Schools First - Can't We Agree on Anything?

The level of discourse among the chattering class of Kansas City is sometimes astounding. Occasionally, though, a conversation with someone removed from the political sphere casts a shaft of light into the room, and the ugly reality of political gamesmanship is revealed in all its sordid detail.

A friend this weekend asked me what I thought about Funkhouser's Schools First initiative. I started to discuss the challenges it will face, and whether Jan Marcason and a couple others will do their best to sink it, and what the ramifications of the bonds would be, etc.. My friend looked at me with something near disgust, and shut me up with a few simple words. "It's a good idea, isn't it?"

Wow.

Lost in all the maneuvering, all the intrigue, all the paybacks is that simple question. "It's a good idea, isn't it?"

It IS a good idea. The Schools First initiative would direct some of the city's resources toward one of its most troubled areas of public service, perfectly timed to build upon the spirit of change and opportunity developing in the Kansas City Metropolitan School District. Each of the 5 facets of the initiative would have a positive impact on the lives of children and families in our city.

Only in the oxygen-starved rooms of Council Chambers and Star Editorial cubicles can that be a bad thing. When all is said and done, the Schools First initiative is about helping children and families. Can't we at least agree on that?

What's wrong with using $100 million in general obligation bonds to improve infrastructure around the schools? The need to upgrade the city's infrastructure is universally acknowledged - the only question is where to start. Why not start where it will help the lives of children and families?

What's wrong with renewing the public safety sales tax and using it to support security around schools? Jefferson City stands ready and willing to make the necessary changes to the law so that we can spend our money on people instead of buildings.

What's wrong with prioritizing schools in city services? Why wouldn't we want to clean up graffiti around our schools first, and clear weeds from where school children walk?

What's wrong with seeking grant funding in partnerships with schools?

What's wrong with putting someone in City Hall in charge of making all this work smoothly?

Only in the misguided power world of politicos and editorialists is there anything wrong with helping children, families and schools. I hope that those members of the City Council who are "struggling" with this simple decision will come to their senses and work to improve the lives of children and families.

If we can't agree on that, voters will have a clear direction on whom to vote for in 2011. A lot of voters will agree on that.

Meeting Candidates - Why Does it Matter?

Political season is upon us, with sequential waves of candidates descending upon us seeking votes for school board elections, followed by County primaries, followed by County generals and Congressional elections, followed by City elections. And, if you take the slightest interest in voting, you will be bombarded with opportunities to "meet and greet" candidates.

It's a strange phenomenon, really.

From a politician's perspective, shaking a voter's hand is THE most effective way of securing a vote. No mailer, no phone call, no 20 page position paper will be as effective for that voter as a firm handshake, a look in the eye, and a couple meaningless words. "I'm Joe Blow, I'm running for ________, and I'd appreciate your vote on August 3," is all it takes.

We voters are star-struck with shocking ease. That's the only explanation that accounts for the incredible success that hand-to-hand political conquest offers.

We voters are fools. We believe, like the Worst President Ever, that we can look into someone's eyes and get a sense of their souls. Spending 30 seconds with a candidate makes most voters think that they've taken the measure of the candidate, and gives them confidence that the candidate is worthy of their trust.

It's not even limited to the charismatic candidates. I'm not immune, and I've seen the phenomenon happen with some of the least charismatic candidates imaginable. Somewhere I have a picture of my son and me beaming with Governor Bob Holden - Holden may or may not have been a good Governor, but he certainly was not a splash of transformative inspiration.

It's the celebrity, I suppose. Meeting someone whose name is in the news gives us a touch of importance otherwise lacking in our daily world. The fact that someone you've heard of is sticking his or her hand out meet you is flattering, and, as much as we want to believe otherwise, most of us vote with our emotions more than our brains. Researching policy positions and comparing them to our own half-formed beliefs is nothing compared to having a politician look us straight in the eye and treat us, for a few seconds, as if we matter, as if we are worthy of respect and attention from someone "more important" than ourselves.

