomes involved in the process during retention elections, in which a majority vote can force the judge off the bench, and the process starts again."
"Question 1" will be presented on the Greene County ballot in November. The group promoting it, Vote Yes for Question 1, gives some history of the Missouri Plan, which they call "the Nonpartisan Court Plan:"
"We have a special judicial system already built into our state constitution that started with efforts made back in 1940, when Missourians voted to keep politics and special interests out of the courtrooms of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the trial courts in Jackson County and the city of St. Louis. Three other Missouri counties adopted the Nonpartisan Court Plan in early 1970s, and now Greene County has the chance to do so as well." Read more....
...And, Vanderhart noted, the proposed plan has support in Greene County, among them, the League of Women Voters, the Greene County Commission and the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce.
The Missouri Plan has been studied by the Show-Me Institute. I made this topic a "Recommended reading" in mid July when I posted a link to Show-Me Institute's article, "Is the 'Missouri Plan' Good for Missouri?" Quoting myself:
Find out the results of a study of judicial selection systems, undertaken by Joshua Hall who is an assistant professor of economics at Beloit College and Russell S. Sobel, professor of economics and Distinguished Chair in the Department of Economics at West Virginia.
You can also access the full study and a four page policy briefing here.
From the briefing:
"Our analysis finds no other method of selection resulting in average scores or rankings that are statistically higher than Missouri’s current system."
On June 21, 2007, Governor Blunt spoke to the Kansas City Lawyers Chapter about the Missouri judicial selection process.
About two months later, the Show-Me Institute published an article about the Missouri Plan. The article, written by policy analyst David Stokes, was titled, The Missouri Plan, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lawyers, and in it, Stokes claims a few changes to the plan could make it better.
The plan, as previously noted, is already used in Missouri's Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as well as the circuit courts of Jackson County and Saint Louis City and has been expanded to include circuit judges in Saint Louis, Clay, and Platte Counties.
Stokes, in the 2007 article wrote, "The system has worked very well for Missourians, taking some of the politics out of judgeships and efficiently filling vacancies."
He then recommended it could work better with a few changes.
Stokes wrote that a Supreme Court opening had, "raised to new prominence the simmering dispute over the true non-partisanship of the Missouri Plan:"
"Allies of Governor Matt Blunt feel that the current appellate judicial commission has not fairly recognized the fact that he, not the commission, is the elected leader of Missouri. The current make-up of both the commission and its recently selected panel, which many conservatives feel is tilted toward the left, seem to substantiate this charge. This has led to calls from some legislators to do away with the Missouri Plan."
(...and remember, Vanderhart noted that the group "Better Courts for Missouri" had noted that, "17 of the last 18 nominees to the Supreme Court had been Democrats.")
Stokes indicated he thought changes needed to be made but the plan shouldn't be completely done away with in his 2007 article. To read about the changes the Show-Me Institute policy analyst thought could improve the Missouri Plan in more detail, click here.
In summary, his suggested changes were:
> "Making the appointed positions’ term coincide with the governor’s own term would serve to respect the wishes of voters and whatever candidate they choose to elect."
> "Add(ing) one appointed position to each commission, making the number of appointments equal to the number of judges and attorneys on the commission."
...and finally,
> "The Legislature should take steps to make it clear to all that the various judicial commissions’ actions are covered by the state’s sunshine law."
I think it is also important to include this tidbit from Stokes article:
"....The retention vote is a good practice, but electoral history has shown it is almost impossible to get enough people to focus on the issue. Last year in Saint Louis County, a judge was handily retained by voters when an overwhelming number of lawyers, in a bar association survey, had advised against retaining her — a recommendation echoed by area newspapers. Perhaps we could improve the retention vote system by taking a page from Illinois and mandating a 60-percent vote in favor of retention in order for a judge to remain in office. I believe that is an idea worth debating."
An effort to make changes to the Missouri Plan failed earlier this year. Stokes ideas were not a part of the proposed changes, rather, HJR 49 would have increased the number of candidates the Appellate Judicial Commission would recommend to the governor from three to five and the governor would have been able to veto the list, at which point the commission would have had to submit a new list for the Governor to consider.
