The tolerance of the "moderate" left?

Mary Helen of Corner of the Sky blog wrote a blog entry about Why I (she) Am (is) Pro-Choice. That's fine with me, but I didn't realize I needed an invitation to visit or comment at her blog. After being accused of assuming that she believes "fetuses" are human beings after asking a series of questions based on a comment in her blog entry, I apparently wasn't careful enough in the framing of my own belief which, I suppose, didn't meet her semantic standards, I offered:

"I hate to argue about abortion and don't plan to start.

I'll jest bow out and leave yer librul self alone, now, thank yew verrah mutch. :)"

I was told:

"Certainly I didn't invite you to this blog at all, let alone to argue about anything. Hope you have a wonderful evening."

Thank you, Mary Helen. I do plan to have a wonderful evening (what's left of it) and will definitely plan on waiting for an official invitation before I visit or comment at your blog again.

This exchange, ironically, came on the heels of a discussion about "tolerance" at The Voice Of Truth, see: The Intolerance Of The Far Left ;)

Giving credit where credit is due, Council Bill 2007-255

Explanation:

PURPOSE: The Annual Salary Ordinance contained a provision which stated that anyone receiving benefits from the Police Fire Pension Fund who obtained other employment with the City of Springfield would forfeit their right to draw benefits from the Police Fire Pension Fund. The purpose of the rule was to discourage "double-dipping" by former police and fire employees who would retire and then secure employment in other areas of the City.

The effect of the rule, however, has been to create hardships on certain departments in hiring experienced employees for other City departments. For example, while a police officer may have retired from active duty with the police force, that officer cannot be hired by the municipal court to act as a bailiff, nor can the officer be hired as an airport police officer or work for emergency 911 communications. Staff has determined that allowing experienced retired police or fire fighters from being able to secure other employment merely results in losing valuable personnel who can offer their experience and training to other departments. The Police Fire Pension Board agrees that a change in this rule is in order.

Since the above rule was shared in an annual salary ordinance, the numbering of this ordinance reflects the prior codification system under a different publisher. Therefore, in order to properly amend this bill, council is amending an annual salary ordinance, but the effect will be to delete a provision that remained in effect under an annual salary ordinance. This ordinance will not appear on any on-line codes as all salary ordinances are annual ordinances and are not codified by the publisher. The deletion of this provision will allow retired police and fire employees to obtain other positions within the city. These employees could be employed full time, receive their police and fire benefits and would also be earning service credit toward Lagers retirement benefits. The net effect will be positive, however, in that the City will be able to employee (their typo not mine) experienced safety personnel who are familiar with city rules and regulations as well as various city policies and practices.

I don't think it was really necessary to explain why this is a good thing for the City of Springfield. I wonder where the mentality came from which begrudged retired police and fire fighters acquiring jobs in other city departments to continue their service to their community in the first place?

If they earn service credit toward Lagers retirement benefits in addition to their police and fire pension benefits then they earned it. Geesh. At least it is being corrected now.

Cindy Rushefsky's name is listed as the sponsor of this bill. I suspect (but have not confirmed) she had some involvement in this coming to council. It's got her common sense fingerprint all over it. :)

UPDATE: I questioned where the mentality came from which begrudged retired police and firefighters aquiring jobs in other city departments? Apparently, the mentality wasn't unfamiliar to Mayor Carlson.

UPDATE 2: I have no reason to believe that Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky had any hand in bringing this bill before Council beyond her name being attached to it by City administration.

Springfield, safer for car thieves in first half of 2007

The News-Leader reports:

"The felony crime report for Springfield in the first six months of 2007 includes:

486 vehicle thefts in 2007 as compared to 354 vehicle thefts in 2006 for a 37.3 percent increase."

The Community Free Press - Midweek reports:

"Fatal crashes in Springfield are down 67 percent for the first half of 2007, as opposed to the same time period in 2006."

We can all rest easy tonight knowing that less car thieves were killed in fatal car crashes in the first half of 2007 than were killed in fatal car crashes in the same time period of 2006. I know I'm relieved. :)

If those cars hadn't been stolen who knows how many owners might have been killed driving them!?

Two items of interest intertwine

Alternative title: "Take this out of context, then put that into the context of this out of context section of the city charter, and there you have it....

No, wait! Then take this out of context, put it into the new out of context section of the city charter that replaces the repealed other out of context section of the city charter and THEN you have it!"

I never dreamed, when I wrote earlier in the week about a memo sent by Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea to "Management Team and Management Team Secretaries, which read in part:

"Any information or material being sent to the Mayor and members of City Council MUST be approved by the City Manager or Assistant City Manager BEFORE it is sent to Councilmembers," (read it in its entirety here)

that the memo would somehow intertwine with another item of interest I had written about here and here.

I was told by the Public Information Director to:

"...provide the following context to this (memo), which was to reaffirm the provision of the City Charter noted below." The provision of the Charter she was referring to was Section 2.8 of the Charter...:

Section 2.8. Prohibition of interference

Neither the council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or by any of his subordinates, or in any way interfere with the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative service of the city. Except for the purpose of inquiry, unless specifically otherwise provided in this Charter, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative officers and services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to the subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Any councilmember violating the provisions of this Section shall forfeit his office. Whether such violation has occurred shall be determined by the members of the council, and their decision shall be final. Approved by vote of the people April 1, 1986.

It turns out (hat tip: Community Free Press - Midweek) that the law department has proposed that Section 2.8 of the City Charter be repealed and replaced with a new Section 2.8. The new Section 2.8 has nothing to do with "prohibition of interference," instead it has to do with "disclosure of certain transactions." The proposed bill is none other than Council Bill 2007-241. Go figger.

When the Public Information Director returns from vacation will she still advise me to:

"provide the following context to this (memo), which was to reaffirm the provision of the City Charter noted below (Section 2.8.)?"

Oh well, one will be about as relevant to that memo as the other, I suppose.

City Council Agenda Item of Interest: Council Bill 2007-241

I have a lot of questions about this bill. I first wrote about it here.


It was a consent agenda, first reading bill on the July 30, 2007 City Council Agenda and, after going through some changes in the last couple of weeks, is now positioned to sail through passage on the consent agenda at the August 13, 2007 City Council meeting.

When it was first read, City Attorney, Dan Wichmer, and City Manager, Bob Cumley, wrote that the Attorney General would have to interpret the phrase... :

"Candidates for City Council, the Mayor and Members of the City Council, the City Manager, the Purchasing Agent, the City Attorney and ALL officials and employees who are authorized by the governing body to promulgate rules and regulations within the force of law OR to vote on the adoption of rules and regulation with the force of law." (emphasis mine)

...before they could determine the intended scope (who was covered) under this phrase to disclose... :

"...any business transaction with a political subdivision if the transaction is more than $500 per year for such person and with any member of their immediate family. The chief administrative law officer and the purchasing officer must disclose the names and addresses of anybody else with whom they are employed and the names of the businesses they own."

...but apparently (?) they didn't seek the Attorney General's interpretation, instead they offered their own interpretation for endorsement by the Council. I'm assuming they did NOT contact his office because they offer their own interpretation rather than his.

Question:

Why didn't they contact the Attorney General's office for clarification?

Question:

Why offer to clarify it before seeking the Attorney General's interpretation?

Question:

Why did they list what the City Manager and the City Purchasing Agent would be required to disclose separate from the other entities, including the City Attorney, covered under the law? (Later, the bill states that the others are covered under the ordinance as well, but are the others required only to disclose the information listed as subject to disclosure by the City Manager and Purchasing Agent or will the others be subject to disclosing information that goes beyond what is listed as subject to disclosure by the City Manager and Purchasing Agent? Are they trying to limit what the City Manager and Purchasing Agent are required to disclose? Or, are the others exempt from disclosing the items described as being required for disclosure by the City Manager and Purchasing Agent?)

If anyone can shed any further light on this confusing ordinance and its applicable meaning, your comments are welcome here.

The City Council needs to appoint an investigator, per City Charter Section 2.15

I've been sleuthing around the Springfield City Charter, you know, since some people like to pull it out like it's a gun to silence questions? Anyway, I'll bet you didn't know about Section 2.15. Investigator:

The council may appoint an investigator who shall serve for such term as the council may prescribe. He shall be a certified public accountant or a person specially trained and experienced in governmental or business investigation or administration. His duty shall be to keep the council informed as to the work performed, methods, and financial affairs of the city. He shall not be responsible for the keeping of accounts. He shall make such investigations of the work of all departments of the city and such reports to the council as it shall require. He shall make such other investigations as the council may direct. He shall have access to all books and records of all departments of the city. If the council desires, he shall certify to the correctness of any or all financial reports before the same shall be regarded as official.

