Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson opens mouth, inserts foot

Displays further contempt for "the peanut gallery."

I have been observing and covering City Council meetings in City Council Chambers since April, 2007. Several times I have seen the Chambers erupt in applause. Mostly, it has happened when a City employee has been honored for years of service or some other exciting event has been called to the attention of the public at a meeting.

Such was the case on January 14 when the respective Mayors of Springfield and Willard signed an agreement regarding future land annexations near the Springfield-Branson National Airport. Council initiated applause and the room full of citizens accommodated them.

December 17, 2007 that applause, accompanied by whistling filled the Chambers as Tamara Finochiarro ended her appeal to the Council for assistance in the matter of dealing with the City to resolve zoning and fire and safety issues that have shut down business operations at Pythian Castle and labeled the castle a dangerous building.

That public initiated applause was met by the stern pounding of a gavel by our fair city's Mayor, "Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we would request that you not applause anything. We require decorum in the Council Chambers, appreciate your observing that." Mayor Carlson said.

So, excuse me for nitpicking the fact that the public should observe the Mayor's interpretation of "decorum" as it applies to general public initiated applause versus City Council initiated applause. It feeds into a perception that public comment and public support or opposition for measures taken by our City leaders isn't a matter of interest or concern for some of those leaders, a perception which is further strengthened and legitimized when the Mayor, who has called on the public to "observe that" decorum makes exceptions to the rule when there is broad support "for" an agreement he approves. It also proves that peanut gallerians are not limited to those who don't have money to invest on projects in Springfield, clearly Finocchiaro has invested considerable money and taken considerable risk in restoring the Pythian Castle, yet she is not immune to being delegated to the status of a "peanut gallerian," in regards to how welcome her comments, criticism and concerns are by our fair Mayor.

January 14, Mayor Carlson gave us more reason to believe that such a perception is not unwarranted.

Our City code allows citizens to address City Council at Council meetings and there is a procedure in place, or rules, if you will, that govern that occurrence. A visit to the City's website explains How to Address City Council:

To speak on issues not on that week's Agenda Citizens wishing to address the Council regarding an issue not on the Agenda, may speak under "Petitions, Remonstrances, and Communications." To register to speak under this provision, the citizen must register with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, prior to the meeting. At the appropriate time in the meeting, the Mayor will call your name. Please step to the podium; state your name and address for the record, and your comments. Again, the comments are to be limited to five minutes.

This is exactly the procedure that Tamara Finocchiaro and her supporters followed and they were limited to five minutes speaking time each. (There have been more than a few times I have rolled my own eyes and counted cobwebs on the ceiling wishing that Carlson was limited to 5 minutes speaking time, see this weeks City Council Roundup in CFP, such a moment occurred when after the vote had been taken on the sale of a portion of the Cox building, Carlson went on and on about how well the City did in making a profit on the sale, but that's neither here nor there.)

Apparently, five minutes on a topic unrelated to items on the agenda for any given Council meeting may be too much according to Mayor 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."

The rules are clear, perhaps the Mayor needs to read them before opening mouth, inserting foot.

Thoughts on Jason's interview with the Mayor and the City Audit Report

I started this posting a few days ago and was just too dang busy to go back and finish it. It's kind of a mixed up mess but I'm going to try to make some sense out of it and post it because I'm taking a break for a bit.

The Peanut Gallery

I've been meaning to comment on this:

From The Life of Jason Interview: Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson, when Jason said:

"During the announcement of Mr. Hammons landing the deal for the arena site, you made the statement “I’ll bet 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.” Several of your critics have taken this statement and said this proves you are not betting on the average Springfield resident but only those with money. I wanted to give you the chance to explain that statement and to explain what you meant by the term “peanut gallery.”

Mayor Carlson responded, in part:

"What I was responding to was this: there were people who had real money at risk who had entered into the competitive process to see who would get to build on that land. There were other people who were critics of the city government who said the process was rigged. What I was trying to say was this: Those people who were saying the process was rigged were not trying to acquire the land. The people that had their money at risk and had to decide whether to spend their money here and their resources really do drill down and figure out whether they think the rules are fair. Those people said it was fair..."

Well, yeah, sorta. Here's the timeline of Richard Baier of BC Development's statements. There was a bit of inconsistency there:

October 3 letter to Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith
“There does not seem to be a desire by the TIF Commission or the City to enter into open and fair competition for the development of these projects.”