It's not entirely a bad thing. The importance of meeting candidates does force politicians to expose themselves to malcontents and germs, which at least assures us of politicians with a good immune system and some awareness of mental health issues. And, as voters, we are offered the opportunity to weed out a few whose arrogance, general creepiness, or other personality flaws outshine their star power. We may not be able to get a sense of someone's soul, but we can occasionally recognize a total loser.

So, it's meet and greet season, and I'll be out there meeting and greeting. I'll even host a few candidates I feel strongly about, through deeper conversations and more thorough vetting. That's how the political process works, particularly at the local level. It's the best we have, particularly in the absence of an impartial local press that can adequately cover local issues and candidates.

Seek out the candidates. Ask a few questions. See how quickly and intelligently they respond to difficult questons. Shake their hands. But remember to pay more attention to positions and interests than a good grip.

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.)

Playing Games with "Cops on the Street"

After hacking $15 million dollars from the budget of the Kansas City police department, the Kansas City Council wants to act like it didn't do anything wrong. Incredibly, two City Councilwomen have sought to breeze in and wallpaper over their budgetary attack by encouraging the Police Department to eliminate support positions and change the working conditions for 200 cops - all so that they can claim that their budgetary attack didn't reduce "cops on the street".

These are the same people who voted to donate almost $2,000,000 to the stadiums, instead of using it to reduce the cuts to cops.

Frankly, avoiding a reduction in the number of "cops on the street" is political showmanship, not effective public safety. "Cops on the street" need support off the street, and $15 million in cuts to the back office is going to have an impact on the ability of the cops on the street to do their jobs. Those cops on the street need supplies, they need well-maintained vehicles, and they need supervision. Like any business, they need support services, and cutting those support services while artificially maintaining the number of cops on the street is likely to do more harm than good.

Sure enough, after the Police Board passed the budget without a single negative vote, one of the City Council members took the low road and preemptively slimed the Police Chief. "If officers are pulled off the street that will be Corwin's decision, not the council's." Folks, I've seen some pretty vile attempts at denying responsibility for one's own behavior before, but that one ranks way up there.

Of course, in the anti-Funk hysteria this town is currently suffering through, nobody wants to talk about the irresponsibility of the council. Instead, people are aiming their guns at the one person who has worked hardest to preserve the police force. The same Council member mentioned above had the unmitigated gall to complain that "Funkhouser hadn't helped the city officials dicker with the police staff during task force meetings about the budget."

I believe that the Council "dickered" the police department quite well without Mark's help.

Showing an amazing ability to focus on the irrelevant, Yael "Funk is a Big Poopyhead" Abouhalkah even took a cheap shot at Funkhouser for not attending the meeting at which the budget passed without a single negative vote. Again, showmanship gets valued over substance in Yael's mind. Instead of even mentioning the vote tally, Yael wrote two columns attacking Mark for the same missed meeting, and implied that pre-meeting participation in the budgetary process doesn't matter if none of the voters mentions it during the vote. Amateurish, petty hack job.

If we want to talk about failure in Kansas City, we ought to be talking about the attempts of certain City Council members to paper over the impact of their disastrous police cuts, and the Star's biased refusal to call them on it.

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?

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.

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.

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".

Praise for the Council

On New Year's Day, I received a chipper and realistically optimistic email from Jan Marcason, wishing her supporters "good health and happiness in 2009". The other night at the beer party, someone asked me why I am so positive about Jan Marcason, Beth Gottstein, Russ Johnson, Deb Hermann and several other city councilmembers who have, at least to all appearances, not been supportive of Mayor Funkhouser, whom I also support.

The question has many answers.

In the biggest sense, I don't necessarily want a monolithic City, County, State or Federal government. I've never understood the perspective of those who feel that government is working best when it is bickering least. In reality, government is one of the battlegrounds where clashing interests meet to decide on shares and rules - peace is an unnatural state in any legislature, including our City Council. When Barnes had a dependable majority behind her, she drove our city into financial disgrace and allowed TIF pigs to plunder our future.

Beyond the inherent conflicts of legislative life, I also accept that each elected official is a human being. I think all of them have had grand moments and boneheaded blunders. The Mayor, for instance, made a mistake in the Semler appointment/retention, and his go-it-alone approach to firing Cauthen was simply foolish. As for the Council, the Volunteer Ordinance is an hysterical embarrassment, and the thoughtless decision to give Cauthen a raise and a three year contract may have been the only way to be more foolish than Funkhouser in the Cauthen saga.