What say you, Council? I like the idea of having an investigator who can march into any office in the city, ask any question, examine any book and tell it like it is to the council.

Deputy City Manager Honea doesn't like the idea of anyone talking to Council without first running it by her or City Manager Cumley. There's a way to deal with that. Appoint an independent investigator, the investigator will have the power to find out anything you'd like to find out.

This isn't to say that I think it was necessary to stifle and chill communications between the council and employees of the city, but an investigator would take away even a shadow of a doubt as to the right of the council to be privy to any and ALL matters of the city and to be privy to that information BEFORE it goes through the filter of the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager or the Assistant City Manager. I would hope that council would choose their investigator wisely.

I'm not going to stop reading the Charter until I read the whole dang thing. I'll let you know if I come across any other interesting little factoids.

The City Manager answers to the the Council, not vice versa. Sometimes I wonder if both the Council and the City Manager need to be reminded of that.

Speaking of context...

Alternate title:

"Take this out of context, then put that into the context of this out of context section of the city charter, and there you have it."


The other day I was listening to Vincent David Jericho's radio show on KSGF. I do that often. If that's enough to turn the reader off at the outset then excuse me if I fail to lose any sleep over someone else's personal problem (phhbbtthh). That's not what this post is about.

Vince mentioned a memo that was floating around City Hall. It didn't sound right to me and so I wrote it down so I could inquire about it later. Here is what I wrote down as quoted by Vincent David Jericho:

"Any information or material being sent to the Mayor and members of the City Council must be approved by the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager before it's sent to Council members."

I think I just figured something out. You see, when I asked for a copy of the memo, the city's Public Information Director told me she hoped I would

"provide the following context to this, which was to reaffirm the provision of the City Charter noted below.... :"

city council memo process

Section 2.8. Prohibition of interference

Neither the council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or by any of his subordinates, or in any way interfere with the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative service of the city. Except for the purpose of inquiry, unless specifically otherwise provided in this Charter, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative officers and services solely through the city manager, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to the subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Any councilmember violating the provisions of this Section shall forfeit his office. Whether such violation has occurred shall be determined by the members of the council, and their decision shall be final. Approved by vote of the people April 1, 1986.

I have emphasized that particular verbage of Section 2.8 of the Charter to highlight the fact that the City has taken it out of its intended context to provide context to a wholly unrelated matter.

I cannot see that the sharing of information and materials between officers and employees in the administrative service of the city has anything to do with the intent of Section 2.8 of the Charter which is on the topic, when kept in context, of council members interfering with the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative service of the city.

That's what this entry was about, just so you know. :)

Now, here is the entire memo, just as an FYI:

TO: Management Team
Management Team Secretaries

FROM: Evelyn Honea, Assistant City Manager

RE: Process for Sending Material/Information to Mayor and City Council

DATE: June 25, 2007

___________________________________________________________________

Any information or material being sent to the Mayor and members of City Council MUST be approved by the City Manager or Assistant City Manager BEFORE it is sent to Councilmembers.

To avoid confusion, please use the procedure outlined below:

1. Any memo or other information should be e-mailed to Evelyn Honea or Bob Cumley for approval. Please provide a hard copy if it is not possible to e-mail the material.

2. You will be notified of Bob/Evelyn's approval or asked to make changes. If asked to make changes, please resubmit the corrected material for approval.

3. Upon approval, please provide 13 copies to the City Manager's Office for distribution to Council. A member of the City Manager's staff will deliver the material to the Council mailboxes. (The 13 copies include: 9 for Mayor and Council, 1 for the media folder, 1 for the City Clerk, 1 for the City Manager, and 1 for the Assistant City Manager.)

4. Mail is only delivered to the Mayor and City Council on Wednesday afternoons at 4:00 p.m., prior to City Council meeting every other Monday night, and at Tuesday luncheons. Please keep this schedule in mind when communicating with Councilmembers.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with this process.


EH/jg

cc: Bob Cumley, City Manager
Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk
Anita Murphy Cotter, Assistant City Clerk

Put through the wringer

I'm sorta ticked off.

I had someone at the City tell me a very specific thing and now that person seems to be suggesting that it was just an example, though at first they told me SPECIFICALLY to take it in the context of THIS "provision of the charter."

I don't want to go into details but I'll tell you, this was a VERY frustrating experience.

Why the heck did this person tell me,

"I hope you will provide the following context to this, which was to reaffirm"

a SPECIFIC provision of the City Charter and go to the trouble of noting that specific provision of the City Charter only to, later, MUCH later, tell me...

"I was simply pointing out that our policy regarding _____ is based on the City Charter, not anyone's personal preference."

Am I wrong to be a bit suspicious of such an exchange?

Am I wrong to feel annoyed after spending more than a day trying to figure out what that specific provision had to do with a very specific memorandum?

Geesh.

This person was either lying or wasting my time, either way it ain't good.

Recommended Reading 9

Good day sunshine: Auditors to review closed meetings. Author, city government reporter Joe Blumberg:

"In February, a Platte County judge voided a Platte City annexation attempt on the grounds that Platte City closed a meeting to discuss legal issues but in fact made policy decisions about the annexation proposal. The judge wasn't swayed by the fact that the council voted in open session.

"It is not the purpose of Missouri's Sunshine Law that the cloak of attorney-client privilege be used to obfuscate, circumvent nor limit the public's right to information that should be discussed by the public governmental body in open session," the judge ruled."

Recommended Reading 8

First Amendment ‘for Sale’ - HUMAN EVENTS

Excerpts:

"Does protecting the right to put a “For Sale” sign in your own car “cheapen the grandeur of the First Amendment?” Seven dissenting federal judges think so.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals split 8 to 7 in a case about a city ordinance that makes it unlawful to place a “For Sale” sign in a car if the car is parked on a city street...."

"...It is certainly less speculative that banning private “For Sale” signs in cars on streets, where such signs may be more visible, helps local car dealerships and newspaper classified sales. As with much regulation of speech, there is usually a political or financial motive that certainly is just as, if not more, credible than the justifications offered by the government...." (emphasis mine)

"...The Pagan case does not stray from precedent. It is, however, noteworthy because it tells the government that it must do more than merely claim it has a substantial interest in regulating conduct when the regulation abridges a First Amendment right. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case in First Amendment decisions.

Judicial activism is a problem because judges act assuming they have more power than legislatures, which supposedly reflect the popular will. The sound doctrine of stare decisis, which is standing by precedent, can also be a problem if judges find the judiciary more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Perhaps some judges protect the “grandeur” of the judiciary more than the First Amendment."

Desdinova Mae's Candy Store!?

I noticed the other day that Brian Lewis of Zerelda Lee's Candy Store has posted a note that he'll be out of the office for a few days. He has also posted a note that he is on hiatus and:

"...will not be updating the blog again regularly until the middle of August."

The only reason I mention it is that his hiatus began shortly after Desdinova - Super Villain of the Ozarks noted here that he might have an interest in writing a regular column at a newspaper.

Here at JackeHammer, I ran a short campaign for Desdinova, appealing to the Editorial Page Editor to give Desdinova his own column at the News-Leader. It is even possible that I might have received a nod of recognition that this appeal had been lodged by that Editorial Page Editor (I'll never tell).

At any rate, the timing of Lewis' hiatus seems a tad suspicious to me.

I don't even want to go down the road of acknowledging the serious arsenal that Desdinova - Super Villain of the Ozarks claims to command in this posting! :o

Very curious!

I know that Desdinova...:

"...would like to change radio by ridding the world of talk radio and country music."

...claiming that after success in this endeavor he will:

"THEN...RULE THE WORLD!!! Mwu-HAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

He has also offered his services here, announcing that if Tom Carlson were to resign as Mayor of Springfield he will:

"take over."

I will also note that in this blog entry, Desdinova claims that the News-Leader is out to get him. Is it possible that they truly HAVE been out to get him and could they have a secret plan to have him take over Zerelda Lee's Candy Store!?

I hope that if Desdinova takes over the Candy Store and the Mayor's office and that if he is indeed, successful at taking over the world that he'll remember who it was who made it all possible and will allow me to live and come home from Bois D Arc.

I miss my husband and my dog.

This has been Jacke M., reporting from Bois D' Arc.

Another Item (15) of interest on the July 30, 2007 Springfield City Council Agenda: Bill 2007-238

I don't mean to be nitpicky (well, maybe I do) but Brenda Cirtin, City Clerk, and Bob Cumley, City Manager, have respectively submitted and approved Council Bill 2007-238. The City then placed Gary Deaver's name on the bill and slapped it on the agenda for tonight.

