Funkhouser's Chances in 2011

There is nobody in Kansas City with a better chance of winning the 2011 Mayor's race than Mark Funkhouser. Now that Steve "Karnac" Kraske has declared his chance "microbe on a diet" slim, things are looking pretty good for Funkhouser, since Kraske never gets anything right. Go read my analysis at the KC Free Press if you're interested.

Let's Talk Politics This Time

Last year about this time, we discussed whether the City Council should make a $2,000,000 donation to the County, in the form of stadium subsidies. I opposed the decision, the Mayor opposed the decision, but the City Council voted 12-1 to give money away.

Since then, the Chiefs and Royals have had horrific seasons with terrible attendance, the City has not had sufficient money to clear streets, our murder rate remains high, a rapist roams Waldo, city employees have been laid off, remaining city workers have had their wages frozen, and we've installed Cathy Jolly's odious red light cameras to generate revenues. All this, and nobody has had the cleverness to point out that the City Councilmembers who voted for the donation should be held accountable for their shocking priorities.

And now the issue is back again.

(As an aside, why don't some of the crack reporters for the Star do an article about the FREE Royals and Chiefs tickets handed out to County and City politicians? Who's sitting in those seats? Are they even being used? I'd be willing to bet there's a story there - either the politicians are handing them out to donors, or they're wasting the tickets. And, as another aside, why doesn't the Star do a story on why, exactly, we even have a Jackson County Sports Authority? How much bureaucracy do we need to pay for simply to keep track of two tenants??)

This year, I'm not even going to bother arguing about the wisdom of stealing $2,000,000 from the city's coffers. My opinion remains clear, but let's look at a much smaller issue.

How do the politics of this debate work this year? Will Funkhouser's suggestion that we end the exemption do him political harm or political good? Will it harm him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and willing to risk our sports franchises? Or will it help him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and being the only one who prefers to spend $2,000,000 on things like police protection, snow removal, and city workers rather than weak athletes?

I'm curious about what people think. A good friend emailed me when the news came out and said that this closes off Funkhouser's path to reelection - "Voters won’t tolerate our Mayor screwing Chiefs and Royals, regardless of the budget shortfalls." He may be right, or he may be wrong, and the decision could be a step on the path toward reelection. (I know a lot of you disagree with a lot of Funkhouser's decisions, and believe that reelection is utterly impossible. That's fine - but, if you can, try to analyze the politics of this one decision. I'd love to know what you think.)

(Update: A commenter claimed that city officials get tickets, but county officials don't. The commenter is mistaken. Under the lease agreements, County officials get a suite and prime parking. See page 16, section 7.4. It's offensive to think that the City Council would steal money from city priorities so that county officials can watch games from a suite.)

Funkhouser Controls Weather

At first, I thought that the claim published on a local blog that Mayor Funkhouser's street received extra attention during the recent snowpocalypse was simply more of the same uninformed, thoughtless, baseless criticism that has been voiced by malcontents and power-deprived real estate attorneys throughout his administration.

Boy, was I mistaken. Using the powerful research tools available on the web, I conducted a thorough investigation of the topic. Sure enough, this is what I found:


This is a genuine Google earth photograph of the Mayor's street which I downloaded this very morning, after shoveling 6 inches of powder out of my own driveway. The work of the city crews in cleaning not only the street, but the sidewalks, lawns and trees is impressive.

Even more upsetting, here is a snapshot showing the impact of the snowfall on the limos of the lawyers running against him:

Harris Wilder Campaigning for Funkhouser?

The first campaign promise of the 2011 mayoral election has been issued, and it comes from somebody not even running. According to Tony's Kansas City, Harris Wilder has promised to leave Kansas City if Mayor Mark Funkhouser wins reelection in 2011.

Close observers will note that this is not the first time that Mr. Wilder has offered crucial support to the Mayor. When this summer's recall effort failed by a few hundred votes to force an election, it was none other than Harris Wilder who delivered essential complacency to the effort, assuring people that the effort was going to be a ringing success.

Demonstrating his wry and subtle sense of humor, Wilder asserted that a vote for Funkhouser would show that "the voters of Kansas City admit that they don't care about the budget". As treasurer of the recall effort, he somehow generated $33,000 of debt while bringing in only $1,175 in contributions. While Kay Barnes and the developer-funded prior city council managed to spend the our city into a fiscal crisis with larger numbers, Wilder wins hands-down when it comes to percentages.

(All joking aside, Mr. Wilder deserves sincere appreciation for both his passion for his causes - however much I may occasionally think them ill-chosen - and for his willingness to freely speak his mind. I wish him and all who read this a fulfilling 2010.)

Audacious or Modest? Hopes for Funkhouser's Education Summit

I'm supporting Mayor Funkhouser's Education Summit, but I feel I ought to explain myself. Really, after dozens of blue-ribbon panels, grass-roots movements, concerned citizen gatherings, neighborhood committees, business roundtables, and academic colloquia, what possible good can yet another gathering of people talking accomplish? What new thoughts, what new programs, what new ideas?

Haven't we talked things to death, while flaws in our education system continue to breed crime, dampen economic development, and divide our community? Didn't the KCMSD just hire a new Superintendent to come in and make his own changes? At first blush, it is an insulting and arrogant waste of time for a bunch of well-meaning people to meet in a room somewhere, wring their hands and produce a vision of what "we" (meaning "they", of course) ought to be doing.

At first blush, perhaps, but the state of education in Kansas City ought to provoke more than one blush. We all ought to be blushing.

Simply stated, the hope I have for the Summit is that it could get our community to agree on a few ideals related to education, and foster a dialog across the dividing lines we have built up.

Is that hope too modest? Is it simply a waste of time that our community might gather, at considerable expense, and agree on some ridiculously obvious sentiment like "K-8 education in Kansas City should provide the tools for additional learning" or "High Schools in Kansas City should be free of crime and violence"? (I'm just tossing those out there - I have no idea what a Summit might come up with.)