In short, if I want to find a perfect politician who never makes costly, bone-headed mistakes, I had better search someplace other than City Hall.

But I think they're, on the whole, doing a darned fine job. They joined together and rejected Cauthen's ludicrous, unrealistic budget. They did the hard work to come up with a far better budget and are already working toward doing it again in an even bleaker economic context.

They came up with a good Economic Development Policy, and have generally eschewed the sort of high-cost, high-profile, high-risk projects that typified Credit Card Kay's tenure. Instead, their few investments have focused on the long-neglected East Side of Kansas City.

They have also done the hard and completely non-glamorous work of drafting a sewage overflow control plan, as required by the EPA. Jan Marcason led them to approval of a well-thought-out, innovative and environmentally-friendly plan that will improve our city for at least a generation. The plan may not capture quite as many readers as a deposition in the lawsuit that the City Council has kept alive, but it is far more significant to our city's future.

It's easy to get frustrated by the continuously-mistaken, bickering bunch of knuckleheads that you read about in the paper and on blogs. But if you pay attention to the work they do, and tune into Channel 2 from time to time, you'll see that they are not the same people you read about.

They are gracious 99% of the time. They are cooperative most of the times when they ought to be. They represent conflicting interests effectively and competently. They answer calls and emails, and seek out the opinions of citizens. They take on difficult tasks without expectation of glory or lucre, and they do those tasks well. They respond to problems day in and day out. They endure attacks on their intelligence and character without responding in kind.

We are truly fortunate to have the City Council we have right now. There is great work going on at City Hall, and those of us who pay attention too rarely offer appreciation.

To borrow from Jan Marcason's email, I wish the Mayor and each of the Councilmembers good health and happiness in 2009. Thank you for your work on our behalf in 2008.

Beer in the Bottoms? Let's Bulldoze the Power & Light District!

Last night, while researching my next homebrew recipe, I came upon a spot of amazingly cool news. In 2009, Kansas City will have another brewery opening up, this time in the West Bottoms. Dead Canary Brewing is a woman-owned and run new brewery, setting up in the West Bottoms down off 12th Street, among the haunted houses and great old brick buildings.

Folks, this could be amazing.

They are setting up Beer Pong and Dodgeball Leagues. They are creating a taproom. They are committed to brewing practices that are green and sustainable. They got started on this journey by brewing naked.

Most importantly, they are creating "high content, high flavor, knock you on yo ass beers." Beers like Cat House Stout - (Dry hopped mint chocolate imperial stout), Local No. 12 - (lemongrass maple strong ale), Speakeasy IPA - (honeysuckle grapefruit IPA), Bathtub Barleywine - (copiously hopped barleywine), and Chickory Rhubarb Imperial Porter.

This could do more for the West Bottoms than any TIF Project ever brewed up in a closed-door meeting between Kay Barnes and Mephistopheles. Really - the West Bottoms could become the new Crossroads X 20, with lots of inexpensive great old buildings around, acres of parking, and reasonable access to the highways.

But, since Wayne Cauthen and the prior City Council have gambled our city's future on the Power & Light District, which is already turning out to be a bit of a flop, I have a radical idea. Let's bulldoze the Power & Light District, and refuse to give any more of our tax dollars to Cordish and their cronies. (Yes, of course they will sue, but it will take years for them to recover anything, and a sensible jury might just rule in our favor if we can introduce evidence of all their broken promises and their racist dress codes.)

Now that we have freed ourselves of the millions upon millions of obligations to out-of-state developers, we can bring in some topsoil and put in the world's most awesome beer garden in all the paved expanse that currently exists down there. Let's be ambitious - let's create something that will make Munich's Oktoberfest seem like an unpopular fraternity's weekend kegger. (We can even, as a nod to our prior mayor, put in a rain garden, just to show we're not angry anymore.)

