Monthly Archives: April 2017

If only Roy Blunt (r) could give him something to do at one of his open town halls in Missouri

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Nah. Roy Blunt (r) is probably too busy in smaller meetings with his constituents on K Street.

A familiar face tracking Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at her public town hall in Parkville this afternoon:

I track, therefore I am.

You’d think those wealthy right wingnut benefactors would invest in higher quality equipment for their minions. You’d think. Maybe blurred video and high noise audio is part of the cachet.

Previously:

Campaign Tracker: apparently a tie is now optional working attire (September 10, 2016)

Campaign Tracker: Where’s Waldo? (September 12, 2016)

Eric Greitens: Missouri’s Trump wannabe

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

During the last election, Missouri enjoyed the distinction of being the only state in which a putative one-time Democrat running as a Republican managed to beat a one-time Republican candidate running as a putative Democrat.  The Republican in the race, Eric Greitens, claims to have been a Democrat once upon a time but experienced a conversion in which he was born again as a Republican, conveniently enabling him to ride Donald Trump’s racist, white-nationalist, faux-populist coattails into office.

Now that we’ve had a few months to observe Eric Greitens in action – at least when we can get a fix on the media-shy politician – it looks like Missouri will be serving as the training ground for our own little Trump. Apart from the fact Rhodes scholar Greitens is a much smarter guy – intelligence being a quality for which Trump substituted inherited wealth – he has lots of political chops in common with the Trumpster:

— Both Trump and Greitens used celebrity to manipulate perceptions:

Trump is the only big-time, national celebrity of the two, but he managed to parlay a mediocre to failed business career, characterized by bankruptcy and dishonest dealings with his associates, into a reality television franchise where he more or less comically projected the persona of an authoritative, knowledgable deal-maker. He was subsequently  able to exploit that perception to shift attention away from his lack of real qualifications.

Similarly, Greitens marketed himself endlessly as an heroic ex-SEAL and advocate for veterans. He exploited popular preconceptions about military prowess and heroic altruism to  shift attention away from his lack of government experience – to the extent that he occasioned pushback from other SEALs who resented his exploitation of his service for his own benefit.

— Both Trump and Greitens view politics as a branding exercise where winning is the only important measure of success :

While preparing for his presidential bid, Trump staffers listened to “thousands of hours” of right-wing radio to learn just what got the Republican masses juices flowing. They learned that, in the words of GOP strategist Sam Numbert, “the GOP base was frothing over a handful of issues including immigration, Obamacare, and Common Core.” Consequently, during the campaign, Trump, always the marketeer, played on the emotions that these issues evoked by conjuring images that were almost cartoon-like in their brutal simplicity, while assiduously avoiding substantive policy proposals.

Greitens seems to have widely shopped himself around Missouri political circles before he decided which political party could deliver for him – the rationale he offered for his shift in political affiliation in a FoxNews.com editorial, a pretty-sounding exercise in conservative cliches and right wing buzzwords with a profession of populist concern for the “little guy,” delivers neither evidence of soul-searching nor real argument to explain why he thinks that Republican policies will serve that “little guy.” In the campaign he carefully avoided substantive issues, opting instead for gimmicks like the ad in which he displayed images of himself shooting very big guns – prompting the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board to remark that he “treats depth and substance like Kryptonite.”

— Both are swamp bloomers:

Trump appealed to the “little guy” by promising to drain the Wasington D.C. “swamp.” Yet he is one of the brightest of the swamp flowers himself. Trump’s known personal conflicts of interest are almost too numerous to mention – Jeremy Venook catalogs at least 37 financial conflicts that are arguably actionable – and, of course, since Trump refuses to release his tax returns, we have no reliable way to determine the actual extent of his corruption. This pattern in reflected in his appointees – HHS secretary Tom Price, for instance, who, while in Congress, seems to have legislated in a way that enhanced his personal finances. Many of the rest are deeply aligned with fossil fuel or Wall-Street interests, whose druthers seem to have been moved rapidly to the front burner of the new administration.

Greitens, for his part, promised to aim his big guns on the culture of corruption in Jefferson City, and, although he took a couple of baby steps, he largely seems to have put that concern aside. He issued an order that forbade executive branch employees from taking gifts from lobbyists and that prohibited former executive branch staff from lobbying their old agencies during his tenure, but he did nothing, as is popularly supposed, to halt or slow down the haste with which former government employees move into lucrative lobbyist positions. And that’s all that he’s done to date. Finito.