In part the "resolution authorizes the City of Springfield to contribute $2,500 and staff time from the Public Information Office toward" making an Artrain stop at the Jefferson Footbridge possible. Artrain is a five car train that is a moving art exhibit. The exhibit would arrive in November.

I like art but I like our police and firefighters better. I think this would be a nice project if the City hadn't underfunded the police and firefighters' pension funds and if the Council wasn't going to be voting on a restructuring of the police department made necessary due to budgetary restraints at tonight's council meeting.

When I'm pinching pennies because my budget is short at home I don't usually go to dinner at Steak and Ale on Friday night before I pay my mortgage payment. But that's just me.

All together, various entities in Springfield, including the City's Parks Department and City Utilities, will be contributing $24,000 to bringing the Artrain to Springfield.

I wish we saw this sort of coming together of contributors to the cause of funding the police and firefighters' pension plans. Instead of our City's departments using discretionary money for the pension plan they like these other frivolous events. Just think if the police and fire department were more of a priority to our City's benevolent contributors than the parks and art exhibits.

Who wouldn't rather to go to Steak and Ale for a nice steak dinner than make their mortgage payment?

Item of interest: City Council Bill 2007-241, Item 29 on the July 30, 2007 City Council Agenda

According to the background on this ordinance it was first adopted in 1991 but has to be re-adopted every other year by the City Council.

It concerns who is required to report:

"...any business transaction with a political subdivision if the transaction is more than $500 per year for such person and with any member of their immediate family. The chief administrative law officer and the purchasing officer must disclose the names and addresses of anybody else with whom they are employed and the names of the businesses they own."

Dan Wichmer, City Attorney, and Bob Cumley, City Manager, question who is covered under the ordinance and write that the Attorney General would have to interpret the phrase before they can determine it's scope.

Here's the phrase they question:

"Candidates for City Council, the Mayor and Members of the City Council, the City Manager, the Purchasing Agent, the City Attorney and ALL officials and employees who are authorized by the governing body to promulgate rules and regulations within the force of law OR to vote on the adoption of rules and regulation with the force of law." (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure why they need the Attorney General to interpret it for them. It seems pretty plain to me.

The reports (disclosures) are to be filed with the State Ethics Commission and the Springfield City Clerk.

Definition of promulgate - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 : to make (as a doctrine) known by open declaration : PROCLAIM
2 a : to make known or public the terms of (a proposed law) b : to put (a law) into action or force

$1 million? "Miniscule."

An anonymous columnist at the News-Leader wrote in today's (July 27,2007) Our Voice column:

"Bateman, the former accounting services representative who embezzled cash payments to the municipal court for a decade, has pleaded guilty to one count of theft of $25,000 or more. In reality, the damage Bateman did to the city's budget was minimal. The city never knew the money was missing, and $1 million, while significant in some ways, is a miniscule percentage of the entire city's budget."

Dear, accountable, responsible, respectable anonymous editorial writer, this is the mentality which the taxpayers disapprove.

$1 million may seem like a small amount of money to a Springfield News-Leader Editorial Page Editor, his assistant and collegues at the News-Leader. $1 million dollars may seem like a small amount of money to a big wheeler dealer real estate developer who happens to sit on Springfield's City Council and who regularly assists in the process of tweaking building codes, but in view of the Police and Firefighters' pension fund shortfall and the recent restructuring proposal offered by Police Chief Lynn Rowe to cut a division, do away with a Major and a Captain position at the police department to allow two new Lieutenant positions (meaning two more officers working the streets of Springfield) and a savings of $2500 in their personnel budget, I'd have to wonder if the Police and Firefighters would think it was a "minimal" amount in regards to the budget?

This year Cindy Rushefsky brought an amendment to the City of Springfield's budget for 2007-2008 to provide that HALF that amount, all that could be afforded, go into the Police, Fire Pension Fund. To think, and the estimates I have heard are $1.3 - $1.6 million that was stolen from municipal court funds, that amount of money could have gone into the pension plan or the police department's budget could have been increased that amount. Ah, but it's a "miniscule" amount.

Ask the police department and the fire department if they'd have rather had a half a million added to their pension plan or upwards of $2 million added to their pension plan and see if they agree with your definition of "miniscule." Ask Police Chief Lynn Rowe what he could have done with an additional $1.3 - $1.6 million in the police department's budget.

When our finances are lacking in our households we watch every penny. The government of the City of Springfield is responsibile for watching every penny of the taxpayers' money. Springfield is their "house."

Why try to minimize the amount of money stolen in perpetration of the crime and then out of the other side of your mouth seek to throw the book at Bateman?

Campaign for Desdinova, 2007

In his blog entry The News Leader Is Back On to This Again, Desdinova - Super Villain of the Ozarks wrote...:

"When I worked for a local newspaper, I asked if I could write my own column. I was told by the managing editor that nobody wanted to hear what I had to say."

Maybe I can be a spring board for the hiring of Desdinova at the News-Leader?

Please, Tony, pleeeeeeeease. Hire Desdinova - Super Villain of the Ozarks to write a regular column in the editorial section of the paper.

Oh, and another thing, you and Brian should stop targeting him because he has an anonymous blog, you big bullies! Shame on you!

Recommended Reading 7

Tech Trends » Springfield News-Leader Blasphemy

Jericho tries to "nip it in the bud"

Disclaimer: I should have written this is why I think VDJ might be asking for calls made to certain Council members. Naturally, I cannot speak for HIS reasons. This is my idea of why it is important to call. I have not spoken to Jericho and have no inside information as to why he is charging Springfield citizens with calling these Council members that extends beyond any other listener. ~ Jacke

What is Vincent David Jericho talking about when he asks that citizens of Springfield contact certain City Council members about the City "powers that be" not meeting in secret meetings regarding the negotiating of the development of the property adjacent to the Expo Center?

Let's see if we can get there from here:

I understand that there are some things that went down concerning the Heers Building in the past.

I understand that today, to hear most of the City Council members who were around during early Heers negotiations discuss the history of the Heers Building that it will be said that the developer, Vaughn Prost, couldn't get financing. That Vaughn Prost went broke, though Prost Builders, Inc seems to be continuing in business. It is implied that the Council had no choice but to purchase the Heers Building though I have already posted here that according to this October 16, 2006 City Council meeting... :

"Prost claimed he had two letters of commitment from Bank of America which implies he could have soon paid off the loan. He couldn't have paid off the loan that night but surely he would be able to shortly, that is, if the letters of commitment from Bank of America were reliable. Prost even gave a copy of one of the letters of commitment to the City Clerk that night."

...but at the June 18, 2007 Council meeting (see Heers Building)

"Ralph Manley commented that the City reacquired the property out of necessity to avoid a foreclosure....."

"...Doug Burlison stated that he was not indicating that he was in opposition of the proposed; however, was concerned with the amount of funds that would be expended by the City for interest and other expenses."

Mayor Carlson remarked on the history of the project and stated that the issue had been openly discussed in numerous meetings.

Denny Whayne stated that there was a misconception regarding what was being spent in the downtown area. Mr. Whayne stated that much of the funds were coming from grants and matching funds. Mr. Whayne extended appreciation to the legislators for their assistance."

Though this was all of Whayne's comments included in the June 18 meeting minutes, in fact, Whayne didn't stop there. The City's meeting minutes that are approved don't provide everything that goes on at a meeting, they are summarized. You can watch the Council meeting here by following the archive link to that meeting.

Whayne said:

"...We had a situation that we couldn't control, at the outset. We had a developer we thought was ready to go but couldn't quite get the financing so we almost went into foreclosure so we had to fall in the tub...if we hadn't have purchased the building....When you're dealing with those kind of restoration people we owed them and everything works out but sometimes it doesn't so, you know, we have to try to do the next best thing and I think that's what's happening here..."

Carlson said:

"...like Denny said, the investor that did it went broke and so that the task for this community was to set there and let that thing stop any further development or take a calculated risk that we could lose some money and it was done in open meetings, lots of discussion and we made a calculated risk and there we were, and maybe we need to go back and say, "well, we shoulda left it like it was..."

The only problem Councilman Whayne and Mayor Carlson is that Vaughn Prost had been approved by Great Southern Bank for a loan extension. Bank of America had issued two letters of commitment to Vaughn Prost. At least one of those letters of commitment was for nearly $20 million. The Great Southern Bank loan extension was contingent upon the City of Springfield's approval. The City refused to approve it.

