This is the thirty-eighth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB

And you all thought we had forgotten about the tale of Aaron Podolefsky, the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors, and the radio station part-owner who talks about trees. We haven’t. We were waiting for more information.

When this story broke Blue Girl wrote:

…I contacted Mr. Hassler at the station this morning and asked him if the transcript I cite above was accurate, and he confirmed that it was, but dismissed the comments as made “just in passing…”

The transcript of the original radio broadcast:

Greg Hassler: …The University of Central Missouri. End of an era.

Marion Woods: Uh, huh.

Greg Hassler: Aaron Podolefsky. Out. We’ve talked about it for a long time….

….The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally was, for years there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?

Marion Woods: Yep.

Greg Hassler: Drive by. He stopped that. I mean I think every religion should be able to celebrate, uh, in their own way, but, I mean we do live in Warrensburg, Missouri. This is America. You know. Let’s bring that back. How ’bout that?

Marion Woods: Wasn’t that the Christmas tree at the quadrangle?

Greg Hassler: No, there was also one at Selmo Park.

Marion Woods: Oh, okay.

Gregg Hassler: In the, in the yard, area there, so. I mean, I don’t know, it’s jus… It, it was a bad fit from the get go. It’s, it’s over…

Several sources provided us with information and written communications of which took place in December. One sent us a recording of a portion of a radio broadcast which supposedly took place on December 10, 2009. We have not yet been able to confirm that this broadcast took place on that date. That date is very interesting.

…Greg Hassler: …But there’s another blogger out there that has taken some things that I have said, eh, out of context and has spun them around and at, attacked me on blogs, calling me a racist, a bigot, which I’m not. They’ve also called me anti-Semitic, which I’m not. I love all people of all religions, I do. I’m not anti-Semitic.

other voice: I would agree with that.

Greg Hassler: You know what I am?

other voice: What are you?

Greg Hassler: I’m a big Mules and Jennies basketball fan, [laughter] that’s what I am….

“…The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally was, for years there was a Christmas tree lit at Selmo Park. Remember that?…”

Yes, please do tell us about the context without spinning it.

The content in the audio [transcript], supposedly from December 10, 2009, is almost a verbatim quote of an e-mail sent by Greg Hassler in response to a reporter from the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, described in an article published on November 13, 2009:

….Hassler returned The Chronicle’s request for comment via e-mail, saying:

“First of all let me say that I am not anti-Semitic, I love all people of all religions. I have never stated anything about anyone’s religion on or off the air. People have taken a comment out of context and have spun it for their purpose….”

Another source sent us copies of two written communications, the first written by University of Central Missouri Board of Governors President Richard Phillips on December 13, 2009:

December 13, 2009

Mr. Benoit Wesley

[….]

Dear Mr. Wesley:

I spent several days in Warrensburg last week continuing to visit with University and community individuals in an effort to resolve the issue we have discussed.  On Thursday morning, December 10, the radio personality made a public statement that should resolve this matter.  Another Board member has visited with Mr. Elliott and provided him with an update of activities on our campus. I know the two of you are to meet later this week and perhaps will have a chance to visit on this matter. I personally visited with each Board member and discussed this with them and we trust this issue is behind us and we can move forward.

I do hope all is well with you and I again want to state how much our University appreciates the partnership with you and your family.  As I have stated before you are a trusted and honored friend of our University.  On your next visit to our campus I would appreciate the opportunity to visit with you.

Respectfully

Richard Phillips

[….]

[emphasis added]

On December 23, 2009 Benoit Wesly replied:

[….]

Mr. Richard Phillips

President of the University of Central

Missouri Board of Governors

[….]

Maastricht, December 23, 2009

[….]

Dear Mr. Philips,

I confirm receipt of your letter by e-mail dated December 13. I met with Dr. Ed Elliott. Some time ago a radioman, financially supported by the university and tremendously influenced by the Athletic Director, made an anti-Semitic public statement trying to hurt Mr. and Mrs. Podolefsky in specific and all the Jews in the world in general. I did check with professionals whether the statement about the Christmas tree indeed was anti-Semitic statement. I did receive written confirmations, that there is no doubt that the statement is anti-Semitic and of a very bad nature.