October 5 interview with Vincent David Jericho on KSGF radio
Baier: “My only reluctance to do business in Springfield would be, if there’s a public bid type process. Maybe I don’t understand all the politics in that type of thing, and I would push away from doing that. But as far as private development, where I go down and look for a site to build a medical project or retail or whatever the case might be or another hotel, I’m all for that because I like Springfield.”
Vince: “So, private development, love to do; dealing with the City of Springfield, you’d have to think twice?”
Baier: “Yeah, I’d have to think a couple of times, there.”

October 22 City Council meeting
“We don’t feel that we’ve been mistreated in any way, shape or fashion on this process. We’re definitely interested in working with the city.”

The Audit Report Fall-out

I don't necessarily disagree with Doug Burlison that it would be counter productive to go on a witch hunt after hearing the audit report and reading what has been written after the report in the News-Leader and on certain blogs but I'm thinking that Councilman Burlison arrived at that position after being privy to the results of the audit for some time (like at least a YEAR). Burlison has had time to process the information from that audit and his end conclusion is that it is better to look ahead and fix the problems rather than look backward and try to place the blame. Burlison might be correct in his decision but, citizens of this city should be allowed that same span of time to process the information contained in the audit report and come to that conclusion after grappling with the facts of the audit report for a while. Citizens of Springfield deserve the same amount of time to fuss, complain and discuss the details of the audit report as, rest assured, the City Council has had and in more than one closed meeting prior to the hearing of the report December 6.

I suspect that these warnings against "witch hunts" and this promise to do better in the future is meant in some small way to placate the citizens, to calm the "Peanut Gallery," if you will. I don't resent the public's anger and frustration over the results of the audit on the City of Springfield. Just as the City and Council have had a good amount of time to come to grips with the state of this City, the citizens of this city deserve at least the same amount of time to process it. AND we deserve to be allowed to process it without being smeared and condemned for it or treated as though we are some second class, low-life "Peanut Gallerians" in the process.

Nationally, there has been an outcry from the American public for government accountability that will extend to local government and no amount of city officials patting citizens on the head will make it all go away.

So, to those citizens who take an interest in their local city government and criticize the way it has been run in past years, there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let anyone suggest you are being counter productive when you need the same amount of time to mentally process the results of the audit report that the city has had in dealing with and responding to the report. It is a natural process and will run it's natural course and citizens deserve to be allowed that process without being told they are "going on a witch hunt" or being counter productive. Don't believe it when you want to have your say in your local government and hold them accountable, it's your job.

The next shoe is going to drop on December 18 when the State Auditor releases and reports on the City Utilities audit. Poor timing for the City, they'll likely still be hearing from the public about the results of the City audit when they are faced with the new report on City Utilities and I suspect it's going to be a really big shoe.

Hey, the peanut gallery needs to apply for volunteer service on the City Manager Search Committee!

Council Bill 2007-351 qualifies as an item of interest. It's a resolution to formulate the process for establishing a Search Committee for the hiring of a new City Manager. It states, in part:

"Whereas, it has been determined that a Search Committee which will consist of representatives from a cross section of the community will be established, and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver will Chair this Committee; and

Whereas, there may be other members of City Council that desire to be involved in establishing the criteria for the Search Committee, and in determining its makeup.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI as follows:

That Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver and members of the City Council desiring to do so, shall meet and establish the process for selecting members of the Search Committee.Additionally, they should develop the process they wish the Search Committee to follow in selecting candidates for the City Manager position. This selection process shall be presented to City Council for formal approval within thirty days of the passage of this resolution.

Be it further resolved that following the formal approval of the selection process, citizens interested in serving on the Search Committee shall file a Volunteer Service Application with the City Clerk. All applications received by the deadline established by the process, will be considered for appointment to the Committee. The names of those being recommended to serve on the Selection Committee shall be submitted to the City Council for final approval, not more than thirty days following the deadline."

Under remarks the bill states:

"Mayor Tom Carlson has indicated that he would like to follow the process that was following when Missouri State University was looking ot hire a new President. That process was the establishment of a Search Committee that was comprised of members of the Board of Governors, alumni, faculty, staff, and students. This approach provided representation from a wide range of perspectives."