So, why am I going into all of this re-hash of the Heers Building in response to the question of why Vincent David Jericho is asking people to call certain Council members and express that they would like the Council to act in PUBLIC meetings regarding consideration of who will develop the property adjacent to the Expo Center? Here's your answer:

Today there are questions about how we ended up, as Cindy Rushefsky recently put it, "over a barrel" in how the City is able to negotiate the sale of the Heers Building with McGowan-Walsh and the City never mentions their refusal to approve the loan extension that Great Southern Bank had approved contingent upon the City's approval, in fact, in the retelling it seems they try to rewrite history, certain members want citizens to believe that the City had no other choice but to dismiss Vaughn Prost and take over the Heers Building.

Will they, years from now, rewrite history on how the developer was chosen to build on the property adjacent to the Expo Center?

Only if the citizens allow it, only if the citizens don't research it.

So, the answer to "what is Vincent David Jericho talking about when he tells us to contact certain Council members and request these meetings be made in the open?

I think he's trying to solve the next mystery before it becomes the next mystery.

So, Tom Carlson, at the June 18, 2007 meeting you said:

"...but I think, you know, if we're gonna make allegations that things are being mismanaged, uh, then you really need to say "are they?" and if they are we need to know about it...."

Okay, I'll take that challenge.

One of the things I gleaned from the July 2, 2007 City Council meeting was that the City, after they had already climbed between the sheets with Vaughn Prost, realized they didn't have a very good deal (mismanagement) and so they took an opportunity to bail out on that deal when they had the opportunity. They did this by not approving the approved loan extention for Vaughn Prost with Great Southern Bank which would have been covered by the Bank of America loan(s) for which Prost had received letters of committment, then they breathed what they thought was a sigh of relief and pretended that they had no other option because Prost couldn't get the financing for the loan.

When Mary Lilly Smith spoke on the night of July 2, 2007 she referenced the fact that under the Vaughn Prost deal the City had authorized access to more parking spaces in the Heers parking garage than they actually could afford to commit. She compared the deal the City had with Vaughn Prost to the deal the City is negotiating with McGowan-Walsh. Lilly Smith seemed to be trying to make the case that they are negotiating a much better deal with McGowan-Walsh than they had with Vaughn Prost.

Vince is asking you to call certain Council members so that we don't have to look back at the negotiations on the property adjacent to the Expo Center in the future and try to figure out how we got there from here and why.

Is there something wrong with asking that the City Managers and the negotiators fully inform the Council as to how they have made decisions about the "winner" of this prime site?

If YOU are interested in contacting a Council member the numbers are listed at Jericho's Journal

To quote a very famous and transparent City employee:

"Nip it in the bud." ~ Barney Fife, Mayberry.

P.S. The News-Leader does NOT have my permission to publish excerpts of this posting.

Carlson Gardner in the news again

Carlson Gardner made the news again on Sunday. This time in the St. Joseph News-Press.

In Downtown developers cash in, City Government reporter, Joe Blumberg, exposes among other things:

On two apartment developments, the San Regis and the Pioneer Building, two different developers may profit up to 17 percent on the projects before the apartments are even rented. One of those developers is Carlson Gardner of Springfield, the other is Jeffrey E. Smith, of Columbia.

The upfront profit is made possible by the selling of tax credits awarded to the developers for the projects.

Developers compete for the award of tax credits each fall.

Mr. Blumberg also reported that both Carlson Gardner and Smith own companies involved in every phase of a project. Each of those companies, in turn, bill the respective developer at every phase.

In the fall of 2002 one of Mr. Smith's projects was denied in favor of a Carlson Gardner project. St. Joe endorsed Carlson Gardner on projects three times between 2002 and 2005.

The Mayor, David Jones, was up for re-election in 2005. That year seven different Carlson Gardner companies contributed the maximum legal amount to his campaign. Jones lost the election that year.

Read the original article for more details.

City Government Growing, Police Department Faces Consolidation

Regarding City Council Bill 2007-225, written about here.

For clarification, Police Chief Lynn Rowe intimated at the last Council meeting (view here) that this was a change he had been contemplating and that with the loss of two Majors recently at the Police Department the consolidation of two divisions, in essence, puts two more officers on the streets of Springfield.

It's good management on the Chief's part.

My complaint is that it was necessary.

My complaint is that our community is in the position of losing officers and having to combine divisions to spread the resources of the department to better serve our community.

The Community Free Press - Midweek (CFP), July 4 issue, quotes Rowe as saying,

"“We may potentially be down 40 to 45 officers over the next six months or so.”" (Read here, page 4, CFP Midweek - Archive Issues)

In the same issue of CFP, Rowe is quoted as saying:

“I can’t say we haven’t had officers leaving our force and going there (St. Louis and Kansas City), because, typically, they pay more.”

and:

“We lose so many to other departments, the Highway Patrol, and federal agencies. Perhaps it would have made a difference were we able to pay them more.”

There is a reason we are losing officers and Rowe has been put in the position of needing to streamline the Springfield Police Department in an effort to reduce the Department's Personnel budget.

It just seems to me that we should be getting to the root of this problem. The City should remedy it before we find Rowe's department down another 40-45 officers six months from now.

If the City doesn't act soon I wonder which divisions will be consolidated next?

In 2006, City Manager Bob Cumley was paid $181,201.

Assistant City Manager, Evelyn Honea was paid $137,947.

Recently, though at least one council member questioned the necessity, another Assistant City Manager was added to the City's payroll.

Our City's governmental body seems to keep growing while our City's Police Department is facing reduction.

That's just something to think about. Isn't it?

Poem inspired by a blogger

Lights out and fly?

Why?

I'd rather walk, feet feeling the rubble of the road
in Arkansas, the red clay dust clinging to white sneakers
the bridge
over the creek

remember that sunny Thanksgiving Day?

it must have been 70 degrees and the stepmother's family ignoring me and you?

the creek called that day and when I sat at the bank, that warm sun shining on the top of my young head, grateful to be away from that dreadful house, that dreadful step grandmother who bought me socks at Christmas

the creek, the sun, the breeze
no one else around

it was

Thanksgiving.

City Council Agenda, item of interest

Council Bill 2007-225

Submitted by Police Chief Lynn Rowe, approved for Council action by Assistant City Manager Evelyn Honea (some paraphrasing):

Proposal to:

Section 1:

...delete one full time equivalent position of Police Major, LES-15; delete one full time equivalent position of Police Captain, LES-13, and add two full time equivalent positions of Police Lieutenant, LES-12.

Section 2:

...delete one full time equivalent position of Administrative Assistant, PAT-4, add one full time equivalent position of Office Administrator, PAT-5; delete one part time equivalent position of Office Specialist, PAT-4, add one full time equivalent position of Office Specialist, PAT, PAT-4.

Purpose:

...to improve efficiency in the Police Department.

Remarks:

...to better utilize budgeted salary resources, the Police Department is proposing to eliminate a Police Captain and a Police Major position and re-structure so that there will be three opperating divisions instead of four.

Those salary savings will fund two additional Lieutenant positions to be used ot provide additional field supervision. It will also allow an upgrade for one part time Office Specialist to a full time position...and upgrade one Administrative Assistant position to an Office Administrator position. Both of these non-sworn support positions will help the operation of the new Division that will be created as a result of the merge of the Administrative and Support Services Divisions.

These changes will result in a small savings in the Personnel Budget and can be accomplished within the Police Department Budget for fiscal year 2007-2008.

Okay, so the Chief of Police is proposing to consolidate and merge Administrative and Support Services Divisions so that a division can be cut and a small savings gained to stretch the Police Department's budget for the year.

What I find disturbing is that the Chief of Police is forced to juggle and eliminate a division, consolidating others, to save money in the Police Department's Personnel budget AFTER the City Manager's office insisted it had to fill another Assistant City Manager position when the budget for Springfield was being debated.

Meanwhile, Conrad Griggs wrote an editorial column for the Springfield News-Leader championing a 1% sales tax for funding a police/fire pension fund that he thinks should be discontinued after supporting it throughout his years on Council by voting it into its current underfunded condition.

AND, Vincent David Jericho is reporting this morning (July 12, 2007, KSGF Podcasts > ) that the City runs the garage responsible for police cruiser repairs and upkeep, collects a better than market price for providing the service to the police department and the revenue they make from the auto shop goes right back into Springfield's general revenue.

Wouldn't it be nice if the City of Springfield got its priorities straight?

Wouldn't it be nice if City Managers were as willing to tighten their belts and ferret out savings, making sacrifice if necessary as is the Chief of Police?

I don't know how Chief Rowe continues to manage such loyalty to a City which CLEARLY doesn't regard his department as a priority.