Or is it too audacious? Can one event really break down the "us vs. them, I've got mine" attitude that seems to permeate our "system" of education here? Each of us raising children comes up with our own solution to the problem of how to get the education we feel is best for our circumstances, and doing so requires decisions and actions we might not otherwise undertake.

And then, we are forced to defend our choices. We become an interest group. Support Charter Schools. Support Catholic Schools. Support Home-Schooling. Move to the suburbs. Raid the savings for Pembroke or St. Paul's. Support Afro-centric schools in the District. Insist on bi-lingual education for children of immigrants. We all love our children, so we decide what is best for them under our circumstances, and we make the best of it.

It's like we're all forced to find our ways through an incredibly complex obstacle course, where we have to make trade-offs based upon our own values and circumstances. We all find our own individual paths through the thicket of options, like a corn maze.

What if we, together, lowered the walls of the maze? What if we could acknowledge that the people who send their kids to Charter schools share values with the people whose children attend private schools, and that those of us whose children went to KCMSD schools are not guilty of intellectual child abuse? What if we focused on some commonalities instead of distinctions? What if we walked away from a day together and understood each other better, and even respected the interests and perspectives of "those people"?

Is that even possible? And, if it is possible, what meaningful good could come from it?

By my support of the Summit, I'm saying that I believe it is possible. I think (I know) that the vast majority of people in each camp are good, sincere people wanting what is best for children. And I believe in my core that good builds upon good, just as bad brings more bad.

How does that translate into meaningful good? I have no idea, other than to reduce hostility between the camps (which, in itself, would be an achievement). But maybe someday homeschoolers gete invited to participate in Lincoln's Science Fair. Or a suburban district supports a bond issue for the KCMSD. Or district kids are welcomed to one of Pembroke's dramatic productions of a play they are studying.

I don't know exactly what good could come from increased ownership and caring about the education being received by others in our community, but I feel certain that some good would come from it - perhaps the beginnings of something transformative.

Ironically, I recently participated in an email exchange with a group of people concerned about education, and one of the participants asserted as a fact that charter schools perform significantly better than traditional public schools. I pointed out that the data are conflicting on that point, and he, in turn, directed me to a summary of about a hundred studies on the issue, with conflicting results that shockingly corresponded to who was paying for the study. The undeniable truth is that Charter school advocates will cherry-pick whatever data will generate more support for Charter schools, and traditional school districts will find data that shows the Charter schools are resource-robbing underachievers.

That right there is the problem. Seeing such bought and paid for spinning leads to cynicism, and a lack of trust. My inherent lack of trust is the currency I use to purchase my absolution from caring or getting involved. If the problem is hopeless, and the data are all unreliable, then I am justified in my refusal to work toward solutions or change.

I believe that a forum can break down that inherent lack of trust. Yes, we will definitely have intellectually dishonest partisans who will try to skew things to support their predetermined positions. But I share the faith that the VAST majority of parents and citizens are like me - we may have our biases and our cynicism, but we fundamentally want what is best for the children in our community. If we come together and have a frank and honest dialog, we may or may not agree on everything, but we can begin to destroy that inherent lack of trust that absolves us from thinking that the "other side" is working in good faith, and absolves us from working toward solutions.

Experts have had their say. We've had those seminars, colloquia, roundtables and committees. I think Funkhouser's Summit can do something different than what we've done in the past. I might be wrong, but I think it's worth a try.

Something's Fishy With the Recall Excuse

The Recall Group is claiming that the only reason it is not seeking a recall in court is because they don't have $10,000 to bankroll a lawsuit. The Star does its best to bury the smelly corpse with the remarkably gullible claim that "In the end, the effort to recall Mayor Mark Funkhouser simply ran out of money."

Folks, I don't think they're telling us the whole truth.

First off, there's no way they couldn't find $10,000 if they really thought they had a chance in court. Friends of other candidates would find a way to make it happen overnight. Barring that, they could have gone back to the streets and raised the money in a couple weekends. Not even counting the bogus signatures, that would be less than a dollar each. This thing has been headed up by a real estate lawyer and an experienced campaign professional - no way in hell are they giving up because they can't raise $10,000.

Second, they had a lawyer right there. Harris Wilder, their long-winded spokesperson, is an attorney in good standing, fully capable of typing up a petition and filing it. Dividing the $10,000 by $200 per hour (a fairly low rate for experienced attorneys), they're ballparking the thing at 50 hours of time - a long week of work, perhaps, but dwarfed by the hours other people put in on this whole misguided effort.

Third, there wasn't a deadline here. If they thought they had a valid claim, they could spend the time they need to raise the funds for the suit. Why would they throw in the towel so quickly? Remember when, a few weeks ago, they made a big deal out of hiring an experienced Civil Rights lawyer to give them legal advice?

And that, friends, is the fly in the ointment.

They've received their legal advice, and they know it's time to exit the stage. They failed to gather enough signatures, and no lawyer can change that fact. On top of that, I imagine those volunteers who submitted bogus signatures begged for this thing to go away as quickly as possible, in the hopes of avoiding criminal charges. When you ask someone for $10,000, they ask smart questions, and I imagine every donor lost interest the moment they saw the legal grounds proffered.

By pretending that their effort is shutting down because they could not raise $10,000, the Recall people are refusing one last time to admit the truth. They failed, plain and simple. $10,000 was not going to bring them any success, or they would have their $10,000, and plenty more where that came from. But they don't have to admit that to themselves if they can point the finger at someone else for failing to rescue them from their own failure.

80+% of Voters Refuse Recall! Funkhouser Riding Crest of Popularity!