I hope they do not forget to include representatives of the peanut gallery on the Search Committee. I know peanut gallerians do not always have "real money at risk, time, money, and effort to spend,"* but they deserve representation as much as anybody else. And please, do not forget conspiracy theorists, you never know, Tony Messenger might want to file an application. Oh, my, I wonder if the applications will be subject to the Sunshine Law? That could open a whole new can of worms! ;)

*source: Mayor Tom Carlson

Tony Messenger agrees with conspiracy theorists, joins the peanut gallery

Yesterday, October 17, 2007, Tony Messenger wrote at his blog (see caption: "The Hammons deal ..."):

"So I ran into Mayor Tom Carlson over coffee yesterday and he was already preparing for whatever criticism might come his way over the deal announced between the city and John Q. Hammons over the new convention center hotel. Indeed, if you read the comments after the news story today on the topic, you'll see the conspiracy theorists are out in full force.*

Today, he wrote in an unsigned editorial (trust me, he wrote it...or if he wants to deny it, that's fine, the News Leader is welcome to start requiring their writers to sign "Our Voice" columns instead of providing an apron string for writers to hang onto as they hide behind the Gannett name as if they are the (editorial) legs of a mama a little boy peeks out from behind).

Messenger wrote today, October 18, 2007:

"The problem with the city's process is that it adds fuel to the fire to those critics who believe this was never an open competition from the beginning. If, in fact, the city's logic holds true that the TIF process had to be reopened because of major changes to the scope of the deal, then why isn't the process being reopened again? Now the deal has totally changed, with BKD entering into a private agreement to build its office building on property Hammons owns. So the proposals that were sought seeking both an office building and hotel no longer apply.

The lesson for the city is that process matters. The city sends mixed signals when on one hand it says "Hammons has paid his dues" — as city attorney Dan Wichmer recently stated in defending negotiations with the developer — and on the other hand argues that the process has been an open and fair competition.

Hammons has controlled the process from the beginning, not because he's done anything nefarious, but because he holds all the cards. Because of previous deals with the city, he holds the contract to manage the Expo Center. He owns the land surrounding the site. He is the landlord of the company looking to relocate. In a nutshell, none of the other developers had a chance.

If this process proves anything, it's the truth spoken by a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting — this is, that the city is not very good at development.

The City Council should approve this deal because it moves downtown forward and improves the city's debt and budget situation. But this chapter in the city's history should also send a clear signal that it's time to leave development to the experts."

I'm wondering, these people Tony has called "the conspiracy theorists," are they kind of like the people Mayor Carlson called "the people from the peanut gallery?" And hasn't Tony, peering from behind the News Leader's legs, written pretty much what "the people from the peanut gallery, the conspiracy theorists," have been fussing about all along...ah, that's different?

Further, what about his advice of last week, when he wrote:

"Focus on the issues, people. Leave the name-calling to children on the playground."

Does identifying people as "the conspiracy theorists" qualify as name calling?

Tony, Tony, Tony, I warned you last week to take your own advice. Now, you've joined the patrons of "the peanut gallery." Now, you've gone and put your stamp of approval on what "the conspiracy theorists" have been saying all along, yet for some reason we are all to believe that it's "conspiratorial" when expressed by the common man (or a certain radio talk show host ) but valid and legitimate opinion when expressed by the Editorial Page Editor of the News-Leader? Very, very interesting.

When you wrote:

"If this process proves anything, it's the truth spoken by a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting — this is, that the city is not very good at development."

and when you wrote:

"...this chapter in the city's history should also send a clear signal that it's time to leave development to the experts."

You are saying the same thing that others who have said city staff is incompetent when it comes to negotiating deals with developers have said...the only difference? You didn't put your name on it. You are the Editorial Page Editor of the city's leading newspaper as opposed to a "conspiracy theorist" or a person in "the peanut gallery." I'll also note that you are happy to report that "the city is not very good at development," when it comes from the mouths of "a couple of city officials at the most recent council meeting" but others who have offered the same opinion, instead of being worthy of a nod? Conspiracy theorists?

Now you are asking the questions that "the conspiracy theorists," and patrons of "the peanut gallery" have been asking and making the same statements they've been making all along (as highlighted above).

Sorry, I'll place my bet, any day of the week I'll bet on people from the peanut gallery who are willing to put their names behind their words and are willing to risk time, reputation and persecution over those who call names but then agree with them in unsigned "Our Voice" columns at the city's leading newspaper.