I did ask the board in writing to investigate the matter and to take corrective steps, if necessary. You did not.

I did ask you to bring the matter as fast as possible in the open session of your board meeting. You did not.

You should have taken the ‘highway’ from the beginning. You did not.

You should have openly and publicly declared, that the statement of the radioman is not to be tolerated by the university. You did not.

You should have taken public corrective steps against the radioman and against the Athletic Sports Director in order to protect the university. You did not.

You should have taken the principles and values of the constitution of the USA for granted. You did not.

You should publicly have presented your apologies for the very slow and negative approach to solve these problems to your students, faculty members and Mr. and Mrs. Podolefsky. You did not.

By writing you several times, by talking to you over the phone, I indicated how bad the statement of the radioman really was. You had the chance to clear the sky immediately. You did not.

Years ago I donated a Bell Tower. Central wanted to name the tower after my family. I did not and it became the Maastricht Friendship Tower. I am still very proud of that. It became a landmark. The Bell Tower carries a text from the Old Testament to educate students:

‘Who is wise? He who learns from every person”

You may visit that tower once and you may learn as well.

In my capacity as being a proud Jew and being the leader of the Jewish community in my region; being chairman of the Maror Foundation established by our government to rebuilt Jewish life in The Netherlands and being the first honorable consul to the State of Israel ever appointed in The Netherlands, I want to face myself every morning in the mirror. One day you may do the same.

Best regards,

s/

Benoit Wesly

CC:

Members of the Board of Governors of the University of Central Missouri

Mr. Aaron Podolefsky, President of the University of Central Missouri

Dr. Ed Elliott

Mrs. Kathy Callahan, Ph.D., College of Applied Sciences and Technology Fashion and Apparal Merchandising University of Central Missouri

Dr. Joan Mansfield, Interim Dean of the Harmon College of Business Administration of the University of Central Missouri

Mrs. Penny Kugler, Director Center for Business Internships Harmon College of Business Administration of the University of central Missouri

Enclosure: E-mail Mr. Richard Philips December 16, 2009

[emphasis in original]

It’s not going to go away on its own. One of the first lessons of crisis management and damage control is don’t let the issue fester unaddressed for any length of time.

“…You did not…”

Our previous coverage of the issue:

Three steps behind, and to the right (January 25, 2008)

Three steps behind, and to the right, part 2 – a microcosm of our universe (September 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? (October 15, 2009) (transcript of a portion of the live radio broadcast)

It wasn’t just about a tree (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio (October 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: let’s not get cut out of the will (October 22, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: $87.75 will get you one sheet of paper (October 23, 2009)



“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: They’re not playing hardball, they’re playing cat and mouse  (October 23, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a cola and some scoreboards (October 24, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: a few more pieces of the puzzle? (October 28, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your silence means consent (October 29, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: let’s not get cut out of the will, part 2 (October 30, 2009)

Old media irony impairment (October 30, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement?”: I heard it on the radio, part 2 (October 31, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name (October 31, 2009)

Methinks that someone is paying attention! (November 2, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Bond, Stadium Bond (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: where everybody knows your name, part 2 (November 4, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I heard it on the radio, part 3 (November 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing succeeds like success (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: your Friday news dump (November 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: nothing exceeds like excess (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a grade for Accounting 101 (November 7, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law (November 8, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there’s gotta be a contract around here somewhere (November 9, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: there ought to be a law, part 2 (November 10, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Garbo speaks! (November 12, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle (November 13, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”? Follow the money and it reveals the timeline (November 14, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: the new president search consulting contract (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a march on a cold and rainy day (November 18, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: raise their voices (November 19, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: great moments in radio reporting (November 21, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: Oh, my! (December 3, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: It’s simple, really… (December 5, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: I do truly care about the success of our students (December 6, 2009)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: “…a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of…” (December 7, 2009)

Oh brother, it’s time to convene another panel on blogger ethics… (December 8, 2009)

Latest in the ongoing effort to compel welfare recipients to undergo mandatory drug-testing is HB1377, introduced by Rep. Ellen Brandom (R-160). Such legislation is politically popular with Republicans – especially, one would suspect, with the rampaging Tea-Party hordes – who believe that all welfare recipients are moral degenerates who have no right to expect anything other than abject debasement and humiliation in return for that greatest of boons, the tax-payer dollar.