News reports are claiming that recall petitioners were unsuccessful, after a month, plus a 10 day extension, to get 20% of the last Mayoral vote count to sign a petition triggering a recall election. After massive publicity and many boasts that they were well on their way to achieving their goal, recall organizers could not attain the required 20%.

Political observers recalled that Funkhouser only won his original election by the slimmest of margins, with nearly 50% of the voters opposing him at the time. Now, a little more than 2 years into his term, less than 20% of the voters oppose him.

With 80+% of the electorate supporting him, Funkhouser's political power is at a zenith few can remember ever seeing in Kansas City. "He's kind of like George Brett, Len Dawson and Harry Truman rolled into one, all without the support of the Kansas City Star," gushed one experienced politico. Steve Glorioso groused, "If only Kay had some of that Funkhouser mojo, she would be in Congress right now."

Plans for a ticker-tape parade through downtown are not yet finalized, as City Council members are bickering over who should get to sit next to him on the parade route.

Recall on its Way? Show Me . . .

Yesterday, the Recall activists turned in 13,000 new signatures in support of their effort to force a recall vote on Mayor Funkhouser. While some proponents of recall are declaring victory, such a claim is premature. A large percentage of their initial batch of signatures were invalid; a similar percentage for this batch would result in the effort falling almost exactly at the cut-off point.

Even if enough signatures are gathered, legal questions about the sufficiency of the grounds stated will need to be considered by the courts, and, of course, nobody has emerged as a strong candidate to replace the Funk.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I am saying I'm not convinced it will. The next few weeks are going to be interesting.

Fraud and Perjury in Recall Effort? (See above)

(This entry remains posted only to place the entry two above it into context. The information provided in this post is erroneous and should not be relied upon.)

I stopped by my local grocery store yesterday on the way home from work, and finally had an opportunity to see the "Funkhouser Recall" petition effort under way.

I suspect the effort has resorted to paid signature gatherers, because the woman posted at Brookside Market yesterday afternoon was lurking out in a lower traffic area than is typically used by the many solicitors that frequent that location. (As an aside, the entrance to Brookside Market is one of my favorite "free speech" zones in Kansas City - it is a hot spot for petitioners, Girl Scouts, school groups, etc., and a real asset to our community.) When I noticed her clipboard, I asked her what she was gathering signatures for, and she replied, "For the Mayor."

I told her that I consider myself for the mayor, and she handed me the petition.

Of course, the petition was not "for the mayor", as she claimed, but it was for a recall of the mayor. When I saw that it was one of the recall petitions, I asked her what the legal grounds for recall were. She replied, "Uhh, he's not doing a good job."

Folks, those are not legal reasons to recall a Mayor. Telling someone that it is, in an attempt to gain his or her signature, is a form of attempted fraud.

More significantly, however, I saw no statement of the reasons to recall the Mayor attached to the Petition. The notary certification, however, promises that each submitted signature was put onto the petition paper "to which was attached at the time of signing a list of the grounds alleged for such removal". If there had been such a listing, the signature gatherer could have simply shown it to me.

If the petition circulated outside the Brookside Market on April 28, 2009, gets submitted as part of the recall effort, with a sworn signature that the signatures were gathered with a list of the grounds for recall attached, we may be looking at perjury.

Not Gonna Fight It, and I Hope Funk Doesn't, Either . . .

Like our Mayor, I disagree with portions of the budget passed by a 12-1 margin yesterday. Most of the disagreements are relatively minor, but a few of them (deep cuts to the police, $1.7M donation to the County) might be worth screaming about. And I know how to carry the fight to them, too. Call on Funkhouser to veto their scandalous budget and force them to cast their votes twice in favor of hurting our City. Divide the $1.7 million by the 12 votes in favor and ask whether any one of them is worth the $142,000 they are giving to the County, and maybe even try to tie them into the Jackson County Ethics Blackout. Scream about the "Marcason-Hermann Police Cuts" and set up a weekly report on which crimes get assigned to which Council members.

Yeah, when it comes to being a screaming ass, I could write the book. But I'm not going to play that game, though some say I'm pretty good at it.

Fact is, our Council has put in a lot of effort on this budget. I can sit here on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback all I like, but they are the ones who had to jump into the mudpit and wrestle the beast. If I really, really, really, think I'm absolutely, clairvoyantly right about how to set up a budget and balance the priorities to lead our city forward, I should have either run for office back when they put their reputations and wallets on the line, or I should have been at every public budget meeting and forum offering them my spectacular wisdom.

Instead, I stayed home.

That doesn't mean they're above criticism for foolish decisions (ahem, extending Cauthen) or that I won't complain when they use hard cases to make bad law (ahem, anti-Volunteer ordinance), but there comes a time when a good citizen knows when to shut up. This is one of them. They managed to unify behind a budget that may be imperfect, but it's a sober document reflecting hard choices and deep thought. If I thought they were supporting an insane, irresponsible, ill-thought-out budget, I would be screaming, but nobody can seriously claim their budget is not a realistic attempt to wrestle with our problems.

Funkhouser voted against it, and I can respect his vote. Like him, I personally think the police cuts are too deep, and that when it comes to basic services for all, public safety is job one. Politically, the vote might have been wise, too, since he can now point to that vote as having stood up for citizens and police when the council gave money away to the county and stadiums.

But it's a pretty weak point, and it's been made now. Vetoing the budget will change absolutely nothing, practically or politically.

It's time to move on.

The time for fighting about the budget is over. Ultimately, neither Funkhouser, the City Manager nor any of the Council members won or lost the battle, because it's really about US. As citizens, we have elected representatives that have decided on a budget by a 12-1 margin, and any further fighting about it is game-playing that can only distract our representatives from getting on with the business of overseeing the implementation of that budget.

So, instead of screaming or personal attacks or any other pushback on this budget, I want to thank our City Council. You've worked hard on a budget, and come up with a document that united twelve of you. That's impressive work, and my admiration is sincere. Each of the twelve who voted for the budget worked hard to arrive at something that you think represents Kansas City's best interests, and my points of disagreement are incapable of overshadowing my appreciation.