Vince had a fairly heated discussion about "question 1" on the Vincent David Jericho Show this morning and I hope, at some point, to be able to provide a link to the podcast here. At the moment, it is not available from their Web site.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Two City Leaders Squared Off this Morning
Councilman Doug Burlison Defended City Council's Choice of New City Manager Greg Burris; Vincent David Jericho Defended the Legitimate Arguments of the City Council's Critics; Real Discussion Ensued
Hey, I'm a fan of both of these guys and I recognize good, healthy discussion when I hear it. Good, healthy discussion is what I heard on the Vincent David Jericho Program, on KSGF this morning. The podcast is listed as a "must listen," and for good reason.
I've suffered a few snide remarks from different quarters just like Jericho has because I expose information that sometimes, I think, the executive branch of the City of Springfield might not like exposed or discussed. It takes a strong stomach to take that sort of comment and remain focused on the main thing, the important thing. That important, main thing is what we got this morning on the Jericho program. We got what started out as a contentious argument but in the end became a real discussion.
We got two men defending their positions and, while they continued to disagree, the listeners of the Vincent David Jericho Program were treated to both sides of the argument and got insight into a government process that they might not have gotten otherwise. That, my friends, whether you agree with Jericho or you agree with Burlison, is valuable to the community.
So, my thanks to Vince for offering the platform and my thanks to Councilman Burlison for knocking on his door and giving voice to his reasons for voting for Burris. Listeners can make their own decisions about whether they liked, agreed with, or felt Burlison's argument was valid, I'm just impressed he stood up and made it.
The critics of the Council's choice for City Manager deserve to have legitimate complaints and questions addressed, and they should not be put down as if the word "critic" was a derogatory term.
When did being a critic, or a government "watch dog" group, or a questioning journalist become something of which to be ashamed? Too often people who have legitimate complaints in this community are written off instead of responded to and are treated as though they are an enemy of progress and an enemy of what is good for the community in which they all live and are invested.
To quote Mayor Tom Carlson:
Where I differ from Carlson is the distinction between "people that have got real money at risk," and "the people from the peanut gallery."
There should be no distinction.
Every single citizen of this city has real money at risk here, every single one of us. We all pay taxes into the city coffers and that tax money pays for core city services, economic development and the salaries of city employees and whether it comes from our money in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, federal taxes or state taxes it comes from the taxpayers, and the taxpayers ARE the people with the real money at risk.
Listen to the podcast, truly a "must listen." Get involved in your city and hold your elected officials accountable, however you feel directed. Sometimes that means holding them accountable for the good they do for your city, sometimes that means holding them accountable for the bad decisions they make and we all have an opinion about whether choices were, or are, good or bad. Without the sort of contentious dialog we heard this morning on the radio, forming those opinions about whether choices made on your behalf, by your elected officials were good choices or bad choices would be more difficult.
Mayor Carlson recently complained, ""It's not like it used to be, there's not the depth, there's not the scope, there's not the understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering." That understanding on the part of the media comes with discussion and that is what Vincent David Jericho offers to this community. Often, he can only offer one side of any given issue because there is no one from the city who will give their side of the issue. Today that was not the case. Councilman Doug Burlison knocked on the door and talked to the people who have real money at risk in this city, the taxpayers.
Thank you, Vince. Thank you Doug.
Note to Mayor Carlson: If you want understanding on the part of the media and therefore the citizens of Springfield, it takes hard work, it takes discussion, it takes real dialog, it takes Council members like Doug Burlison and, yes, it can sometimes get heated and be a bit unpleasant along the way.
If you are looking for sanitized, one-sided public information releases, you have an entire public information office working for you, isn't that enough?
The taxpayers want more than sanitized, one-sided public information releases and in the end, isn't that what is required for depth, scope and understanding? They get that other side from the media, the radio, the print media, other sources besides the city and City Utilities printing presses.
This morning the taxpayers got a chance for more depth, scope and understanding but it took some effort and discomfort on the part of a City Councilman who was willing to walk into an unfriendly atmosphere. The Council might not get paid for that but if the Council and Mayor want more understanding that is what it will take.