Then, we take a few million dollars and give them to our local brewers to create the micro-breweries of their dreams on the periphery of our new beer garden. Relocate Boulevard's and its emblematic smokestack downtown. Get 75th Street Brewery to open up a 12th Street Brewery. In a cross-state gesture of goodwill to make up for our outright theft of the 1985 World Series, offer Schlafly a space.

But don't forget the beginners, either! The Kauffman Foundation wants to support entrepreneurship - let them funnel a few million dollars to help ambitious homebrewers make the leap into micro-brewing. And, because cans are so much more recyclable and cheaper to ship than bottles, let the city open up a municipal cannery, offering access to its canning lines for each of the breweries on a cooperative basis - a green infrastructure project that ought to attract funding from every level of government.

As I think we demonstrated at 75th Street Brewery on Monday night, real beer is a big draw. People will come out for something unusual, and they appreciate a good party. Imagine if Kansas City was the undisputed Home of Great Beer. We would have to hire thugs to control the hoards of convention planners! Vacationers would come in year round, just to try the seasonal brews! Hotels chains would pony up their own money to get access to the crowds of tipsy beer-lovers walking around downtown.

Most importantly, it would be awesome.

My point in this flight of fancy is that for the millions of dollars we have blown on a cookie-cutter assemblage of national chain restaurants, we could have had something unique and truly attractive to Kansas Citians and conventions if only we had focused on local businesses and local flavor. This is the sort of impulse that Mayor Funkhouser has pushed with his New Tools initiative. Economic Development does not have to mean sending massive amounts of money to out-of-state developers for massive projects. Let's hope that the Council gets behind the concept and that we see some real Kansas City economic development.

In the meantime, let's raise a toast to Dead Canary Brewing. They might accomplish with beer what politicians have failed to accomplish with hot air and taxpayer dollars.

Mayor's Forum on Financial Preparedness

Yesterday morning, concerned Kansas Citians gathered at the auditorium of the Liberty Memorial Museum for a conversation just as bleak as the weather outside. The structural imbalance of Kansas City's budget and the crazed tax-giveaways of the Barnes years have left us facing a $84.9 million dollar shortfall which will grow to a $111.5 million shortfall if current trends continue. The short answer, brought home by Deb Hermann, Mayor Funkhouser and the consultants who spoke, is that current trends cannot continue. So what are we going to do about it?

In a nutshell, we failed to come up with workable solutions. The ideas that seemed to have the most support all placed the misery squarely on the average city worker or average citizen, and involved little or no sacrifice for the ultra-wealthy Kansas Citians who spoke out at the meeting. "Charge for trash" and "cut back on city workers" were the strongest suggestions offered up by the multi-multi-multi-millionaires who grabbed the microphones before going back to their taxpayer financed enclaves. Funny how nobody even suggested graduating the earnings tax, or even delaying Payments in Lieu of Taxes so we get a year's worth of interest on the money we are paying to finance their castles. Indeed, one of the wealthiest men in the state openly scoffed at any thought that some of the problem could be solved on the revenue side of the equation. The suffering, it was clear, belongs to the peasants.

That said, I'm glad I showed up and participated. Almost all the smart councilmembers attended, and it was wildly impressive to see 60 of Kansas City's heaviest hitters show up on a frigid Monday morning in Christmas week. Notably absent were Wayne Cauthen, Kay Barnes or Steve Glorioso. Also, no Federal, State or County politicians attended - we're in this on our own, Kansas City.

While we didn't solve the massive budgetary problems we're facing, the morning was time well-spent. We all learned a little more about the issues, received a briefing on the consultants' report (available for download here), and we got to think a little and brainstorm on ways out.

Perhaps most valuably, we got a flavor of the political realities faced by our elective representatives. On the one hand, we had the uber-wealthy loudly and jealously guarding their advantages, while we also faced fantasy-land fossils grumbling about free trash promises from generations ago, and calling for repeal of the earnings tax. We heard ill-informed, reckless suggestions tossed out by those without a clue on implementation, and we heard earnest, factual statements about the financial unsupportability of doing nothing.

Walking out after 3 hours of financial bad news, it was hard not to feel a strange sort of optimism. We have some great people in this city, and the City officials who showed up are focused and smart. Deb Hermann did a great job of presenting, and Funkhouser did a great job of getting everyone's attention focused on the problems we're facing.