As for addressing a campaign funding system that is as close to open bribery as it’s possible to be without openly acknowledging that government is for sale, Greitens is MIA. His own gubernatorial campaign was financed by a huge infusion of “dark money,” as well as humongous donations from reliable conservative money spigots like the Humphrey family, folks who were clearly in the market for a governor who in return for the financial considerations would be willing to do them a few solids, like lowering their taxes and giving unions a bare-knuckled work-over.

Most recently Greitens set up a PAC – a kitty for his future political ventures – whose donors can legally hide their identify -. His dark money cache as well his enthusiasm for gifts from undisclosed donors, such as those who paid for his fancy inauguration festivities and his plane flights around Missouri and to Washington D.C., have signaled to that anything goes to state legislators who “wonder why it’s corrupt for a legislator to accept a meal or concert ticket from a lobbyist, but perfectly fine for the governor to accept things like trips on private planes paid for by anonymous donations routed through a nonprofit.”

—Both Trump and Greitens bloom in the dark:

Trump’s aversion to news media and the exposure it brings is well-known and troubling for many reasons. It is commonly supposed that as a nearly pathological liar, he finds operating out in the open in an environment in which his casual pronouncements can come back to haunt him to be inconvenient.

Similarly, the Post-Dispatch observes that, “for now, Greitens’ media ground game is more akin to President Donald Trump’s than his own GOP allies in the Capitol.” Apropos of which a veteran radio reporter remarked that ” a cloak of secrecy has descended upon Missouri government to a degree I never imagined in all my decades covering the statehouse.”

Both men have instead resorted to social media to try to set their preferred narrative; Trump, notoriously, on Twitter, while Greitens drops carefully selected bits and pieces onto his Facebook page. The strategy makes it much easier to avoid embarrassing questions and avoid contrary facts, while keeping the PR pots boiling. And while keeping most of the people in the dark about what is really going on.

Conclusion:

Big Mouth Trump and Big Guns Greitens are out for themselves. Trump’s now got his, which means, sadly, that we the people will likely get the shaft. Greitens, though, is still in the early stages of his ascent – but there’s no doubt he’s aiming high. And given what we’ve seen so far, it’s likely that if he manages to achieve his goals, the result for the rest of us will likely be the same or worse.

What a difference eight years makes

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in social media, US Senate

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Yesterday:

John LaBombard @jlabomb
A constant in @clairecmc’s public town halls across #MO: each time she’s talked about her opposition to #CitizensUnited, gets big applause
3:27 PM – 12 Apr 2017

Slow pitch, over the plate.

Michael Bersin‏ @MBersin
I suppose they could express the same to Roy Blunt (r) except he doesn’t appear to do town halls in Missouri.
7:26 PM – 12 Apr 2017

On to Parkville.

Previously:

You think Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) has been smiling a lot this week? (February 23, 2017)

Campaign Finance: $5,200.00 at a time

11 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Shamed Dogan (r) [2017 file photo].

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission for Shamed Dogan’s (r) 2018 reelection campaign in the 98th Legislative District:

C131143 04/11/2017 CITIZENS FOR DOGAN David Steward P.O. Box 1724 Maryland Heights MO 63043 World Wide Technology 4/10/2017 $5,200.00
C131143 04/11/2017 CITIZENS FOR DOGAN Thelma Steward P.O. Box 1724 Maryland Heights MO 63043 Homemaker 4/10/2017 $5,200.00
C131143 04/11/2017 CITIZENS FOR DOGAN David II Steward P.O. Box 1724 Maryland Heights MO 63043 Lion Forge 4/10/2017 $5,200.00
C131143 04/11/2017 CITIZENS FOR DOGAN Mary Steward P.O. Box 1724 Maryland Heights MO 63043 Requested 4/10/2017 $5,200.00

[emphasis added]

David L. Steward founded World Wide Technology in July of 1990. With almost 25 years of experience in the technology industry, David spends the majority of his time developing strategic supplier, customer and employee relationships. He plays a key role in WWT’s pursuit of large contract bids within its industry specific operating companies. Prior to starting WWT, David held various senior-level management positions with Wagner Electric, Missouri Pacific Railroad and Federal Express Corporation.[….]