Fine work, City Council. I hope our Mayor signs on now that the time for fighting is past.

Is the City Council Irrelevant?

Yesterday, Funkhouser went ahead and signed the ordinance extending the TIF package for the Savoy Hotel. While I criticized the extension here yesterday, and I questioned the good faith of the Council, the developer and even the developer's lawyer, it turns out that the only party truly deserving of scorn on this issue is the Council.

The developer, developer's attorney, Funkhouser and the other taxing districts went ahead and worked out a better deal without the Council, rendering irrelevant the Council's attempt to actually harm our city. Actually, as Mark Forsythe correctly pointed out the other day, they had already worked out a better deal before the City Council followed joined in Terry's Terrible Temper Tantrum and, incredibly, approved a worse deal for the city than was already on the table!

Truthfully, they went ahead and approved an ordinance that was worse than the developer had actually agreed to, just because Terry Riley was angry that someone else had negotiated the deal! Is that the sort of person you voted for?

Fortunately, the adults fixed the situation. Through written, good faith agreements apart from the Council, the developer agreed to do the right thing, whether the Council cares about the good of the city or not. Thank goodness Funkhouser worked with them to make it all come out okay.

Meanwhile, city hall observers are left to smirk at the Council's behavior. The more juvenile members of the Council have been claiming lately that the Mayor is "irrelevant", just because they don't talk to him much. Sadly, the Council is becoming Junior High at its worst, with cliques excluding others on the Council and bragging about it to the rest.

If Mark were the sort to join in those games, he would be out whispering to others that the Council is "irrelevant", and snickering at the silly ones who joined in Riley's malfeasance.

But he won't do that.

Instead, he realizes that the Council remains very relevant, and capable of much more mischief in the future. In this instance, he managed to prevent them from bringing as much harm to the City as they attempted, but he knows we are still burdened with Cauthen for a couple years because of their immature behavior. Alas, the City Council may be outsmarted on occasion, but they are not irrelevant. Fortunately, neither is the Mayor.

Savoy TIF - A Reason to Despair

If Kansas City is ever going to do the right thing, this should have been the moment. Everything was set up absolutely perfectly for success, and we absolutely blew it.

We have some fine and intelligent people on our City Council. We have a Mayor who even his most dogged opponents acknowledge has the political courage to stand up to developers seeking to get wealthy from tax funds. We have a budget crisis raging, to keep the focus on the budget imbalances created by bad decisions made in the past. We even have a sane economic development policy that the Council has already agreed upon, to help it make rational decisions.

Surely, under these circumstances, when a wealthy developer approached our City with his hand out, our Council would have the strength and good sense to honor their commitment to the citizens of Kansas City, right? Surely, at this moment of crisis, they would not screw us one more time, for old times' sake . . .

Wrong.

Absolutely incredible. With the sole exceptions of Mayor Funkhouser and John Sharp, the City Council went ahead and showered a rich developer with undeserved tax breaks, at the urging of a well-connected development lawyer who gave them money.

For a great explanation of just how bad a deal this was, go read Mark Forsythe's excellent analysis at The Kansas City Post. Make no mistake about it, Kansas City taxpayers are helping to make the rich richer, while facing cutbacks in basic services.

And your council member is fine with that.

If they're not going to stand up for us now, when will they stand up for us? When Terry Riley chooses not to play silly games over turf? When the development lawyer appearing before them has not greased their palms with substantial campaign donations? When the contrast between having money to pay for basic services and having money to pay for a "four star" restaurant is somehow sharper?

It's moments like these that make me wonder why I care. The deck is stacked in favor of the status quo, and even good people like my city council representatives are riding with Terry Riley and Jerry Riffel instead of Kansas City taxpayers.

I can only hope that sometime today, Mayor Mark Funkhouser vetoes this disgusting display of legislative sell-out, and that a few good council people will look themselves in the mirror and think about why they got involved in the first place.

I know it's politics, but, really, how could you fall this far?

We don't owe $2,000,000

Mark Funkhouser has taken a lot of heat for his proposal that the City should stop paying $2,000,000 out of its general funds to support the Truman Sports Complex. He's absolutely right. We have no contract or law obligating us to make such a staggering gift, and it is insulting to the poor citizens of Kansas City that we would reduce basic services while subsidizing suburban entertainment.

According to news reports, Mike Sanders and others are claiming that if the City of Kansas City does not bail out the stadiums, it will be violating the leases, freeing the Royals and Chiefs to leave the area. That is an absolute lie, and I have the proof.

I have read the lease agreements, and found something amazing. The City of Kansas City did not sign the leases. In fact the agreements (page 13, section 14.a.ii, of the Royals contract and page 21, section 10.5.2(ii)(a) of the Chiefs contract) to be precise) refer to payments by the City as "currently" $2,000,000, which clearly anticipates that the amount could change in the future. Mike Sanders is playing with other people's money.

Kansas City cannot violate a lease it never signed.

I have spent a lot of time looking at the City's budget, and this is not a good year for us to be giving money away when we are under no obligation to do so. In a time when we are looking at cutting the police, closing community centers and jacking up the property tax, it's impossible to justify spending such a huge amount of money for stadiums. We are in the process of firing people - city employees are losing their jobs - and Mike Sanders wants us to spend $2,000,000 to cover an obligation owed by the County??

Will Mike Sanders be willing to walk into the offices of $2,000,000 worth of those City employees and tell them that he'll be thinking of them when he's watching a Chiefs game from the fat-cat suite after parking like a rock star? (Check out page 16, Section 7.4.)

The simple fact is that the City of Kansas City owes no money whatsoever under the leases. If anybody wants to claim that we are so obligated, I would ask that they show us the legal documents that back up their claim.