Of course no good Republican ever apologizes for addressing complex social issues with a sledge hammer, especially if it cuts costs even nominally while permitting a satisfying display of sanctimony. However, in the interests of making a gesture toward comity, one of the main rationales put forward for this legislation is to make welfare consistent with private sector employment practices:

Because many private industries require drug testing of their employees, Rep. Larry Wilson, R-Flemington, said, state government should too of those receiving benefits.

Evidently Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-72) has taken that argument to heart so much that she has just introduced HB 1754, which would require that all state lawmakers, statewide elected officials and all top state aides undergo drug-testing. In the best tradition of canary-eating-cat, Chappelle-Nadal notes:

Most businesses these days require their workers to undergo pre-employment drug screening,… . There is no reason elected officials and their staff should be treated differently.

Chappelle-Nadal adds for good measure that:

There has been much talk this year about raising ethical standards in state government and making elected officials more accountable,… . Ensuring that lawmakers and other elected officials aren’t using illegal drug is consistent with those goals.

This legislation will surely be a snap to pass – we all know how committed to fairness and transparent government ethics our Missouri Repubican lawmakers are … don’t we?

Remember when Cynthia Davis was busy worrying that a summer food program sponsored by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services would undercut the motivating effect of hunger on young people? Or her more recent perorations on how using part of the marriage license fee to aid domestic abuse victims, who might have been living together without benefit of matrimony, is an insult to couples wishing to marry?

You thought it would be impossible to top Davis for sheer mean-mindedness, right?  And that may be true, but South Carolina’s Republican Lieutenant Governor Andrew Bauer is at least in the same category. He recently compared feeding hungry children to “feeding stray animals,” adding that:

You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better

Davis and Bauer are soulmates maybe, heartless for sure, but sadly familar. Remember Dicken’s Oliver Twist and the cruel workhouse matron, Mrs. Corney and the corrupt Beadle, Mr. Bumble? Self-righteous meanness never seems to go entirely out of style, no matter how far we think that we have progressed since the horrors of the 19th century workhouse.

 

I suppose we should have started with this district. Representative Brian Munzlinger (r) is term limited out and there are two individuals who have started raising money for the 2010 open seat race. The district is in the northeast part of the state – east of Kirksville and north of Hannibal. First, let’s take a look at a little electoral history.

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 2008 General Election

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

State Representative – District 1 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 48 of 48

Munzlinger, Brian REP 9,439 61.0%

Cottrell, Keri DEM 6,046 39.0%

Total Votes   15,485

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2006 – General Election

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

State Representative – District 1 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 46 of 46

Munzlinger, Brian REP 6,959 54.3%

Hicks, Beau J. DEM 5,847 45.7%

Total Votes   12,806

Another significant difference in the results from a presidential year to an off year election. And in 2010 there’s no incumbent.

Keri Cottrell (D) filed her fourth quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 14th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: KERI COTTRELL FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE 2010

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $4,606.81

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $6,571.35

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $11,178.16

25. MONEY ON HAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING FUNDS IN DEPOSITORY, CASH, SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS) $3,375.63

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $9,807.31

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $250.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a good fundraising quarter. Let’s take a look at where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: KERI COTTRELL FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE 2010

Report Date: 1/13/2010

Woman’s Political Caucus EMPAC Ballwin, Missouri 10/03/2009 $300.00

MSTA Legislative Impact Committee Columbia, Missouri 65205 12/11/2009 $5,000.00

Okay, that MSTA (Missouri State Teachers Association) contribution has a big impact. You think the current republican majority in the General Assembly has finally gotten their attention? There are also a number of individual small dollar contributions listed.

Craig Redmon (r) filed his fourth quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 23rd, after filing his Statement of Committee Organization [pdf] on December 23rd:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: REDMON FOR REPRESENTATIVE

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $0.00

4. MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD $600.00

25. MONEY ON HAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING FUNDS IN DEPOSITORY, CASH, SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS) $0.00

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $550.00

[emphasis added]

It was for only one week of fundraising in the quarter. Maybe it was a holiday gift? Let’s take a look at where that $600.00 came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: REDMON FOR REPRESENTATIVE

Report Date: 1/23/2010

B. NON-ITEMIZED CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $600.00

That’s a nice round number. You think they passed around a hat? Shouldn’t that $600.00 have been reported on line 2 of the Summary? I mean it’s reported here as “monetary contributions”. Just asking.