Great radio. A real public service!
Hey, I'm a fan of both of these guys and I recognize good, healthy discussion when I hear it. Good, healthy discussion is what I heard on the Vincent David Jericho Program, on KSGF this morning. The podcast is listed as a "must listen," and for good reason.
I've suffered a few snide remarks from different quarters just like Jericho has because I expose information that sometimes, I think, the executive branch of the City of Springfield might not like exposed or discussed. It takes a strong stomach to take that sort of comment and remain focused on the main thing, the important thing. That important, main thing is what we got this morning on the Jericho program. We got what started out as a contentious argument but in the end became a real discussion.
We got two men defending their positions and, while they continued to disagree, the listeners of the Vincent David Jericho Program were treated to both sides of the argument and got insight into a government process that they might not have gotten otherwise. That, my friends, whether you agree with Jericho or you agree with Burlison, is valuable to the community.
So, my thanks to Vince for offering the platform and my thanks to Councilman Burlison for knocking on his door and giving voice to his reasons for voting for Burris. Listeners can make their own decisions about whether they liked, agreed with, or felt Burlison's argument was valid, I'm just impressed he stood up and made it.
The critics of the Council's choice for City Manager deserve to have legitimate complaints and questions addressed, and they should not be put down as if the word "critic" was a derogatory term.
When did being a critic, or a government "watch dog" group, or a questioning journalist become something of which to be ashamed? Too often people who have legitimate complaints in this community are written off instead of responded to and are treated as though they are an enemy of progress and an enemy of what is good for the community in which they all live and are invested.
To quote Mayor Tom Carlson:
"Any day of the week, I'll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery" ~ Mayor Tom Carlson, October 16, 2007
Where I differ from Carlson is the distinction between "people that have got real money at risk," and "the people from the peanut gallery."
There should be no distinction.
Every single citizen of this city has real money at risk here, every single one of us. We all pay taxes into the city coffers and that tax money pays for core city services, economic development and the salaries of city employees and whether it comes from our money in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, federal taxes or state taxes it comes from the taxpayers, and the taxpayers ARE the people with the real money at risk.
Listen to the podcast, truly a "must listen." Get involved in your city and hold your elected officials accountable, however you feel directed. Sometimes that means holding them accountable for the good they do for your city, sometimes that means holding them accountable for the bad decisions they make and we all have an opinion about whether choices were, or are, good or bad. Without the sort of contentious dialog we heard this morning on the radio, forming those opinions about whether choices made on your behalf, by your elected officials were good choices or bad choices would be more difficult.
Mayor Carlson recently complained, ""It's not like it used to be, there's not the depth, there's not the scope, there's not the understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering." That understanding on the part of the media comes with discussion and that is what Vincent David Jericho offers to this community. Often, he can only offer one side of any given issue because there is no one from the city who will give their side of the issue. Today that was not the case. Councilman Doug Burlison knocked on the door and talked to the people who have real money at risk in this city, the taxpayers.
Thank you, Vince. Thank you Doug.
Note to Mayor Carlson: If you want understanding on the part of the media and therefore the citizens of Springfield, it takes hard work, it takes discussion, it takes real dialog, it takes Council members like Doug Burlison and, yes, it can sometimes get heated and be a bit unpleasant along the way.
If you are looking for sanitized, one-sided public information releases, you have an entire public information office working for you, isn't that enough?
The taxpayers want more than sanitized, one-sided public information releases and in the end, isn't that what is required for depth, scope and understanding? They get that other side from the media, the radio, the print media, other sources besides the city and City Utilities printing presses.
This morning the taxpayers got a chance for more depth, scope and understanding but it took some effort and discomfort on the part of a City Councilman who was willing to walk into an unfriendly atmosphere. The Council might not get paid for that but if the Council and Mayor want more understanding that is what it will take.
Great radio. A real public service!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Young Political Contenders: Inexperienced or Unjaded?
Idealistic or Naive?