Funkhouser 6 Times Smarter With The Money Than Our Council

Remember last week when Funkhouser tried to get the City Council to enter into a global settlement of the Bates case for $135,000? Remember how I criticized the Council for failing to join in the settlement, instead preferring to play nasty political games?

Sure enough, it's come back to bite them in the ass. Bates is now seeking $800,000 because our Council was too smart by half. Maybe that should be "too dumb by 6 times", but it doesn't appear that our foolish-with-the-taxpayer-money is able to do such sophisticated math.

How are those depositions going, Council people? Don't you wish you were working on city priorities rather than wasting time on a suit you should have settled?

Ed Ford and Cohorts - "Too Smart by Half"

One of my favorite phrases was taught to me by one of the most truly clever lawyers I ever worked with, Jack Craft. Someone who creatively saw a bright side but failed to anticipate the downside, or who thought they were being smart when they were in fact being dumb, qualified as "too smart by half". One time, in an administrative matter, I drafted a convincing argument that the bureaucrats were not, in fact, authorized to take the action they were proposing, but Jack pointed out that by attacking the authority of the state agency, I might win, but I would be exposing our client to years of regulatory retribution from the agency. I was "too smart by half".

This week's City Hall drama showed that our City Council is too smart by half. When Funkhouser brought to them a settlement opportunity they had been seeking for months - a chance to put the Bates suit behind them relatively cheaply and move on with the city's business, Ed Ford rallied his cohorts to reject the opportunity. In a vain attempt to avoid scrutiny of their unconstitutional Anti-Volunteer Ordinance, they refused the opportunity to put this distraction behind them.

Now they have their distraction and the lawsuit, too.

Meanwhile, Funk and Gloria are finished with the Bates lawsuit, and focusing on the economic crisis facing our city. Marcason and Circo spent their time getting deposed yesterday . . .*

It showed real grace and leadership by Funkhouser to bring his colleagues an opportunity to put the Bates lawsuit behind them and offer them a path to focus on the real issues facing Kansas City. To employ another classic phrase, he led the horse to water. Unfortunately for the Council and for Kansas City, our council chose to behave like the wrong end of the horse.

UPDATE: *(Jan Marcason visited the comments section and reports that her deposition was canceled, and that her "day was spent productively addressing city issues." That's great. After seeing how much she is able to accomplish for our city in a single day, it's doubly discouraging that she and the others chose to keep this lawsuit alive to distract them on future days.)

Is Silly Season Coming to a Close?

Funkhouser is talking about the economic crisis.

Marcason is talking about sewers.

Jolly is talking about red light cameras.

Hermann is looking at budget shortfalls.

Gottstein remains focused on her priorities.

The whole Council is waking up to the horrible mistake they made in extending Cauthen's contract over Funkhouser's smart-with-the-money objections, and giving Cauthen terrible evaluations that will never appear on his resume of fabrications.

The Finance Committee refused to go along with Cauthen's crazed scheme to take all the risk of the eternally-botched Citadel Project.

Meanwhile, Ed Ford is all by himself ranting and muttering darkly about recalls he is too lazy and ineffective to spearhead. (He brings to mind this nifty bit of analysis - "In fact, people who resort to using the threat of recall in Kansas City are announcing in clear tones that they are ignoranuses. They are stating boldly and clearly that they do not know what they are talking about, but they want attention, nonetheless. They are standing on their soapbox and loudly embarrassing themselves, hoping you will watch.")

Back when the Mayor and Council were elected, I thought we had chosen wisely. At times over the past year and three quarters, I've had moments of despair, but the past week or so has given me hope. The Mayor is focused on helping the city weather an economic crisis that Cauthen foolishly ignored, and the Council is actually working on something other than trying to run the Mayor's office (well, except for Ed Ford).

I'm beginning to hope that by spring, our elected officials will be acting more like a well-run student council than a self-indulgent drama club. (Well, except for Ed Ford.)