If, on the other hand, they resort to bogus claims like "Kay Barnes promised . . .", ask them if they really, truly believe that is how government works. Did "Credit Card" Kay Barnes really have the ability to obligate the city with a speech? If you believe that, you really have no idea how the process of government works. If Mark Funkhouser announces in a speech that the City will, without any sort of ordinance or documentation, or signing any contract, give $2,000,000 to me every year forever, because he likes my writing, is the City on the hook?

And don't let them trot out the old "economic engine" argument, either. Of course there are tangential benefits to having the Chiefs and Royals in town, but that's true of any employer or tourist attraction. And a lot of those benefits go to Lee's Summit, Independence, Blue Springs, Liberty and Overland Park. How about if the City of Kansas City matches the tax dollars chipped in by those municipal governments?

Sadly, this is a very difficult budget year. I would love to see the City in a position where it could make a $2,000,000 charitable contribution to help the County live up to its contractual obligations. Especially if we could do that AFTER helping the truly needy in our community, with things like better police protection and codes enforcement. But, really, we cannot do that this year.

Those two millions dollars to not come out of thin air. They represent choices. If we put $2,000,000 into the stadiums, when we are not obligated to do so, we need to take $2,000,000 from somewhere else.

Why should we pay what we do not owe?

Should Equal Rights Apply Only During Economic Good Times

One of my City Councilmembers, Beth Gottstein, has introduced a proposed ordinance to ban discriminatory dress codes in publicly subsidized redevelopment plans and projects. The ordinance is, of course, a reaction to the dress code that the people at the Cordish Companies have used to deny access to the tax-advantaged Power & Light District for people dressed in, shall we say, an "urban" style. Not surprisingly, the ban on ball caps and white t-shirts was sometimes ignored for shall we say, "suburban" looking people.

Beth Gottstein, along with Terry Riley, Mayor Funkhouser and John Sharp, has come out against having our tax dollars subsidizing discrimination. Who could possibly disagree?

Sure enough, the local blogosphere provides an example of someone willing to stand up for prejudice if it's profitable. Over at the Kansas City Post, we are instructed that "As far as the P&L, our primary concern right now should be revenue." The focus should not be on equal rights in a time of economic crisis, it should be on revenue. "I would like to see the numbers on how many potential patrons are turned away, and what the projected lost revenue is. I doubt it's even a drop in the bucket." It's not that they're too black, it's that they're not green enough?

I'm grateful that Councilmember Gottstein has found a revenue-neutral way to help our city become a better, more welcoming place. Her dedication to building bridges and reaching out to all facets of our community has been an important part of her character for years - long before we were fortunate enough to gain her leadership on the Council.

Some things remain more important than revenue, even during times of economic crisis. While some among us feel that "Hard economic times call for singular focus," leaders like Gottstein realize that good people don't turn on each other during hard economic times. Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Thank you, Beth, for helping Kansas City stand in a goood place at a time of challenge. That's why we voted for you.

Siettmann, Roe, Cashill - Stuck in the Middle with Funk

In the comments to my posting of the Funkhouser budget letter, I've been questioned about our Mayor's recent hiring of Mark Siettmann, a man who formerly worked for Jeff Roe's company, Axiom Strategies, as well as Jack Cashill's attempts to portray himself as an influential member of Funkhouser's inner circle. One of the joys of blogging is that I always get to pick and choose what I write about, and it's easy to avoid issues I don't want to talk about. But the questions raised are fair questions with (I think) interesting answers, so here goes.

First off, I don't think Cashill has any influence on the Mayor outside of his own mind. If Mark let the guy look at some of his speeches and make suggestions that he didn't accept, well, that's just an example of Mark's kindness to a guy who not many people will give the time of day to. Cashill is loudly irrelevant and has been for years, and I admire Mark for treating him gently.

Jeff Roe is a different matter, though. It bothers me that Mark talks to the guy. (The advocate in me wants to point out some of the other Dems who have done the same thing, but that's advocacy, not logic.) While I understand that it's smart to get a diverse set of perspectives on issues, I have a problem with a lot of Jeff Roe's tactics. I've conveyed my displeasure at the idea, but I'm not the one who got elected Mayor, so that's not really my decision.

So, honestly, no, I don't like the whole consultant deal, but I'm not naive enough to be shocked. There's a limited pool of high-level talent out there, and most of them are entrenched to the same pro-developer, chattering class crowd that Mark ran against, and defeated. He kind of had to go outside the usual crowd, and he did.

Now, moving forward, here's where I stand. If Siettmann is shown to have written homophobic material, just get rid of him right away. I was wrong when I argued that Semler's appointment could be justified, and I learned from it. This case would be even easier - Mark should tell him to clean out his desk the day he gets the proof.

Assuming that doesn't happen, then I hope the guy does a super job. Remember, his job is to do communications, not policy. Those of us who know Mark know that the public persona of Mark Funkhouser is nothing like the real man. If someone can help the real man appear more clearly to Kansas Citians, that would be a fantastic thing. If someone can help show how foolish the City Council is when it makes outrageous mistakes in defiance of Mark (like when they gave Wayne "Lie on the Resume" Cauthen a fat 3 year contract), that would be a fantastic thing, too. Mark needs to shake up his public image if he is going to accomplish what is best for the city, so good luck, Mr. Seittmann.

Mayor Funkhouser Addresses the Budget

I thought Funkhouser's letter concerning the Budget was extremely well-done, and a good example of the kind of straight talk and dedication to priorities that won him the office. Hilariously, and I kind of think she might have been joking, Jan Marcason accused the letter of "set[ting] up a tension that didn’t need to be there." Umm, yeah, Jan, that letter managed to bring tension to a peaceful, loving City Hall, right? Too funny!

Rather than trying to "spin" the letter, though, I'll just post it and let everyone read it for themselves.