Given the electoral history and the campaign finance disparities this just might be a race to watch. We’ll see what happens in the fundraising department next quarter.

This site has been known to criticize Claire McCaskill–twice in two days last week, in fact (Uh, Claire, you got to dance with them what brung you and Claire never fails to disappoint, does she?). We take no joy in attacking one of our own. We’d so much rather be able to praise her. So herewith are some words of commendation from a progressive who has worked with her and her team. Andy Levine of RepoWEr America talked to me about Claire’s attitude toward the upcoming clean energy legislation:

hotflash: Tell me what you know about Claire McCaskill’s attitude toward the energy bill.

Andy Levine: (inaudible) a kind of studied neutrality about it. It’s what you’d expect out of Senator McCaskill. She is, uh, she’s sharp. She’s gonna want to really get into the issue in a detailed kind of way and know what’s going on on all fronts. They’ve had some concerns they’ve talked about before in costs and jobs. And a lot of those we kinda feel have been allayed, or at least we’ve been able to have good dialogue. And they’ve been able to see that the bill is or at least the frameworks for the bill aren’t gonna do those, the worst case damages that they’ve heard about from the other side.

One of the more recent concerns that she’s talked about has been with the creation of an entirely new financial market, which, you know, there would be under cap and trade that’d create a new market for trading carbon permits back and forth. To me, that signals that she’s ready to engage. You know, when she starts putting the auditor hat back on, that typically means that she really is going to get into an issue, she’s thinking about it in the way that she thinks about things, and hopefully it means that she’s gonna be a participant and make this a better bill and help pass it.  

hotflash: And what is she afraid of as far as the market, in the market?

Levine: Well, you know, I think one of the things you do have to watch in creating a cap and trade system is making sure that you’re not adding a whole new set of unregulated ways for people to trade back and forth with these permits instead of buying and selling the permits. She wants to make sure that that doesn’t turn into, you know, similar to, something similar to the energy markets in the early 2000s where you had Enron running blackouts. And, you know, she wants to make sure it doesn’t turn into derivatives. So, you know, to me it’s, it’s constructive criticism. It’s not a sink-the-bill criticism.

hotflash: What do you think about her criticism from last summer–I think it was last summer–about not wanting to put ourselves at a disadvantage with countries like India and China, if they’re not …

Levine: Well, you know, I think Copenhagen has gone a long way to address that. I think that we’ve seen the developing world really want to engage on this. And, you know, for whatever part everybody played, at the end of the day an agreement came out of that conference. And, I think, what she’s seen also is that this bill has the kind of components to it that are not going to put American jobs at risk, that are in fact going to create new jobs in this country. You know, the efficiency provisions that are in this bill and job creation provisions that are in this bill really make it a win/win for us and are not gonna, you know, they’re not gonna put people at risk. And we’re not gonna see big, you know, increases in our energy costs and we’re not gonna see the kind of doom and gloom scenarios that the Republicans and frankly some of the bigger energy companies have been pushing on this. So, you know, she’s seen that. She’s had the chance to  see through some of those, you know, red herrings. And I think now that she’s seen that this is a good framework, that it is a good, you know, a good bill that is being crafted, you know I think that if she can get in and do some work on the fiscal end of it, then she’s gonna be a part of the team and help move it forward. But that’s our hope, that’s our hope.

hotflash: I certainly hope so. Yeah, yeah.