Jan Marcason Keeps Her Focus, Delivers Good Work on Sewers

One of the things I admire about Jan Marcason is her seriousness of purpose. She understands that she was elected to perform public service, and she sets out to accomplish her tasks, even when they're not particularly glamorous or even pleasant.

Mayor Funkhouser could not have chosen more wisely when he picked her to lead the task force studying our long-festering sewer problems.

Sure enough, she has delivered a plan to address the city's needs with increased fees and seeking state and federal support. Nobody wants to see their sewer and water bills increase significantly, but Marcason's plan helps right the balance after generations of underpayment for those services, and the resulting underfunding of infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The plan covers all the details I would hope for or expect, including incentives for environmentalism, assistance for the poor and plans to make new developments cover their own costs.

Back when we were differing strongly over the "Volunteer" Ordinance, Marcason stressed to me in a conversation that all the hullabaloo was, for her at least, in addition to the normal workload. The time she spent on that ordinance, she assured me, was not taking away from the time she should be spending on areas we agreed were legitimate and necessary areas for Council involvement.

It borders on humorous that somebody with Marcason's clean image and generally sunny disposition would tackle the grimy, dirty topic of sewers. But she has done it, with the level of detail and attentiveness to city needs I would expect.

It's great to see that both 4th District Council Representatives are paying attention to real city council business and city needs.

Suits, Settlements and Silliness

It's always about the money, isn't it? Maybe not, this time.

For an amount rumored to be under $50,000, Ms. Bates has settled her suit against her former friend, Gloria Squitiro. Ms. Squitiro did not even know that her insurer had agreed to the settlement, and is reportedly none too happy with the result. She wanted her proverbial day in court to disprove all the allegations made against her, but, really, that was never going to happen - the court of public opinion reached its verdict long before the facts came in, and this media environment was never going to allow that court to retry that case. If a pro-Gloria version is voiced in the forest, and Tony and Yael don't approve it, does it make a sound?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the suit continues with the prime defendant on the sidelines?

I hope that attentive readers remember that months ago, at the peak moment of silliness in the so-called Volunteer Ordinance, I wrote "Something has been 'off' about the whole affair. . . . I have way too much respect for Jan Marcason and most of those who supported her to believe that I am seeing the complete picture. . . . As described above, the Bates case, even on its best day, wouldn't justify the expense that Marcason was proposing to spend on consultants and criminal records checks."

At this point, we now have Gloria Squitiro's liability settled, just as I had foreshadowed, for a tiny fraction of the amount the City Council wanted to spend on consultants and records checks. But the case continues on against the City Council!

While I'm confident that Ms. Squitiro is disappointed that the case got settled, I want to point out that somebody here was pretty darned smart with the money, and it most definitely was not the hysterical City Council! If I recall correctly (and I do), the only person who voted against the misguided, ineffective volunteer ordinance was Mayor Funkhouser.

So, if you're keeping score at home, we have Ruth Bates paid, we have Gloria Squitiro safely out of harm's way, and we have the City Council getting sued!

If I were Gloria Squitiro, I would take a few of my no-longer-at-risk dollars and buy a bunch of nice honey crisp apples for the council, and deliver them to their offices as a way of asking "How do you like them apples?".

Folks, it looks like all the game-playing by our squabbling, ineffective City Council has blown up in their faces.

Furious at the Former Council & Mayor

News is starting to leak out that Kansas City taxpayers are going to get stuck with a $4 million bill to cover bond payments on the Power and Light District. That is $4 million dollars getting diverted to bankers instead of to snow removal or street repair. That's $4 million dollars that ought to be spent on Kansas Citians, instead of institutional bondholders. That is $4 million this year - who knows how much we'll get stuck with in future years, as the economy slows and we realize we're throwing good money to prop up a bad investment?

It's all because of the former City Council and especially the former Mayor, who blew our tax dollars for projections based on sparkles and unicorns.

Do you really want light rail? Do you want a downtown stadium someday? Do you want snow-free streets on the morning after a storm? Do you want sewers that don't flow into Brush Creek and cause fines from the EPA?

Well, too bad. We're spending that money on the Power and Light District, instead. Instead of all those things, we're investing in tax-favored, out-of-town bars and restaurants.