DATE: February 12, 2009

TO: City Councilmembers

FROM: Mayor Mark Funkhouser

SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed FY 2009-10 Budget


The Kansas City Charter requires that I deliver to the City Council a copy of the proposed budget along with my comments. This letter fulfills that requirement.

As we approached this budget season I thought of Sir Winston Churchill who said, "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

This budget does not give us the tools to do the job.

On January 15th I was handed the first draft of the budget. I distributed copies of that budget to the members of the City Council and to the press. Here is that budget.

On February 2nd, a second budget was delivered to my office. Here is a copy of that budget.

As you can plainly see, there is a significant difference in these two documents. As you will hear, those differences caused me to look at this budget differently.

You have heard me say before that I am committed to returning Kansas City’s focus to its residents. This budget should put Kansas City's families first. We need to protect our families and be compassionate about their circumstances. The way to do that is to be smart with their money by providing them with an accountable and transparent budget.

The budget delivered to me fails to do that and is therefore unacceptable.

In my conversations with individual members of the City Council, not one has indicated that he or she is prepared to vote for this budget as submitted. There are good reasons for this. This budget is unbalanced, unaccountable, and full of gimmicks and smokescreens. It doesn't put Kansas City families first.

Protection

This budget proposes cuts to the Police Department that will undo ten years of progress to improve services. Chief Corwin tells me it will force the layoff of more than 200 police personnel and take dozens of officers off the streets. This is unacceptable.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe in their homes. Marie Sims is a mother of four children, one of whom was born deaf and blind. She works two jobs. Marie Sims' eastside home has been burglarized twice in three months.

Marie Sims does not feel safe in her home. Still, Marie Sims told the Kansas City Star that police officers who helped her were "her angels."

By taking police off of the street, families like the Sims will feel even less safe.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe on the streets. In December, more than 150 police officers went door to door to track down dozens of people being sought by the homicide unit. That sweep solved the murder of Napoleon Malone, who was killed while on a smoke break from his job. Mr. Malone should have been safe on our streets.

Kansas City's families deserve to be safe in their neighborhoods. The Waldo Heights apartments used to be a frequent spot for calls about shots fired, drug dealing, burglary, robberies and a host of other problems. Officers responded there on a daily basis. But a concentrated effort by Officer Jeff Peacock has helped clean up the area. A reduction in police officers would jeopardize that success.

Kansas City's parents need to know their children are safe at school. Eastgate Middle School's neighborhood is one of the highest crime spots in the Northland. Parents at the school are relieved that the police department launched a program that places a Community Action Officer in their school. Cutting funding for police threatens that successful program.

The budget presented to us cuts Police Department funding by $10 million. That cut would hurt our families and does the opposite of what they have told us they want us to do.

If Kansas City is to prosper the Sims family, Waldo Heights residents and Eastgate Middle School students must be safe.

We have invested in our police department and it has paid off. Response times have been cut in half. Crime rates have dropped substantially. And citizen perception of safety has increased. If we cut funding now, we jeopardize these gains.

Simply put, cutting police is a short-term budget fix that does not match our residents' priorities, and I will not accept it.

Compassion

This budget would nearly double the city’s property tax levy to fully fund general obligation debt service. It estimates that this would generate $8 million annually. In these hard times, I will not burden working families with an 86% increase in one of their city property taxes.

I recently received a heartbreaking letter from one of my residents about this proposed tax increase. When I called him, he told me about his struggle as a senior citizen trying to make ends meet. Every dollar we add to his tax burden is one less dollar he can spend on food and heating. How could we support such a tax on our senior citizens?

We need to ask ourselves what this tax would really pay for. Should we use this tax to pay the $7.2 million shortfall on debt for the Power and Light district? Should we use it to pay for luxury condos or a convention hotel? Should we use it to continue to subsidize downtown TIF developers? It is unconscionable to almost double this tax on residents when they wouldn't even get a vote.

I must reject this proposal.


Accountability and Transparency

This budget fails Kansas City families with its lack of accountability. This is unacceptable to me.

In 2004 when they approved bonds to pay for capital improvements, the voters were promised that those bonds would not result in a tax increase. We can not break our promises to the voters.

Likewise, when the City asked its residents to approve a public safety sales tax, it promised the tax would result in 20 more policemen a year. We can not break our promise to our residents.

To do so would undermine citizen trust in their government. Any portion of this budget that fails to fulfill our word to Kansas City's families must be rejected.

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of my heroes, Abraham Lincoln. He said "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." This budget fails to bring the real facts. This is unacceptable.

The submitted budget contains $14.5 million in unspecified cuts to city departments. In reality these are cuts in basic services that will show up unannounced during the fiscal year, much like last year's weed problem. These cuts are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Likewise, the budget transmittal letter states "A reduction in workforce anticipates the elimination of 300-400 vacant and filled positions in General Fund supported funds." However, these position reductions do not show up in the personnel schedules, because they are not really lay offs – they are financial targets that department heads are supposed to achieve. If the department head can find the money elsewhere he or she can avoid layoffs. Therefore, the number of lay offs is not clear. Worse, it is not clear what services are being cut.

All across Kansas City, families are sitting down at their kitchen tables and reworking their family budgets. If they used this budget as a guide, they would cut a little from everything, including their necessities. I would submit that most Kansas City families know enough to prioritize their expenses. They cut their luxury items, like eating out, while leaving alone the necessities, like buying formula for their babies.

This budget's gimmickry fails our duty to those responsible families. It makes no difficult choices.

A budget is a plan for action. This budget has no plan, only soft promises to make cuts. This council must reject this attempt to submit an unaccountable budget.


Additional Tools Required

Therefore, I am sending this budget back with my recommendations.

By February 26, I expect a document to be delivered that provides us with a balanced budget without cutting the Police Department, without increasing property taxes, and without making unspecified cuts.