From the latest campaign finance report:

C131143: Citizens For Dogan
Committee Type: Candidate
212 Oakwood Farms Court
Ballwin Mo 63021
Party Affiliation: Republican
[….]
Established Date:
10/04/2013
Information Reported On: 2016 – 30 Day After GeneralElection-11/8/2016
Beginning Money on Hand $32,420.61
Monetary Receipts + $2,720.00
Monetary Expenditures – $16,335.77
Contributions Made – $500.00
Other Disbursements – $0.00
Subtotal ($14,115.77)
Ending Money On Hand $18,304.84

[emphasis added]

Okay.

Rep. Dan Shaul (r): all school board politics is local, campaign contributions, however, may be a bit different

09 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by in campaign finance, Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

“…Each school district that has one or more of its resident pupils attending such a charter school as nonresident pupils will pay to the charter school, for each pupil, 90% of its average per pupil expenditure…”

Members of the Missouri General Assembly can also be elected and serve on their local school board at the same time they are serving in Jefferson City. Usually such politicians make a big show about supporting public education. Usually.

Then, there are bills considered which help charter schools and reallocate resources from public schools:

HB 634  
Changes provisions related to charter schools
Sponsor: Roeber, Rebecca (034)
Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2018
LR Number: 0986H.04P
[….]

The Bill summary, as perfected:

HCS HB 634 [pdf] — CHARTER SCHOOLS (Roeber)
COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: Standing Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education

This bill allows charter schools to be operated in any school district in which at least one school building has received a score of 60% or less on its annual performance report (APR) for two of the three most recent annual performance reports available as of the date in which a charter school applies to open a charter school in the district. When a charter school is allowed to operate under this provision, the person, group, or organization seeking to establish the charter school must submit the proposed charter to the local school board before the charter school submits its proposed charter to any other sponsor. This bill allows the local school board 60 days to consider the proposed charter and accept or decline the sponsorship. If the local school board declines to sponsor the charter school or does not respond within the specified time, any other authorized sponsor may enter into a sponsorship agreement. Charter schools must give enrollment preference to resident students that reside in the attendance area of the school building with an APR of 60% or less. Charter schools may enroll nonresident students so long as it does not displace a resident student. Each school district that has one or more of its resident pupils attending such a charter school as nonresident pupils will pay to the charter school, for each pupil, 90% of its average per pupil expenditure.

This bill also allows charter schools to be operated in any school district not served by a high-quality career technical center, sponsored only by the local school board, for the purpose of establishing a career and technical center whose mission will focus on helping students earn career and technical education certificated in addition to their high school graduation diplomas. High-quality career technical center is a center that has met the performance targets for the Perkins Core Indicators of Performance for the secondary level for the most recent school year. Such charter schools may enroll nonresident pupils who are residents of a district that is located in the same county in which such charter school is located, and nonresident pupils who are residents of a district that is located, in whole or in part, in a county adjacent to the county in which such charter school is located.

Charter schools may renew for a five-year term unless the charter school’s APR score, other than a charter school in which 50% or more of the school’s students were previously considered dropouts, is below the average of the APR scores of all non-selective grade level-equivalent school buildings in the school district in which the charter school is located for two of the three consecutive years immediately before a devision [sic] whether to renew is made. In that case such renewal will be for three years. If the charter school’s APR continues to be lower for another two out of three years, the charter school term will not be renewed. Such renewal application will include a financial audit performed by the State Auditor, with costs paid for by the charter school.

This bill also requires all members of any governing board of any charter school to be resident taxpayers, except that, any member serving a term as of August 28, 2017, may serve the remainder of his or her term even if such member is not a resident taxpayer of the state of Missouri. This bill also requires charter schools to meet all state and federal requirements and the same academic performance standards required of seven-director school districts.

This bill will become effective on July 1 following the school year in which the foundation formula is fully funded.

The bill was third read and passed (from the Journal of the House – 1086 [pdf]):

[….]
On motion of Representative Roeber, HCS HB 634 was read the third time and passed by the following vote:
AYES: 083
[….]
Shaul 113
[….]
NOES: 076
[….]
PRESENT: 001
[….]

The local NEA chapter, representing teachers and public education, has taken exception to Rep. Shaul’s (r) support for the bill. We received a copy of the letter:

Sue Navratil, President
Jamie Gobel, VP
Kris Miller, Secretary
Denise Ballew, Treasurer
Windsor NEA
[….]
April 9, 2017

Windsor C-1 School District
Board of Education
Hwy 61-67
Imperial, MO 63052

Ladies and Gentlemen:

WNEA believes that the purpose of a school district should be to provide various experiences that will allow its students to develop intellectually, athletically, and culturally. The purpose that a school board and its members have should be to guide the district with strategies and an allocation of resources to accomplish these objectives.