It isn't enough that the City failed the police and fire fighters by not funding their pensions, and I don't care how complicated the issue is, bottom line, we have a police department that ranks among the lowest in the nation on pay and benefits, has sacrificed raises to see the police/fire pension fund be funded and then it isn't funded anyway, THEN we find they are having to sacrifice a division at the department to make ends meet.

Oh, and of course, city staff recommends approval .

The account of a citizen at the front lines of the immigration (non) debate

My friend, Tish, sent me this account of what happened when she and three of her friends who have been on the front lines in the immigration (non) debate called on their Senators prior to the cloture vote. She was afraid she'd "bore" me. I was far from bored, in fact I found it fascinating to see what she and her friends went through that day.

I'll not make any comments. Readers can form their own opinions and I recognize that it is only one citizens account, the other side of the story was not sought. ~ Jacke M.

Tish wrote:

The four of us met outside Lugar’s and Bayh’s offices at around 9 a.m. Our plan was to go into each Senator’s office and register our opposition to SB 1639, the Grand Amnesty, and to formally request that each Senator vote against cloture on that bill later that morning.

I expected to have the same experiences I’ve had in the past: a staffer takes notes of our points, our suggestions, and our requests, followed by a shaking of hands all around and a quick exit from the office; nothing but a semi-friendly exchange of time and pleasantries for all. That is not what happened at all.

The meeting in Lugar’s office, which was conducted with two Lugar staffers, Lane Ralph, Deputy State Director, and Bob Healey, Staff Assistant, started out with Cheree giving points of why we were against the bill. They listened politely – at first.

When I suggested that it was “sheer lunacy” (my words exactly) for our Senators to even be debating amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegals and doubling legal immigration at a time when our system couldn’t even keep up with our current immigration, Lane Ralph said that was my “philosophy” and dismissed me with a wave of his hand. He said, none too friendly, he wasn’t here to discuss philosophical issues. I said it was “reality,” not merely my philosophy and that the people of Indiana agreed with me. I said 90% of the people in Indiana are against amnesty and want our borders secured. He yelled – yelled – “80% of the people in Indiana want change!” He shook his head in a cocky sort of way as he said it. I came back with, “EXACTLY! Giving amnesty is what has always been done. It’s maintaining the status quo.” His intellectual response was, “No it isn’t.” “Sure it is!” I said. He then leaned toward me (he was sitting directly to my right) and condescendingly “explained” what status quo meant, as if to suggest I was too stupid to understand the term. He said it very slowly, as if he was speaking to a mentally impaired person, “Status quo means ‘no change’.” “Yes,” I said, “this will be the 8th amnesty in 20 years. The change people want is for current laws to be enforced.” How the idiot could even suggest with a straight face that giving amnesty is not the same ol’, same ol’ is beyond me!

At this point, rather than discussing something substantive, or doing his job which was to take notes so he could give our message to the Senator, he was more comfortable with insulting me yet again, as if pretending my comments were nothing more than the “philosophical” rantings of an ignorant, mentally impaired woman weren’t enough of an insult. He said, “That is an emotional issue! This shouldn’t be an emotional issue!” I said, “Excuse me, but it is an emotional issue for many and,” kind of laughingly, I said, “I’m not a robot; if you rouse my emotions, you’re gonna see them.” He said, “Well, perhaps you’d be better off discussing this some other place then.” Cheree said, “Oh? Where should we be discussing this issue?” He responded, “Emotional counseling.” I looked at Cheree with a “WTF?!” look on my face because I could not believe what I was hearing. The cat had my tongue! I was so shocked that I couldn’t respond.

Helen spoke at length about various things and the entire time she spoke, he would shout over her, as though he was trying to “out” her as ignorant or something. He would aggressively shout over her, throw out demanding questions as if trying to get her to reveal that she didn’t really know what she was talking about. I watched him as he did this, half thinking of striking him, and I noticed his hands were shaking as he yelled. I started wondering if he was, perhaps, a bit unstable because of the amount of outpouring from the public over this issue. Poor staffer, made to deal with the unruly, uneducated, unwashed pestilence called the “American people.” As the meeting progressed, he made it abundantly clear that was HIS philosophy!

When Cheree made the comment about the unusual process the Senate was taking in their attempts to shove amnesty down our throats, Lane Ralph practically jumped out of his chair and, condescendingly, shouted, “You’re wrong! That’s the system. That’s the way the system works! Republicans do it to Democrats when they’re in charge and Democrats do it to Republicans when they’re in charge! That’s our system and it happens all the time!” From all of us came the question, “Senators vote on laws they don’t read all the time?!” He continued yelling “No, they don’t read every word of every bill, but someone does! Senators read summaries of the bills.” He then went into a missive about how our government works. How amendments are made to make bills better or fix them when they’re bad, etc. Cheree said that Senators weren’t being allowed to offer amendments, that they were cherry picked by a select few. Again, he yelled “That’s how it works!”

At this point, Cheree, being every bit as upset as I was, grabbed the picture of her son and said that if that was the system, it was WRONG. She held up the picture. For a moment, I thought she was going to start crying. Bless her heart, she let them have it! “This is my son. He has served and bled for this country, and he’s still being treated at Walter Reed for injuries received in Iraq. He has to fight to get anything from the government. He was just turned down by our government for vocational rehabilitation. His chosen career was law enforcement, but now he’s blind in one eye because of his service to the country. The government is denying him help, but is trying to give rights to people who have broken our laws! Don’t you tell me what’s going on is “right”!" She slid the picture across the table and she was angry as hell. The only one who bothered to pick up Troy’s picture was Bob Healey. He asked a few questions about him, like how old he was, and laid the picture down. If my memory serves me correctly, Lane Ralph never glanced at the picture. He wasn’t there for anything but a fight, it seemed. I know I most likely have Cheree’s comments botched, but that was the gist of them. I felt like standing up and applauding when she was done!

I think it was at this time that Tina said that Senator Lugar should listen to and respect the wishes of his constituents. Lane Ralph began yelling something at her again, something about “hundreds of years ago when this government was formed, Senators were sent to do what they felt was best for their constituents.” I smarted off, “Oh oh, that’s a philosophical issue,” but he apparently didn’t hear me because he kept ranting. I interrupted and said things aren’t like they were 100 years ago and that Senators have the ability to learn how their constituents feel. I said a law should be introduced where issues have to be put before the people of the states and that Senators should be forced to vote according to the majority of their constituents. He whipped his head around to look at me, and demanded, “Oh! Like the 55 mph laws?!” Not sure what he was trying to get at, I said yes, maybe “sure”, I don’t really remember. He snorted, like he had “caught” me being stupid or something and yelled, “Oh yeah! People really follow THAT law, don’t they?” and turned away. Again I looked at Cheree and said quietly, “I’m ready to go. This isn’t getting anywhere.”

I didn’t get up to leave because I didn’t want to be rude or leave my group. I can’t remember much of what was said after that, except those times I smartassishly piped in, “And yet ANOTHER philosophical issue!” or “Oh, that’s your philosophy.” I remember I said that when he felt it necessary to give us uneducated four a history lesson in government and immigration, particularly at those points when he said everyone who had ever come to America was an “illegal,” that “we are all immigrants,” and that we didn’t know who the indigenous peoples of this land were, that it might even be the Hispanics who are coming here illegally. The man wasn’t there to discuss philosophies – except his own.

The point was made again that the Senator wasn’t listening to Hoosiers on this issue, as evidenced by his votes, and he blew his lid. He was glaring at Tina, I believe, and shouting, “Don’t we take your names, addresses and numbers when you contact us?! We don’t do it because WE want to, we do it BECAUSE THE SENATOR REQUESTS THAT INFORMATION!!! The Senator gets a list every day of those who contact us and why they contacted us!!!!” He was slamming the tip of his finger on the notepad in front of him as he yelled.

I finally had enough of his shouting, arguing, condescension and outright contempt towards us. I said, “That’s it!” and jumped up to leave. I knocked the chair over backwards. I said, “Sorry about the chair,” none too friendly, as I picked it up. I think I told Cheree I was going to the restroom, I don’t really remember. I just had to get away from that condescending, shouting maniac before I did something to land myself in jail. I stormed out, closing the door without taking any precautions to make sure it shut quietly. I found the restroom and my husband called seconds after I walked in it. As soon as I heard his voice, I started bawling. I hate getting that angry. And then when it makes me cry, which it always does, I get even angrier for not being strong enough not to cry. I hollered, vented really, in hubby’s ears for a couple of minutes and started working on calming down. I washed my hands, wiped the tears away, and left the restroom to walk around and compose myself. Once that was done, I headed back up to Lugar’s office. I walked in and went straight to the conference room. When I walked through the door, the shouting maniac, Lane Ralph, was standing there as the meeting was coming to an end. He said, “Oh, hey, I’m sorry.” It didn’t seem genuine in the least. I responded through clenched lips which had begun quivering again, threatening tears because I was so angry, “I didn’t come here for a civics lesson. I didn’t come here for a history lesson and I didn’t come here for condescension.” He turned around and walked away. I turned and shook Bob Healey’s hand and said, as Lane Ralph stood on the far side of the conference table, “It was a pleasure meeting YOU,” and thanked him for his time. The next time I looked over, I saw Lane Ralph leaving the conference room through a back door. Good. Prick.