I was inspired listening to the Vincent David Jericho Program on KSGF this morning. He was asking about whether there was an "age bias" against younger candidates who ran in the primary election Tuesday. A discussion with callers ensued. I found it refreshing to hear some older, elderly callers call in to discuss it. You can listen here (beginning about 9.28 in).
A couple of definitions of youthful from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary are:
One of the definitions of idealism found at the same source is:
In a few more months my body will hit the half century mark. With age seems to come a bit less energy and a few more aches and pains but, in conversations with some of my peers, I find that I haven't lost a lot of the naivety that is associated with youth. I haven't lost some of the idealism I had when I was still in high school. I haven't lost the dream, if you will, that if you work hard, if you are honest, if you strive to live a life of integrity, if you pour 100 percent of your energy into something and give it the best you can, you can make a difference in whatever field you choose to work.
I don't think I want to lose some of that naivete, sure there are bad connotations associated with being naive, "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment," but less than one might think, it depends on your perspective. Other definitions are:
*Simplicity:
Wait a minute. I just realized that though I, and many of the callers to Jericho's program had no problem with youth, as I go through these definitions associated with youth: vitality and freshness; little erosion; imagination; simplicity; uncomplicated; freedom from pretense or guile; directness, I see why youthfulness doesn't fit into the political establishment. It's becoming simple and uncomplicated to me!
Perhaps political office is a bit like sex, some people value the clean slate of virginity while others covet the experience of a partner who has had lots of previous partners. However, experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good lover any more than years of holding political office is an indication a politician is a good representative of the people.
As a matter of fact, a large quantity of sexual experience brings with it more opportunity for sexually transmitted disease. Likewise, long inductees into the political realm may have become infected with the disease of losing the idealism of youth and the naivete, imagination, idealism, uncomplicated simplicity that goes with inexperience in the political realm. Many establishment, experienced, older incumbents feel they've had to face the reality that little change can occur in the current local, state and national political atmosphere and once infected with that mentality, certain cases may be incurable.
I was inspired listening to the Vincent David Jericho Program on KSGF this morning. He was asking about whether there was an "age bias" against younger candidates who ran in the primary election Tuesday. A discussion with callers ensued. I found it refreshing to hear some older, elderly callers call in to discuss it. You can listen here (beginning about 9.28 in).
A couple of definitions of youthful from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary are:
"having the vitality or freshness of youth: vigorous"
"having accomplished or undergone little erosion"
One of the definitions of idealism found at the same source is:
"literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature"
In a few more months my body will hit the half century mark. With age seems to come a bit less energy and a few more aches and pains but, in conversations with some of my peers, I find that I haven't lost a lot of the naivety that is associated with youth. I haven't lost some of the idealism I had when I was still in high school. I haven't lost the dream, if you will, that if you work hard, if you are honest, if you strive to live a life of integrity, if you pour 100 percent of your energy into something and give it the best you can, you can make a difference in whatever field you choose to work.
I don't think I want to lose some of that naivete, sure there are bad connotations associated with being naive, "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment," but less than one might think, it depends on your perspective. Other definitions are:
"marked by unaffected simplicity*"
"not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation"
*Simplicity:
"the state of being simple, uncomplicated, or uncompounded"
"freedom from pretense or guile"
"directness of expression"
Wait a minute. I just realized that though I, and many of the callers to Jericho's program had no problem with youth, as I go through these definitions associated with youth: vitality and freshness; little erosion; imagination; simplicity; uncomplicated; freedom from pretense or guile; directness, I see why youthfulness doesn't fit into the political establishment. It's becoming simple and uncomplicated to me!
Perhaps political office is a bit like sex, some people value the clean slate of virginity while others covet the experience of a partner who has had lots of previous partners. However, experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good lover any more than years of holding political office is an indication a politician is a good representative of the people.