We owe it to the Kansas City families we are charged to take care of to know exactly what cuts will be made, how many actual jobs will be lost, and what services will be curtailed.

Last year this City Council passed a budget that included eliminating 140 positions, but management cut only about 80 positions. Only about 18 people left the payroll. Using financial targets instead of position reductions means that the cuts in expenditures are not structural. There is no transparency for Kansas City families.

Once I receive a balanced, accountable budget with no gimmicks or smokescreens, I will review it and make my final recommendations on March 5th.

Albert Einstein said, "In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.”

These difficult times are an opportunity for Kansas City to reshape how the city works for our residents. We can only do that by starting our budget discussions with honesty and the desire to make hard choices. As Churchill said, we need the tools to finish the job.

Ladies and gentleman, once we have those tools it will be time to roll up our sleeves and finish this work.


cc: City Manager Wayne Cauthen

Funkhouser Demonstrates Great Scheduling Judgment

Over at Funk's Front Porch, he posts his schedule for yesterday morning:

9:30 a.m. Councilmember Ford

10:00 a.m Doug Hotten of MAST

I suspect Mark anticipated the tenor of his first meeting accurately.

Cauthen Consistent, Council Confounded

For the second week in a row, Wayne Cauthen has demonstrated his disdain for the City Council by skipping the Finance and Audit Committee meeting.

While I tend to criticize our City Manager for his resume lies and participation in the looting of the city, I have to admire him for this one.

Wayne Cauthen claimed in his resume that he has "Corrected the city’s previously structurally imbalanced budget." Now, if he shows up and participates in a committee meeting where the City Council is struggling to come up with $85 million to correct the city's structurally imbalanced budget, wouldn't that be inconsistent? In Wayne's World, the budget problems don't exist.

The Council's frustration with Cauthen must have been heightened by the fact that Cauthen sent Chuck Eddy, a $140,000 expense item, to attend the hearing in his place. That's just kind of rubbing their nose in it, don't you think?

While I certainly understand their frustration, I hope that the Council uses this opportunity to ponder the fact that Funkhouser was right to fire Wayne Cauthen, and their childish decision to give Cauthen a 3 year contract out of spite was the single most destructive mistake made by this City Council.

SUNDAY SHOCKER - Squitiro Taking Over as Chiefs Head Coach

On the Sunday before the Super Bowl, new Chiefs General Manager Scott Pioli shook up City Hall and Arrowhead Stadium by announcing that Gloria Squitiro will be replacing Herm Edwards as Head Coach of the Chiefs, effective immediately. "Squitiro knows how to make things happen in Kansas City," Pioli explained, "and she's not welcome at her first choice of workspaces, so I thought we should let her try her hand at coaching a football team."

Ed Ford, of course, was the first to criticize. "She has no experience!", he shouted from the back of the room, where nobody had been paying attention to him. Pioli replied that Herm Edwards had plenty of experience, and "look where that got us." Clark Hunt chimed in that Ed Ford really ought to spend at least a little time doing something other than attacking the Mayor and his wife, but Ed Ford shook off the suggestion. "I paid Pat Gray good money to conduct a 'push poll', and I want my money's worth. If I don't have Gloria to attack at City Hall, somebody might start asking why I haven't accomplished anything."

The traditional media were in a state of shock. Steve Kraske and Deanne Smith were seen sadly handing over thick files to Jason Whitlock and Joe Posnanski, and CJ Janovy was rumored to be in despair. "Squitiro was Janovy's muse. CJ managed to create a cover story out of nothing but snark and Photoshop," a source from within the very quiet Pitch newsroom whispered. "I gotta go and empty the trash now."

In her first address to the team, Squitiro was clearly relaxed and in her element. "You big lugs," she shouted, "you've probably heard a lot about me. Most of it's not true, but losers like to talk. I like to get results. If I took a funny-looking, dour accountant and ran a campaign that made him Mayor, it will be easy to take a 2-14 group of losers like you to the Super Bowl. Alvin Brooks was a helluva lot tougher to beat than the San Diego Chargers, I tell ya. From now on, we're wearing orange!", she shouted, and then murmured, "and I'll be attending your team physicals, too." The players squirmed a little upon hearing that.

One of the Chiefs players, speaking under condition of anonymity, seemed pretty pleased with the choice. "Sure, she hasn't coached before, but she never worked in a Mayor's office before, either. She's smart, aggressive, and not afraid to say what's on her mind. I think she might fit into the NFL even better than she did City Hall."

Brandon Clark, a skycap at the Kansas City Airport, was enthusiastic about Squitiro's new role. "I've seen her stand up for herself when she thought the officiating was questionable, and she will dominate the sidelines."

Contacted at her Northland home, Frances Semler remained bitter about her experience with the City. "I just hope she takes a hard look at that Gonzalez guy!" she shouted, before slamming the door on a reporter.

Clark Hunt seemed especially thrilled with the salary negotiations. "She works for free!", he exclaimed. "That frees up lots of money to spend on draft picks. And I think she might be able to convince Funk that city support for the Jackson County Sports Complex should keep on flowing. Can't get much further East Side in Kansas City than Arrowhead Stadium, so keep that money flowing."

Jan Marcason expressed frustration that Squitiro had circumvented her anti-Volunteer Ordinance. "Volunteers are bad people," she complained. "We need to find a way to regulate everyone who works for free in this city, especially Gloria Squitiro. Ed Ford suggested in one of those famous backroom meetings that I should have named my ordinance the anti-Gloria ordinance, and included a provision that told her to stay in her house at all times, but I didn't listen to him because I wanted to make it look like I was spending time on something that wasn't so mean-spirited and foolish. I guess he was right. Mean-spirited and foolish isn't really unusual on this Council."