The whole experience was a negative, infuriating one. It left me drained and shaking. I’m shaking now, just typing this brief and remembering.

While Mr. Healey was much more friendly and affable than Lane Ralph, he still approached us from the perspective that we were really just too stupid to understand how things really work. He went through a rather lengthy explanation of how the contacts to the Senator’s office are logged and sent to the Senator at one point in the discussion. What they refuse to understand is that no one cares HOW it’s done! If the Senator is going to ignore what the large majority of his constituents want anyway, it makes no difference HOW it’s done or even IF it is done!

None of us deserved the treatment Mr. Ralph unleashed on us that day. We did not go to our Senator’s office to argue, to receive a history lesson, a civics lesson, or to be dismissed as irrelevant and ignorant. Thanks to Lane Ralph, that is precisely what happened.

It was quite clear that these staffers were more interested in telling us HOW to think and intimidating us into adopting their stance rather than listening to anything we had to say. And when we said things they didn’t like or with which they disagreed, the tactic of the day was to shout us down and insult us.

When we left the office, we met outside to kind of gather ourselves and calm down before going to Bayh's office. We couldn’t believe what had just happened. I went to put some change in the parking meter because I had only filled up 40 minutes’ worth at around 9 a.m. The meter showed that my time ran out 59 minutes before. We had been in there for approximately an hour and a half.

I don’t know if Lane Ralph was merely at his breaking point because of the stress of his duties and the pressure from the public or not. I’m inclined to think his treatment of us is merely an extension of his boss’ view towards us, “Those pesky Americans! Why can’t they sit down, shut up and leave us smart people alone so we can do our job?!” They don’t realize that WE are their employers. I hope Hoosiers join me in reminding them at every opportunity that they WORK FOR US and WE PAY THEM. We aren’t their “subjects,” though it’s very clear that is how they would prefer it to be.

Shout out to Katherine Yurica: We must stop them Progressive Christian Dominionists!

Momma Twoop sent me an email the other day. Seems those danged Progressive Christian Dominionists are at it again! :-o

Them Pergressive Dominionists simply will not leave well enough alone until they set up a theocracy here in these United States!

I'm glad John Stone (Curbstone Critic) is not here tew witness it. He would have been so very upset. Sigh.

Read all about it here.

To think they are advertising this event right here on the 4th of July, no less. Appalling, simply appalling!

KatherineYurica of the Yurica Report will likely start connecting the dots on this very soon. Very, very soon.

These here relijous zeelots must be stopt!

Something ventured, nothing gained: Status quo returns to Washington

In Congressional passion gives hope, Springfield News-Leader's Tony Messenger wrote:

"For true change to occur on the state and national level on key issues, it takes Republicans and Democrats working together, not simply using the various issues as great dividers that build one party up while leaving the other in the dust.

Frankly, my hope was that the debate over illegal immigration would lead to the sort of grand compromise that would stand as a testament to our ability to reach across party aisles and work together on complicated issues. That didn't happen, but the fact that the issue, and not the party, was the driving force in this debate is still worth a nugget of hope."

I would argue that true change did occur on a key issue. I would argue that Republicans and Democrats did work together and they worked together all across the country. I would argue that the true hope that was discovered was that the people, as a whole, set aside partisan politics and reached across party aisles to effect the outcome of policy. I would argue that Tony, in his wish to see comprehensive immigration reform passed, failed to see what he wished come to full realization.

People stood up for America rather than political parties! People stood up for what they believed, and stood up passionately, and stood up because they did know what was in the bill, not because (as the News-Leader has implied in the past) they are ignorant, emotional, racist, bigoted, xenophobes! People knew better than the politicians in Washington what was good for the country and could not be denied their voice and when their voices were heard in such large numbers their "representatives" were forced to listen.

We could have a celebration in watching the system work as it should, in true representative fashion, but for the fact that in the end, after the dust has settled the proponents of immigration reform lost and the proponents of border security and law enforcement lost.

When we ask the questions, "What's next? Securing the border so that the American people will be more receptive to the idea of immigration reform in the future?"

We'd be logical to think that securing the border would be next, but that isn't going to happen. That isn't going to happen because just as the American people suspected all along, politicians were just trying to appease us and get us to shut up long enough to pass this legislation.

Nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?

So, you'd think that if border security was so important in the lead up to the debate on comprehensive immigration reform that it would be that important today, right? Uh huh.

President Bush Disappointed by Congress's Failure to Act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

Congress really needs to prove to the American people that it can come together on hard issues. The Congress needs to work on comprehensive energy policy and good health care; make sure health care is affordable without inviting the federal government to run the health care system. We've got to work together to make sure we can balance this federal budget, and not overspend or raise taxes on the American people. We've got a lot of work to do.

When they come back from the summer -- from the July recess, before the summer break begins, we'll be focusing on the appropriations process. And I look forward to working with Congress to balance our budgets and to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

Bush is ready to move on. No more talk about how important it is to secure our borders in the interest of national security.

On FOX News Sunday, July 1, Chris Wallace interviewed Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and I think this excerpt of that interview is telling:

WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, we have about a minute left. Clearly, what came out of this debate and the failure of immigration reform is that a lot of people in this country don't trust you, don't trust the government, to enforce the border.

So why not take the lesson from this failure and go for enforcement first, resubmit the president's agreement to spend $4.4 billion on new enforcement?

You say you don't have some tools when it comes to employer verification. Why not resubmit all of those and challenge the Democrats on enforcement first?

CHERTOFF: Well, Chris, first of all, anybody who says we haven't been enforcing is woefully blind to the facts. We have done more in terms -- and unfortunately, it's been some painful stuff in terms of arrests, 700 criminal cases against employers, raids involving thousands of people, unfortunate pictures of crying children. ...

WALLACE: But, Mr. Secretary, we're running out of...

CHERTOFF:... whose mothers are being...

WALLACE:I don't mean to interrupt you. I mean, are you going to submit the $4.4 billion? Are you going to resubmit the tamper- proof card? Are you going to resubmit the employer verification or not?

CHERTOFF: I think we're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years.

They've tried enforcement only. That didn't pass. We've tried comprehensive. That stalled. I think it's now time for Congress, which has the power to legislate, to make a determination about how it wants to help us solve this problem.

WALLACE: But the government, the president, is not going to submit his own plan.

CHERTOFF: Well, we've submitted a budget. We submitted a comprehensive immigration plan. We agreed on $4.4 billion which was going to be secured by the payments made by the illegals so it would not bust the budget.

In the absence of that plan, I think now those who have a better way ought to come forward with that better way. We're still going to work on our part to enforce the border using the tools that we have. (emphasis mine)

We will see just how diligent you will remain, Secretary Chertoff, now that you aren't trying to convince the American people that securing the border is important to you in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

The sad thing is that even though the American people were heard loud and clear, nothing tangible will be done to secure our borders. Those who supported the comprehensive immigration reform will say it is the fault of those who opposed that legislation.

Those who opposed it because they wanted to see if the government could enforce the laws it already has on the books before considering another amnesty will be validated by the continued lack of effort on the part of our federal government to secure our borders and enforce those existing laws.

Our representatives will return to status quo.

Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously.

To those representatives:

Don't blame the opponents of the bill, do your job of securing our borders and then come back to us in a couple of years. The "ball's" still in your court and the "carrot" can be replaced but not unless you prove you are willing to do your job and do it consistently and do it long term.

Author's note: This post has been edited for content and the title changed.

The Waaaah Factor: Calderon on Senators' "Grave Error"

From the Houston Chronicle:

"President Felipe Calderon of Mexico today blasted the U.S. Senate's rejection of the immigration bill, calling the senators' action "a grave error" that avoided a "sensible, rational and legal solution....""

VDARE.com's Allan Wall did an exhaustive piece exploring the Immigration policy of Mexico in his "Memo From Mexico: Learning About Immigration Policy From Mexico"

Wall lives in Mexico legally but is an American citizen.

It's good to see that Mexico has not made any "grave errors" and has such a "sensible, rational solution," to how immigration should be handled (sarcasm, for those who don't recognize it).

"Somebody's Gotta Say It...."