As a matter of fact, a large quantity of sexual experience brings with it more opportunity for sexually transmitted disease. Likewise, long inductees into the political realm may have become infected with the disease of losing the idealism of youth and the naivete, imagination, idealism, uncomplicated simplicity that goes with inexperience in the political realm. Many establishment, experienced, older incumbents feel they've had to face the reality that little change can occur in the current local, state and national political atmosphere and once infected with that mentality, certain cases may be incurable.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Candidate for County Commission Lincoln Hough sets the record straight
after being accused of exaggeration today
I read the News-Leader's Our Voice column this morning. They've actually got a couple of them today, but I'm referring to the one endorsing Roseann Bentley over Lincoln Hough for the District 2 County Commissioner position.
To quote ;) a current Commissioner, "I was startled to find," the News-Leader suggesting Hough had "exaggerated" when he stated (according to their summary) "that the county adds about 17 employees every year. He said they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people."
I thought it was fine that they challenged Hough's statement, but what "startled" me was that they offered no substantiation of their claim that Hough's statement had been exaggerated. It seems to me that if they are going to claim someone has exaggerated something, then they ought to offer some sort of argument as to why they felt a claim was exaggerated. Then, after not offering any proof that Hough had "exaggerated," oh, sweet irony, they took Hough to task for basing an earlier criticism of Bentley on, "a single quote in a newspaper article." Sweet!
A quote's a quote. Bentley said what she said. Apparently, readers of the News-Leader are supposed to, on the one hand, put great stock in their unsubstantiated claim that Hough "exaggerated," while discounting Hough on the other hand because he used the substantiation of a direct quote, straight out of the mouth of Bentley, herself, to base criticism of Bentley upon. Okay? Is there some sort of reasoning in that I'm just not getting??? Hmmm.
Hough, recently endorsed by the Missouri Republican Assembly, worked for the budget chairman in Jefferson City and one could assume by that, he might have some experience at crunching numbers.
Here's what Hough had to say regarding the News-Leader's unsubstantiated claim that he exaggerated his statement concerning the average of new hires by the County. It was transcribed from the Vincent David Jericho Program's podcast from this morning's show (listen at that link <). Jericho had asked whether it was a claim or a fact, that the county adds about 17 employees every year and that they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people. :
When Jericho asked Hough why he thought the News-Leader used the word "claim" in their "Our Voice," column, Hough replied:
Personally, I think if the News-Leader is going to endorse candidates for what they cite as "exaggerated" claims made by the candidate they do not endorse, they ought to back up their own claims. I realize it's an editorial, however, they owe it to readers to give some sort of substantiated proof of their claim that Hough's statement was "exaggerated."
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, your call.
I read the News-Leader's Our Voice column this morning. They've actually got a couple of them today, but I'm referring to the one endorsing Roseann Bentley over Lincoln Hough for the District 2 County Commissioner position.
To quote ;) a current Commissioner, "I was startled to find," the News-Leader suggesting Hough had "exaggerated" when he stated (according to their summary) "that the county adds about 17 employees every year. He said they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people."
I thought it was fine that they challenged Hough's statement, but what "startled" me was that they offered no substantiation of their claim that Hough's statement had been exaggerated. It seems to me that if they are going to claim someone has exaggerated something, then they ought to offer some sort of argument as to why they felt a claim was exaggerated. Then, after not offering any proof that Hough had "exaggerated," oh, sweet irony, they took Hough to task for basing an earlier criticism of Bentley on, "a single quote in a newspaper article." Sweet!
A quote's a quote. Bentley said what she said. Apparently, readers of the News-Leader are supposed to, on the one hand, put great stock in their unsubstantiated claim that Hough "exaggerated," while discounting Hough on the other hand because he used the substantiation of a direct quote, straight out of the mouth of Bentley, herself, to base criticism of Bentley upon. Okay? Is there some sort of reasoning in that I'm just not getting??? Hmmm.
Hough, recently endorsed by the Missouri Republican Assembly, worked for the budget chairman in Jefferson City and one could assume by that, he might have some experience at crunching numbers.