Levine: She’s certainly been an honest broker the whole time with us, though. She’s given both sides the time of day. And I feel like, you know, they’ve been utterly fair with everybody and, you know, upfront with their concerns. As long as they keep acting, you know, in that kind of a manner, I feel like it’s gonna move forward in the right way and hopefully get her on the team.

hotflash: Okay. Just fill me in a little bit, if you wouldn’t mind, about your remark that after Copenhagen that concern about the jobs issue as far as China …

Levine: Well, it’s not even just that. I mean, first of all you had, you know, the concern last summer was that China and India aren’t gonna engage, they’re not gonna be part of the process, and we’re gonna take this big step and then nobody else is gonna take the step with us. Well, we’ve seen that to be incorrect. I mean, even in the months leading up to Copenhagen, the Indians were lobbying hard to get a bill moving, to get the United States participating in this. The (inaudible) foreign minister told Senator Clinton, Secretary Clinton, pardon me, that they want the Americans to lead. They want us to lead and, you know, we take a step, they’ll take a step with us. And the Chinese engaged heavily at Copenhagen. Now, they, you know, they shaped the process to meet some of their own domestic goals, but at the end of the day you had an agreement that had to come out with the United States and China on board, for anything to happen. And I think when you look at that, when you also look at the provisions that are in this bill already, some of the language being used to talk about, you know, protections for certain domestic industries, you know, you look at some of the efficiency targets that are in there and some of the job growth potential, I think she’s starting to see that this is not going to be a big, you know, punishment to American industry. But, in fact, it’s going to be a way to help American industry modernize and hopefully stay more competitive globally than we would have without it.

hotflash: Thanks, Andy.

Levine: Yep.

Democrat John Bullard and republican Jeanie Lauer are candidates currently raising money in the open seat race for the 54th Legislative District. The district encompasses Blue Springs in Jackson County. The current occupant, Gary Dusenburg (r) is term limited out.

Previous election results in the district:

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 2008 General Election

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

State Representative – District 54 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 27 of 27

Dusenberg, Gary REP 12,934 61.0%

Matzeder, Mark D. DEM 7,630 36.0%

Foster, Bobby LIB 626 3.0%

Total Votes   21,190

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – November 2006 – General Election

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

State Representative – District 54 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 29 of 29

Dusenberg, Gary REP 9,184 60.2%

Matzeder, Mark DEM 6,078 39.8%

Total Votes   15,262

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

State Representative – District 54 – Summary

Precincts Reporting 30 of 30

Dusenberg, Gary REP 15,995 100.0%

Total Votes   15,995

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 11/5/2002

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

State Representative – District 54 – Summary

Leavitt, Troy DEM 5,238 41.8%

Dusenberg, Gary REP 7,287 58.2%

Total Votes   12,525

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election

Tuesday, November 07, 2000

State Representative – District 54 – Summary

Costigan, Dennis DEM 7,302 38.9%

Lograsso, Don REP 11,450 61.1%

Total Votes   18,752

2002, an off year election, was the most competitive. At least the Democratic candidate in 2006 and 2008 kept several thousand Democratic voters from voting for a republican by giving them an alternative.

John Bullard filed his fourth quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: CITIZENS FOR JOHN BULLARD

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $33,544.33

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,650.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $38,504.30

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $28,857.42

[emphasis added]

Okay, those are good numbers. Let’s look at where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR JOHN BULLARD

Report Date: 01/15/2010

Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc. Kansas City, MO 12/02/2009 $150.00

Ameristar Casino St. Charles Saint Charles, MO 12/02/2009 $150.00

Citizens for Mike Talboy Kansas City, MO 12/28/2009 $300.00

Committee to Elect Jeff Roorda Barnhart, MO 12/30/2009 $400.00

Working Families for Missouri Independence, MO 12/20/2009 $1,000.00

And there are contributions from individuals (some attorneys) and organized labor.

Jeanie Lauer (r) filed her fourth quarter campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on January 7th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe: CITIZENS FOR JEANIE LAUER

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $737.56

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $5,535.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $6,272.56

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $2,022.84

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $4,249.72

[emphasis added]

Not as much, eh? And there’s that relatively high “burn rate” again.

Let’s see where the money came from:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR JEANIE LAUER

Report Date: 1/7/2010

Beco Properties Blue Springs, MO 10/09/2009 $1,000.00

Blue Springs Ford Blue Springs, MO 11/24/2009 $250.00

Colonial Nursery Blue Springs, MO 11/06/2009 $500.00

12. TOTAL ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $25 OR LESS $130.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $2,855.00

[emphasis added]

There’s going to have to be a lot of catching up before there’s parity. But then again, doesn’t it seem that republican candidates always have the money they need by the end of the cycle?