...and Boortz certainly did at Nealz Nuze this morning. :)

Read: MORE ON THE AMNESTY MESS and NOW PELOSI IS CHIMING IN.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw! ;)

Council Bill 2007-217 ~ A resolution accepting the term sheet between the City of Springfield and McGowan-Walsh...

...for the purchase and redevelopment of the Heer's Building, and directing the City Manager to negotiate a Redevelopment Agreement with McGowan-Walsh in substantial conformity with the terms set forth with the term sheet.

First reading bill, not anticipated to be voted on.

UPDATE: Access to the bill is now available by clicking on the hot link of Council Bill 2007-217, found on the Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda

What's happened to fairness???

Now, if I'd written a blog piece with a title like that it would probably be about the "Fairness Doctrine," and would have been a bit of sarcasm.

I didn't write this blog entry.

About two weeks ago one of my most favoritist people asked if he wrote an article about capitalism would I post it on my blog for him. That person was my brother. Knowing my brother as I do I figured it would be something worthwhile and I couldn't wait to read it. At long last, last night he sent me the article.

My brother lives in Joplin, Missouri with his wife and son. He also has a daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren who love their grandpa to make movies of them. I am on the receiving end of many of these short movies.

Anyway, with no further "ado," my brother's blog article on capitalism (oh, and by the way, he said I could use his name but I was afraid if I did the Editorial Page Editor of the News-Leader would have a glory fit or something, we can't have that!):

What's happened to fairness???

According to Answers.com, capitalism is:

"An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists."

Investopedia says:

"In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system."

...and it's a good system, the greatest in the world. I have always supported it, and I suppose I still do, but, here lately it seems to me that, for this system to work properly, there needs to exist a certain amount of "fairness." It also seems to me that the term "dirty tricks" would more accurately describe the situation today. It seems to me that nowadays the only basic concern of any business is to do whatever it takes to separate the average consumer from as much of his money as possible and as quickly as possible. Often this can and does involve "dirty tricks."

Are too many of us too gullible and easily manipulated by these money hungry conglomerates??? I'm certainly afraid that may be the case for a larger than should be percentage of our population. Has business decided it is easier to prey on the weak and ignorant in society than to make a fair and reasonable profit from fair and reasonable people???

Now, I'm sure that many reading this will think maybe they are too smart to be taken in by these "dirty tricks," and that may well be the case, but I fear that if the percentage of those who "don't get it" grows too large, then we all pay. In fact, I think we are all paying now.

Have we all lost our sense of value? Do we question things that don't seem to make sense? Do we demand an answer to obviously ridiculous charges? Or, do we all simply "shrug it off" and go about our daily lives?

Just what am I getting at anyway? Lets start with some "stupid tricks"

Burger King... and "Stackers"

For quite some time the Burger Kings in our area were running their double cheese burgers as a "manager's special" for 99 cents. I noticed, while that was going on, (full disclosure, I love Burger King double cheese burgers) they had a new ad campaign for their new menu item, the Stacker.

Turns out that a Quad Stacker (4 meat patties) ran $4.49 for the sandwich only, so I was trying to figure out why I should pay $4.49 for a Quad Stacker when I could buy 4 double cheese burgers (8 meat patties) for the same amount? I think in the end I decided I should do it to help them pay for the cute advertising they did for the Stackers... (the cute, rough, little bitty guy) but then I came to my senses and ate a bunch of 99 cent double cheese burgers (one vice I can't seem to shake).

Something else in the realm of burgers that has been bothering me is the super deluxe, ultimately cool burgers we can buy.

Take a Ruby Tuesday's, for example, or pretty much any nationally recognized "fun," casual eatery that offers great burgers. These great burgers generally run about $6 to $8 a piece (for generally about a 1/3 pound burger). So, I did a little math, the problem being how much would it cost "me" to make the same burger?

No doubt, they have a nice large selection of very delicious sounding burgers. Let's take a simple one, like, maybe, a bacon cheese burger. I don't know about anyone else but we usually have some cheese and bacon on hand, but if not, the cost would run about $2.50 for the bacon and about $1.75 or so for American cheese slices. Now, "we" catch cheap, greasy ground beef on sale often at 99 cents a pound, but let's go all out and get some nice, ground chuck on sale for say $1.69 a pound. That's a total of $5.94 and the good part, I can make not one, but three 1/3 pound Bacon cheese burgers now! I'll even have cheese and bacon left over for tomorrow!

But that's too simple maybe...

Let's look at one of their tricks that's actually a pretty good one. Take that gorgeous TRIPLE PRIME BURGER (their caps not mine). What they tell us is it's fresh (that's a good thing) USDA prime (also a good thing) ground beef... hmmm... isn't that what I catch on sale for 99 cents a pound??? (not Prime of course...). BUT! It also contains prime tenderloin, prime ribeye and prime sirloin, "blended" (my quotes) and it's grilled to make the "finest premium burger".

What is it that they do not tell us???

Wouldn't it be interesting to have the percentages at hand??? I'm guessing this baby will set you back about $12, if not more, so I'd kinda like to know what percentage of the burger is prime ground beef and what percentage is made up by those other wonderful (and wonderfully expensive) cuts of beef. That's all I want to know.

Of course burgers are silliness maybe, but I think there is much more going on than over-priced burgers...

Being a news and market watcher myself, I have seen and heard plenty about the sub-prime lending market and its current "problems," but it took me a little while to ask myself, "What is it?" "Who does it affect?" I guess it turns out that it, it being mainly predatory lending for the purposes of this article, effects many of the most venerable members of our society. Those who may genuinely want to participate in our economy at a higher level but for whatever reason may not be blessed with a large income.

From what I have read myself, some lenders intentionally lead many people into higher interest loans than they should be paying, due only to their ignorance of the market. They intentionally over charge both interest and as many fees as they can tack on without ever caring a whit about what the eventual outcome may be to the borrower. On the contrary, it seems many of these loans are made with the hope that the borrower will default so the lender can pick up the property for a song.

Not everyone in the world spends alot of time understanding the difference in a fixed APR and an adjustable APR. I think nowadays, when it comes to business, the word adjustable should get your attention quickly because it seems the adjustment will usually go in their favor, not yours.

At any rate, this isn't a book, it's a blog entry, so I'll just say I think predatory lending is much worse than what we will ever see reported on the TV or hear on the news. It is business intentionally stealing from customers. Does that make sense? I have a hard time understanding it myself. I guess maybe it's more like business stealing from customers who allow them to, through ignorance or otherwise.

So, burgers are silliness, and hopefully, most of us are too smart to be taken on bad loans.

What about something that affects all of us???

Utilities

Ever looked at your gas bill? Of course you look at the part that tells how much you owe this month. But I mean have you ever really looked at your gas bill???

Mine is kinda "funny" looking.

Take this month as an example. We have an electric water heater and a gas stove (range) in the kitchen. We also have a gas furnace which of course, we are not using currently.

I, (apparently being a person with too much time on my hands) began to wonder just what a "Customer Charge" was. I mean, I understand that I pay for the gas I use and I understand that I pay more for it than the gas company does. That is capitalism, after all. A fair profit on products and/or services rendered.

What I was wondering is, if the gas company is selling their gas to me at a higher price than they paid for it, thereby making a "profit" then what exactly is a "Customer Charge"???

So, we called (actually my wife called, she's great on the phone :)

"What exactly IS a "Customer Charge?" she asked. I, personally, was a little confused by the answer:

"It's a charge that the federal government allows us to charge."

So, my wife says, "Oh... Well what is it? I mean what is it for?" The answer???

"It's a charge that the federal government says is ok to charge our customers."

OKAY... As it turns out, coincidentally, I suppose, an explanation of this "Customer Charge" now appears on the back of our statement. What does it say, you ask???

"Same fixed charge every month designed to allow (company name) to recover a portion of its costs associated with maintaining customer accounts."

That IS a quote off my bill, but to me that sounds more like, "padding our profits at your expense."

I always kinda understood that the way it worked was that those costs came out of the profit you made in selling your product and that if you could not make enough profit to cover your expenses and still have some profit left over then maybe you should close the doors... must just be me...

AND... if you'll look hard you can find this same, somewhat mysterious charge on your electric bill and water bill, as well (TWICE on MY water bill! No kidding!)

But what really gets me is the percentage of the total bill that this "Customer Charge" represents!

On my latest gas bill the $24.62 "Customer Charge" represents a whopping 62% of my $39.61 bill! 62% !!!

Electric bill??? "Customer Charge" = 11%, plus they add in the "Franchise Fee." Doesn't that sound like something they should be paying???