Here's what Hough had to say regarding the News-Leader's unsubstantiated claim that he exaggerated his statement concerning the average of new hires by the County. It was transcribed from the Vincent David Jericho Program's podcast from this morning's show (listen at that link <). Jericho had asked whether it was a claim or a fact, that the county adds about 17 employees every year and that they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people. :
"It's a fact. Over the last four fiscal years Greene County has added an average of 17 employees to the County payroll. This last year, the '08 fiscal year, the majority, more than 50 percent of those jobs, were not out in the service areas, I mean, that's a fact.
You can go to the budget and you can look at it. The budget's online...."
When Jericho asked Hough why he thought the News-Leader used the word "claim" in their "Our Voice," column, Hough replied:
"I think that they're trying, they, the News-Leader, I think they're trying to portray me as a young person who doesn't really have his facts straight...and they couldn't have missed it more."
Personally, I think if the News-Leader is going to endorse candidates for what they cite as "exaggerated" claims made by the candidate they do not endorse, they ought to back up their own claims. I realize it's an editorial, however, they owe it to readers to give some sort of substantiated proof of their claim that Hough's statement was "exaggerated."
I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, your call.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Steelman was on KSGF this morning
Hulshof will be on in the morning
Jo Mannies at Political Fix noted that Sarah Steelman will spend Wednesday morning with radio host Glen Beck, so I thought it was worth noting that she was interviewed in Springfield this morning by Vince Jericho on KSGF. Listen to the podcast.
In the morning, 6-9 am, Jericho will interview Kenny Hulshof. If you miss it, you can always catch the podcast later, access it through KSGF's Web site.
Jo Mannies at Political Fix noted that Sarah Steelman will spend Wednesday morning with radio host Glen Beck, so I thought it was worth noting that she was interviewed in Springfield this morning by Vince Jericho on KSGF. Listen to the podcast.
In the morning, 6-9 am, Jericho will interview Kenny Hulshof. If you miss it, you can always catch the podcast later, access it through KSGF's Web site.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Earthquakes and the New Madrid Fault
Worth a listen
From this morning's Vincent David Jericho program on KSGF:
For more information about the Emergency Management Center and their need of new facilities read CFP Midweek's March 26, 2008 issue.
From this morning's Vincent David Jericho program on KSGF:
April 22_What should you know about Earthquakes in the Ozarks
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 6
Guest: Ryan Nicholls- Springfield/Greene County Emergency Management, Professor Alessandro Forte- University of Quebec in Montréal, and Larry Case-Missouri Association of Insurance Agents
Should there be earthquakes in the heartland of America? How could an earthquake impact Springfield and what has the Springfield/Greene County Emergency Management deducted from their studies? What is the probability of an earthquake hitting this area? What should the average family have on had to prepare for an earthquake or any natural disaster? Is there a shelf life for water? How hard is it to acquire earthquake insurance in Missouri? Could the structure of your house have an impact on what kind of insurance you can get and the price of it? What is a good resource where you can learn more about being prepared?
Length 41:51
For more information about the Emergency Management Center and their need of new facilities read CFP Midweek's March 26, 2008 issue.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Recommended Reading 3
Will the City ask for public input about guidelines for public input?
Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.
I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."
Carlson:
Carlson said he has:
On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.
Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:
Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.
I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."
Carlson:
"I don't want to be arbitrary in enforcing the rules but at the same time, I think we need to know what they are and maybe have a Council committee look at, as we come forward, because it seems like we're getting more and more of these things and that may be fine, and we may decide that we wanna be here a lot later for everybody to come talk about whatever they do. Frequently, we have people come and talk about things that have nothing to do with city government, for example."
Carlson said he has:
"...different Council people telling me different things. Some Council people say, uh, "you ought to be able to talk about anything," other people say, "there oughta be some rules around here," and if we wanna have rules, fine, if we don't wanna have rules, fine, I just think we need to get on the same page."
On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.
Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:
"According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin the city's guidelines for addressing Council have evolved over the years. The roots for the guidelines are found in Chapter 2 (Administration), Sections 43-45 of the Springfield Municipal Code. As the guidelines have evolved, addressing Council about issues not on the agenda have changed to that of simply registering with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., the Friday preceding the Monday meeting. The current guidelines do not indicate the registration must be done in writing, as stated in the code."