Support for HB634 would seemingly interfere with these functions. First, instead of rushing to charter schools as a quick-fix solution, why not work to find a building’s weaknesses and seek to improve them? Secondly, establishing charter schools would take much needed resources from the public school district to support the charter schools and possibly students who do not even live in the district. Why should residents of a district have their tax dollars spent on students who live outside the district? Finally, it shows a lack of confidence in the administrators and teachers of the district to solve any academic issues.

Windsor school board member Dan Shaul voted for HB634, in his role as state representative, which seems to present a conflict of interest. How can he proclaim his allegiance to public education, but then support charter education which could affect the resources of the Windsor C-1 School District? He is either fully committed to public education or fully committed to the charter school concept. He cannot support both.

Dan Shaul did not hesitate to use his position as a member of the Windsor School Board with at least one of his mailings to the citizens in his district to help him get elected to the Missouri House of Representatives. The following are quotes from one of his mailings: “Dan Shaul knows education, on November 4th, vote for the candidate who is already working toward a brighter future for our children. Putting students first, as a member of the Windsor School Board and a proud parent of three, Dan Shaul is committed to ensuring our best resources and the best teachers, so that our students receive the top-notch education they deserve. Preparing them for the future, Dan Shaul knows that good schools prepare our children for the next stage of their lives and attract employers seeking a well-educated workforce. As our State Representative, Dan Shaul will always support our schools to make sure our children have everything they need to succeed.”

As a board member for the 2016-17 school year per the minutes that are on our website, Mr. Shaul responded with the following comments about our students, administrators and school district:

September 21, 2016, Mr. Shaul congratulated Mr. Bouzek and Freer Elementary regarding their recognition as a National Blue Ribbon School; thanked Dr. Holland for working to keep our tax levy the same over the past years.

October 26, 2016, Mr. Shaul recognized our 2 ‘CERT’ students and thanked them for what they did for their grandma. Positive evaluation of our Transportation Department with no problems, and inspections ranked with a 100% approval rating; great to see MSIP improving and thanks to all teachers for their efforts.

[….]

March 22, 2017, Mr. Shaul acknowledged the positive program evaluations presented, and the different programs and ECH we offer to provide the start of a positive education.

At a time when the Windsor C-1 School District needed him to cast a vote for public education, Mr. Shaul chose not to do so. His support for HB634 shows us that he is not 100% committed to supporting public education or our students in the Windsor C-1 School District. As stated in board policy BBF on School Board Member Ethics, number 13 states, “avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof.” As stated above, Mr. Shaul’s yes vote on HB634 shows a clear conflict of interest, and we hope that it would be addressed by our Board of Education. This decision on Mr. Shaul’s part to not support public education is a great disappointment to our students, staff, and community. School board members should not conduct themselves in this manner as overseers of our school district.

Sincerely,
/s
Sue Navratil, President
On behalf of the WNEA Executive Board

I dunno, it may be something of a reach that voting against the interests of your local school district in the General Assembly is a conflict of interest. But it sure is something that local voters should know about so they can hold a politician accountable come election time. In this case, twice – for the seat on the local school board and for the General Assembly.

Representative Shaul (r) has faced the voters twice for election to the General Assembly:

State of Missouri – 2016 General Election – November 8, 2016
Official Results
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on December 12, 2016
State Representative – District 113 12 of 12 Precincts Reported
Karen Settlemoir-Berg Democratic 6,995 42.156%
Dan Shaul Republican 9,598 57.844%
Total Votes: 16,593

State of Missouri – General Election – November 4, 2014
Official Results
As announced by the Board of State Canvassers on December 3, 2014
State Representative – District 113 10 of 10 Precincts Reported
Sean Fauss Democratic 3,168 37.967%
Dan Shaul Republican 4,749 56.915%
Donna Ivanovich Constitution 427 5.117%
Total Votes: 8,344

There appears to be a bit of volatility when it comes to off year and presidential year elections. Gee, at some subsequent election someone could exploit voter upset about the incumbent’s lack of support for their local public schools…

Well, who and/or what contributes some of that money to get Representative Shaul (r) elected to the General Assembly?