Mayor Mark Funkhouser seemed happy with the turn of events. "I'll be spending most of my office hours at Arrowhead Stadium now, rather than my house in Brookside. It's more convenient for the residents of the East Side, and I'll be holding Town Hall meetings at the Stadium on a weekly basis."

Wayne Cauthen was unavailable for comment on the news. He was busy negotiating with Cordish to give them the parking concession for Arrowhead, in exchange for a handful of promises.

"This is a great time for the Kansas City Chiefs franchise," Scott Pioli gushed. "Gloria Squitiro has watched her husband try to lead 12 Council members at a time, and he's made some great plays, like the New Tools initiative, a better budget and an economic development policy, and he's made a few bad calls, too. Like a football coach, he has done it by empowering the members of the Council to make the right plays. Now, Gloria gets to try to manage 11 players on the field at a time, and accomplish her goals through them. It ought to come easy to her. She can trade the ones that aren't doing their jobs, but Funk doesn't get to do that."

(UPDATE!: I received a gentle and good-natured email from the fine folks over at FuKCed City, who pointed out that this post bears more than a passing similarity to their post of a little more than a month ago entitled "BREAKING NEWS: One Arrowhead Shocker!" and reporting that Gloria Squitiro was becoming the team's General Manager. All I can say is if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they should feel incredibly flattered. I can't even deny that I read the piece when it was posted - I read all their posts, because they're great. It must have stuck in the back of my mind, and come out in a more wordy and less original form. My apologies to the crew over at FuKCed City, and, if you haven't bookmarked them yet, add them to your list of regular reads.)

Kraske Whiffs Again - What He Should Be Asking

Steve Kraske claims the upper right corner of today's front page of the Star, and manages to look good while whiffing almost entirely. It's kind of like watching an unschooled rookie with a sweet swing face the famed knuckleballer Tim Wakefield. Kraske swings mightily, but can't quite make his wooden analysis impact the baffling trajectory of local politics.

The headline in the dead tree version of the story is "Has mayor run out of political capital?", and the lede is an anecdote claiming that Funkhouser failed to gladhand at a democratic fundraiser. In short, Kraske asks the wrong question and answers it with conventional wisdom from the chattering class. That, my friends, is not "analysis" worthy of publication.

First off, the question is not whether Funk has run out of "political capital". The guy won by fewer than 900 votes and walked into a council chamber poisoned by hardball politicians seeking to become mayor. The guy never really had political capital - he walked in with a target on his back, and nobody on earth was going to trade that target for a 7 member dependable majority. And, to give his critics their due, he certainly has not behaved in a fashion well-designed to accumulate it, either.

The correct question is "Can Funkhouser work with this Council to accomplish good things for our city?". Because, really, that's what people wanted when they elected him, and that's how he will be judged. Maybe a few of the insiders and professional game-players such as Kraske care about style points or how well he shakes hands at a cocktail party, but the rest of us care far more about accomplishments. By focusing on shaking hands and fuzzy concepts of "political capital", Kraske focuses on the parlor game aspects of city government rather than on the street level effectiveness of city government.

Now, before the anti-Funk brigade reflexively misinterprets what I have written so far, I'm only saying that the question ought to be "Can Funkhouser work with this Council to accomplish good things for our city?" rather than "Has mayor run out of political capital?". I hope we can all agree that my question is the better question - who cares if he never shakes another hand and the verdict at Kraske's chattering class cocktail parties unanimously states he has zero "political capital", if he is able to work with our council to accomplish good things for our city?

Having thus refocused the issue from image to substance, I'll go ahead and answer my own question.

Yes, Funkhouser can work effectively with this Council to accomplish good things for our city. He can do that by continuing to work creatively and subtly through other council people, the majority of whom will, when push comes to shove, get on board for the right reasons on the big issues for the good of the city. Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein, for example, are not going to vote for a lousy Cauthen budget no matter what they think of Funkhouser or his wife. Most of the council is composed of grown-ups, and they can separate their disagreements on the anti-volunteer ordinance from good policy in facing the substantive issues they need to address.

All that said (and apparently beyond Kraske's imagination), Funkhouser has an opportunity right now to jumpstart his working relationship with the City Council and kick off 2009 in the most productive way possible for our city's future. In one fell swoop, he could eliminate his biggest problem in image and the city's biggest problem in reality.

In my opinion, Mark should approach those city councilmembers who really do have the good of the city at heart with a proposal to dismiss his Volunteer Ordinance lawsuit in exchange for their support in getting rid of Wayne Cauthen. Most agree that Cauthen is simply the wrong man for the foreseeable future, and I believe they would welcome such an opportunity to get back on track in solving our city's very real problems.

I feel like I owe some explanation, since I loudly called upon Mark to file his lawsuit, and I continue to think that the anti-Volunteer Ordinance is an unconstitutional bastard born in a backroom from spite and dishonesty. Despite my dislike of the Ordinance, though, that single issue need not continue to distract attention and dominate the public discourse.

Right now, Mark is working just fine with his geographically flexible Mayor's office, just as most of the councilmembers work effectively while spending little time in the four walls of their offices. While it feels wrong to let such an ugly little ordinance remain on the books, dismissing the suit does not make it constitutional. Someday, in a less critical time when we can afford to focus on "B" level priorities, the ordinance can be challenged in a more favorable environment. In terms of impact on the city, the Volunteer Ordinance is tiny in comparison to the damage wrought by the wrong City Manager.

Dismissal of the suit would also unplug the electricity surrounding rumors of Koster investigations and other nonsense. In short, Funkhouser would be rising above the Council's petty mistake, diminishing a danger, and accomplishing a larger goal. It would also provide the good Councilmembers with a way to redeem themselves from their current tarnished, bickering image, and make a clean break from the past.

Would Funkhouser ever make such a deal? I have no idea.

But it's a lot better question than Kraske's breathless insider chatter about "political capital".