You can access the supplimentals at the Community Free Press - Midweek website. They are:
Municipal Code Chapter 2, Administration, Sections 43-34
A Citizen's Guide to Addressing Council, from the city's website
Public Hearing Procedures, a handout available at all Council meetings
It seems counterproductive to me that at the same time the City is seeking public input in so many areas, the Council and School Board are discussing restricting established public speaking venues. In fact, as I was getting ready to post this entry I received a news release from the City that they'd like public input on the proposed speed limit reduction for residential streets.
If the Council decides to form a Committee to study the guidelines for addressing Council do you think they'll seek public input about whether public input should be allowed on topics not on the agenda or will the Committee, formed by elected officials, "represent us" in that regard?
Related: School board seeks more public input written by Kris Callen, president of the Springfield Board of Education, excerpt:
"To the News-Leader's credit, they were the only media to cover the retreat with a reporter present for a portion of the evening. With that presence, readers should expect accurate headlines and complete coverage. And while the retreat was posted as an open meeting and patrons could have attended, we have no expectation that most citizens would choose to spend their entire Thursday night attending a four-hour meeting. This leads to a more important reason for accurate and complete reporting. Citizens rely on the media for correct information regarding the work of their public entities and boards when they cannot or choose not to attend in person. We do not believe this occurred in this instance and hope that future articles and headlines will more accurately reflect the true nature and extent of the discussion."
Related: from KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program, February 05,_How can we make dialogue between parents and Springfield Public Schools healthier, Tuesday, February 05, 2008, Guest: Dr. Ridder- Springfield Public Schools
Friday, December 21, 2007
Talk is cheap - Thoughts on C.U. General Manager John Twitty's comments on the Vincent David Jericho Program, December 21, 2007
Okay, I've gotta say this about this:
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
December 21_6:50am_What does CU have to say about things in the Audit
Friday, December 21, 2007 - 42 - Guest John Twitty, General Manager of C.U.
What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.
Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?
The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.
Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:
"It's again, Vince, I think, an area that's ripe for some really good DISCUSSION and we intend to address that one in particular because it is such a policy based or philosophical CONVERSATION and those questions that you ask are certainly fair.
I would say that we would never, ever, at City Utilities, do anything, KNOWINGLY, to violate either the constitution or any statute, whether federal or state or the city charter, so if there are things that we need to do differently on a going forward basis in this area we certainly want to do them in a way that is acceptable and supported by the community."*
As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.
The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.
Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.
This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.
Twitty said:
"If there are some of these kind of things that give people heartburn or heartache then I want to engage in the dialog with them to give them the information to at least from their own opinion."*
My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.
Talk is cheap.
*emphasis mine.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Vincent David Jericho interviewed and hosted question and answers with Susan Montee about C.U. Audit December 19, 2007
"I was highly offended by the suggestion that we just wouldn't understand because they're way too special." --- State Auditor Susan Montee regarding C.U.'s questioning about whether the State Auditor's office was qualified to audit a large utility company
Listen to more of what Susan Montee had to say on the Vincent David Jericho Program this morning:
December 19_7:50am_Could we be paying less for our utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 22
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:00am_Should the be a profit on city owned utilitiesWednesday, December 19, 2007 - 19
*A Must Listen!
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:30am_What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 1Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 9
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
December 19_8:50am_ What questions came out of the audit on CU Pt 2Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 8
Guest: Susan Montee- State Auditor
Monday, November 12, 2007
Grand Jury investigation into the Municipal Court theft
If you are a citizen of Springfield, Missouri or Greene County, Missouri, the following pod cast segments of the Vincent David Jericho Program are must listens:
November 12_6:20am_Why should you care about the grand jury investigation
November 12_6:30am_What is the background of the municipal court and what was said during the grand jury by one employee
November 12_7:00am_What stands out most in the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)
November 12_7:30am_What should be asked after the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)
November 12_6:20am_Why should you care about the grand jury investigation
November 12_6:30am_What is the background of the municipal court and what was said during the grand jury by one employee
November 12_7:00am_What stands out most in the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)
November 12_7:30am_What should be asked after the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