Now, Tony, in your next unsigned column would you mind asking the city if they made Hammon's competitors aware of Hammon's control over the process before they wasted their "real money, their time, money and effort," on a process in which Hammons held all the cards? At what point did the city know that BKD was not interested in sharing their offices in a multi-use facility? Before or after they insisted developers include them in their proposals? Before they strung other developers along or after?

Was it proper process to not inform the other developers that JQ Hammons owned exclusive rights to food and beverage sales at the expo center until after they had invested their real money, their time, money and effort on proposing a multi-use facility that required a tenant who wanted no part of the facility?

Could the city have strung the other developers along to make it APPEAR to the peanut gallery and conspiracy theorists that the process was open for bid, knowing full well that the other developers didn't have a chance because the chips were stacked against them?

Did the city take advantage of the other developers in order to negotiate a deal with Hammons, causing them to waste their real money, their time, money and effort in issuing proposals the city knew they couldn't possibly compete with Hammons to win? If so, will any of these developers be willing to invest that real money, time and effort on future proposals? Will they return to their home cities and talk with other developers from behind their hands about how the city of Springfield jerked them around, causing other developers to refrain from dealing with the city of Springfield?

Is this sort of dealing in the best interest of the community? Is the council making the best decisions on behalf of the peanut gallery?

And then, answer this question, humor me, what's the difference between a "conspiracy theorist," radio talk show host, blogger or citizen journalist and an Editorial Page Editor of the News Leader?

*all emphasis, mine.

Mayor Carlson's victory dance...

...or the "peanut gallery" speech, uncut.

"There have been allegations made from some quarters in the community that somehow the process was rigged or fixed. Well, lemme tell you something, people that are well heeled, that have the money got involved in this and these are very sophisticated people and if they, believe me, they go through business all across the country, they've got places they can spend their money and do things and people that know the real skinny on stuff invested in this community and hung it out and do you think that HCW, that does business all across the United States, that Opus, that is considered one of the best developers in the United States, Mr. Hammons is in 48 states across the country, would have stuck through this if they thought the outcome was predetermined? Ask yourself, do these people that manage millions of dollars would they have bought into this process and hung with it if they thought the outcome was....(Note from Jacke: he either didn't finish this sentence or the last word was unintelligible on my tape)

Now, there are apparently some people in our community that know more about it than these major United States developers? Or at least they proposed it, they purport to, but the people that were spendin' their money stuck into this because they always thought they had a shot at winnin' and because of that and because this community, this city, the city government, gave specific instructions to keep the process fair and to follow the law, the people that have the wherewithall to know and understand that believed it and stuck with it and that's why this community is now looking at getting $7 million for something that they could have gotten a heck of a lot less for. That's why this community is now in the process of getting a first class hotel on a piece of land that was just raw grass and that's why this community now is looking at a potential to have a first class United States firm having its major office downtown and opening up more office space, because the process did have integrity to it and because the people that were betting their money stuck with it and I'll bet, 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 and that's why, because those people knew and because we stuck to plan the rules and play in the game in a fair way that this community is going to end up with a win, win, win situation."

~Mayor Tom Carlson, October 16, 2007 at the City Council luncheon where the term sheet for J.Q. Hammons purchase of the former arena site and Jordan Valley car park was revealed.

Mayor Tom Carlson: King of the Peanut Gallery

If Mayor Carlson wonders why it seems like some people in the community don't have a lot of respect for him, I think I can give him a little hint.

Here's a short quote from the City Council luncheon meeting October 16 regarding the arena site:

"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

I have no problem with Carlson betting "on people that have got real money at risk," they're very fortunate that they have "real money" (or government awarded, tax payer funded incentives) TO risk, seems like that's what it takes to get taken seriously by Carlson.

Not very many VOTERS in Springfield have got the kind of money it takes to compete with John Q. Hammons, HCW Evergreen, Opus or BC Development for the honor to spend millions of dollars on a piece of dried up grass with a garage, but I'd wager more than a few of those peanut gallery patrons cast a vote for the Mayor. It's nice to know that he wouldn't bet on any of those peons in the peanut gallery who don't have "real money." It's nice to know that he's so interested in input from the community he represents.

Apparently, since he doesn't plan to run for another term as Mayor he doesn't need to impress the "peanut gallery." If he ever did.