Water bill??? "Customer Charge" 31% of the total "water" bill. Waste water charges. Customer charge??? You bet! Separately... representing more than 68% of the total waste water charge!

What gives here?! I'm ready to scream!

Which leads me to the cable company... lol.

Once again a simple question, or actually more like a simple answer for us. Let me explain...

Our cable bill runs like $105 a month (makes me feel like an idiot but we pay it). That $105 a month covers a package deal that includes 3 components, basic cable, digital cable and high speed internet access.

So, I was thinking... What is this Digital Cable part of the package that we are paying $30 a month for??? It's our extended channels. We have some channels in the 300 to, like, 394 (even though there are actually about 32 channels there...) so, we talked and we thought and we decided that, out of those 32 channels we occasionally actually watched about 5 of them. So, we thought, we'll just drop the digital part of our package because we felt like $30 a month was a bit much for 5 channels.

We called the cable company (my wife called, actually, as I said before...). Yes, sure they could drop the digital portion of our package but it would only lower our bill by $5 a month... WHAT?! You mean I pay $30 for it but you're going to charge me $25 a month to drop it?!

Yep... That's the way it works.

Credit card companies???

Did most of you know that a few years ago there was no such thing as an "Over limit fee"? Do most people understand that if you pay the minimum payment on a $2,000 credit card balance that it'll take you, like, 20 years to pay it off?!

Do most people understand that it's a bad idea period to carry any credit card balance at all? We all know someone who got themselves in a little trouble with their credit card(s) so they refinanced their house and paid them all off. Only problem is, we also know someone who then ran their credit card(s) back up again... So now they have the same trouble they started with plus a second mortgage to pay. Brother...

My wife and I had an epiphany a few years ago, about money and the way it works for and against you. We try to make it work for us now and do a pretty good job of it. We owe no one. In fact, we may have swung too far to the other extreme now. Example: I tear all of our paper towels off the roll, cut them in half, fold them once and put them in the napkin holder. It saves us 50% per year on paper towels, ridiculous??? Maybe. I also cut our bounce dryer sheets in half, same deal. Oh well..

So am I a conspiracy nut? Am I an alarmist? Am I just naive? I don't know... Am I???

Should we all ask more questions and complain more loudly about being victimized by those who pretend to "serve" us??? I think so...Until then, being a capitalist, I think I'll invest in utility companies. Now, that's capitalism...

(by Scott Phillips, shhhhhh!)

Heers Building: The Money Pit?

I realize that this is all "water under the bridge" now, but I found it very interesting and it never hurts to refresh our collective memories about how the City of Springfield has gotten into the position and circumstance in which they find themselves regarding the Heers Building.

This link takes you to the October 16, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes.

See under "MDFB loan" how Vaughn Prost had been approved by Great Southern Bank for a loan extension and how Bank of America had issued two letters of commitment to Vaughn Prost. At least one of those letters of commitment was for nearly $20 million. The Great Southern Bank loan extension was contingent upon the City of Springfield's approval. The City refused to approve it.

While Carlson abstained from the vote...:

"Mayor Carlson noted that he would not be voting on the proposed bill, as he had a connection to Great Southern Bank."

...he did not abstain from commenting:

"Mr. Prost responded the amount owed to Great Southern Bank was $2,840,000. Mayor Carlson suggested Mr. Prost could pay the loan, noting that he would then own the building. Mayor Carlson remarked that Mr. Prost had been given two extensions on the project."

I wonder why Carlson was so catty? I mean, look at the summary above...Prost can pay the loan, then he'd own the building? Prost claimed he had two letters of commitment from Bank of America which implies he could have soon paid off the loan. He couldn't have paid off the loan that night but surely he would be able to shortly, that is, if the letters of commitment from Bank of America were reliable. Prost even gave a copy of one of the letters of commitment to the City Clerk that night.

I can't help but think Carlson, or the City "powers that be," wanted this vote to go through that night because he/they didn't want Prost to pay off the loan and become full owner of the building. I suspect Carlson/the City wanted the City to own and control the building. Why?

"Council Bill 2006-371. Special Ordinance 25077 was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Griggs, Jones, Wylie, Manley, Whayne, and Collette. Nays: None. Abstain: Wright and Carlson. Absent: Deaver."

Today, the consensus seems to be that the City was between a rock and a hard place and that they had no other option but to pass Council Bill 2006-371 to keep the Heers Building from going into foreclosure. The minutes from this October 16, 2006 meeting seem to suggest that they had other options but chose not to consider them.

If the City had agreed to the Great Southern Bank's extension of the loan to Vaughn Prost and the letters of commitment issued to him by Bank of America had been honored, Vaughn Prost could have conceivably paid off the Great Southern Bank note, would be the full owner of the Heers Building and would have continued to develop it.

The City's approval of an extension seems like an option that should have been given more consideration than it was given. As Carlson, himself, said, the loan had been extended twice to Vaughn Prost...was there some sort of limit to how many times it could be extended? Doubtful. Apparently the City felt confident enough in Vaughn Prost's ability to pay the loan to associate with him in the first place and to extend the loan twice. Why couldn't they have considered extending it one more time?

Great Southern approved it. The City didn't.

Sara Lampe, "Out of the mouths of babes"

Steve Helms wrote a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in response to Sara Lampe's "Voice of the Day" column. Find Lampe's column here, and Helm's letter here.

He writes:

"I almost got the impression that we would be better off if no one over 12 years of age was in charge."

I too "almost" got that impression. We can trust children to be more honest, simple and blunt about the truth, about what is important than adults? My gosh, the implications!

Think about the education of the fourth grade children to whom Ms. Lampe directed these sober questions. Think about their life experience. Think about the insight their lengthy lives have afforded them.

I couldn't help but think that this is part of the problem with our national conversation today.

We'd all like to take everything down to its most basic and simple foundation and decide whether it is right or wrong, whether it should be the ultimate priority or secondary.

What is interesting is that sometimes doing the things that you think will help someone isn't the thing that will help them in the long term.

I used to try to start garden plants inside the house in a sunny window. The seedlings would shoot up, sometimes spindly, sometimes seemingly healthy. What my experience was, however, was that the first time I set the tray of seedlings out on a sunny day the elements to which they'd never been exposed would kill them and it didn't seem to matter how spindly or healthy those plants seemed to be. They couldn't withstand the smallest wind because they had been so protected inside the house.

Likewise, my mother is in poor health. The most helpful thing to do would seem to be to make everything easy for her, make her comfortable, expect less of her, but in the long run doing those things has the opposite effect. Making things easy for her causes her to get weaker, rather than stronger, feel worse rather than better. I learned this from experience.

Sometimes the most simple things aren't the most healthy or the right things to do.

Children come up with simple ideas because, through no fault of their own, they are young and simple. I'm not saying children are stupid but certainly one could admit they are less than informed about complicated issues and therefore their solutions to the complicated problems that face our country and our world are overly simple. I expect an adult to consider the more complicated aspects of an issue.

Lampe wrote:

"A good bit of my 31 years working with children was spent talking in order to teach ideas. The children I taught also taught me, however. When I stopped to listen to children's thoughts and ideas, I was always amazed at the clarity and truth of what they said. Children speak simply and honestly about what is right and what is wrong. I believe there are many lessons to learn from children if we stop to listen."

Considering that these children have been exposed to a teacher's ideas and that teachers have spent a great deal of time "talking in order to teach ideas" to these children, should it be a surprise that a teacher would be amazed when the teacher's ideas are repeated back in the simple and limited language of a fourth grade child? She certainly would be "amazed at the clarity and truth of what they said."

I was amazed at the juvenile thinking that went into Lampe's column. Of course we should listen to children, but to pretend that their opinions or voices are somehow more clear, truthful and honest and that they understand right and wrong better than adults or are more trustworthy than adults who have considered the complexities surrounding any particular issue is silly.

Lampe writes:

"The old expression, "Out of the mouths of babes" comes to mind. Children tell the truth, and the truth is sometimes hard to hear."

One would think so, especially when the one listening or a like minded teacher has put the words in the mouths of those babes or, at least, influenced their conclusions.

The words of children might be difficult to swallow by those who have put more in depth thought into the issues they are speaking about. Perhaps not because one disagrees with the foundational idea put forth in their words but because the adults listening realize the issue is more complicated than the fourth grade child can articulate or grasp and that there is no consensus on the best way to resolve those issues.

I would also add that what Lampe seems to celebrate when coming from simple children has oftentimes been written off when coming from political opponents of the Democrat party as too simple, as not considering the "shades of gray." Is Lampe attempting to disregard the complicated arguments put forth by more conservative adult voices by offering to over simplify the issues in reducing them to the foundational concepts of a fourth grade child? Interesting.