FORM CD-1 SUPPLEMENTAL
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED – SUPPLEMENTAL
12/8/2016 FRIENDS OF SHAUL [pdf]

CNS Corporation 500 E 9th Street Kansas City MO 64106 11/3/2016 $3,000.00
Friends of Joe Don Mcgaugh 516 West 4th St Terrace Carrollton MO 64633 11/1/2016 $250.00
Pfizer Inc 6730 Lenox Center CT Memphis TN 38115 11/1/2016 $350.00
HRCC P.O. Box 1313 Jefferson City MO 65102 11/1/2016 $15,471.00
HealthPac P.O. Box 60 Jefferson City MO 65102 11/1/2016 $3,027.20
Lance Hastings 2818 Bree Hill Road Oakton VA 22124 Miller Coors 11/7/2016 $249.00
Joe Williams 876 CR 624 Dayton TX 77535 Association Management 11/3/2016 $50.00
Deborah White 3140 Aberfoyle Place NE Washington DC 20015 Consultant 11/3/2016 $100.00

FORM CD-1 SUPPLEMENTAL
MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED – SUPPLEMENTAL
11/1/2016 FRIENDS OF SHAUL

David Humphreys P.O. Box 4050 Joplin MO 64803 Tamko 10/1/2016 $25,000.00
Robert Dierberg 1982 Kherson Mill Rd Chesterfield MO 63005 Dierbergs Market Inc 10/2/2016 $1,000.00
Dierbergs Markets Inc 16690 Swingly Ridge Road Chesterfield MO 63006 10/2/2016 $2,500.00
HCA Missouri Good Government Fund 101 East High Street Jefferson City MO 65102 10/3/2016 $500.00
Credit Union Political Action Committee 223 Madison Jefferson City MO 65101 10/3/2016 $250.00
Missourian to elect Warren Love 8381 NE Highway ZZ Osceola MO 64776 10/3/2016 $100.00
Friends of Joe Don Mcgaugh 516 West 4th Street terrace Carrollton MO 64633 10/5/2016 $375.00
Friends of Elijah Haahr P.O. Box 14506 Springfield MO 65814 10/5/2016 $1,000.00

Ann Wagner for Congress 313 Saint Andrews Ct Ballwin MO 63011 10/16/2016 $500.00
ABC PAC 4035 Denton Rd Kansas City MO 64133 10/16/2016 $1,000.00
HRCC P.O. Box 1313 Jefferson City MO 65102 10/19/2016 $22,650.00

Friends for Jered Taylor 702 N Prospect Ave Nixa MO 65714 10/20/2016 $1,000.00
Alferman for Missouri P.O. Box 84 Washington MO 63090 10/14/2016 $1,000.00
David Humphreys P.O. Box 4050 Joplin MO 64803 Tamko 10/27/2016 $5,000.00
HRCC P.O. Box 1313 Jefferson City MO 65102 10/21/2016 $5,000.00

You get the picture.

Why on earth would anyone in Joplin care so much about the success and financial stability of Windsor C-1 public schools that they would drop a ton of money on the campaign of the local state representative? Exactly.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): Hey, Roy, this is how it’s supposed to work

08 Saturday Apr 2017

Posted by in US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Unlike most others, Senator Claire McCaskill (D) ain’t afraid of her constituents.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2012 file photo].

From Senator McCaskill’s office:

McCaskill to Host Public Town Halls Across Missouri
Public town halls have been a hallmark for McCaskill—this month, Senator will hold 8 public forums, open to the press, in communities across the state
Thursday, April 6, 2017
MISSOURI – Senator Claire McCaskill—who has hosted public town hall meetings in Missouri throughout her time in the U.S. Senate—will hold more public town halls across the state this month.
“I think it’s important that I hold myself accountable to Missourians—and having public town halls, where any Missourian can show up and chew on me about what they think I’m doing right or wrong, and share their ideas and concerns, is a great way to do it,” said McCaskill, who grew up in rural Missouri. “Town halls like these are part of what makes our democracy great, and I think every elected official would benefit from listening and learning from Missourians, face-to-face.”
McCaskill’s eight public town halls this month will take place in counties across the state. Additional details will be announced in advance.
Public town halls with Missourians have been a hallmark of McCaskill’s time in the Senate, including tours across the state. During debate over the Affordable Care Act—at a time of heightened demonstrations against the law—McCaskill held a series of highly publicized town halls, including in traditionally conservative areas of Missouri, to hear directly from Missourians about their concerns and respond to criticisms. In 2014, McCaskill logged more than 1,000 miles around the state on her “McCaskill on Main Street” series of public town halls.
[….]

Count ’em, eight.

Some of the social media responses from right wingnuts remind me of 2009. This time Claire McCaskill’s (D) supporters won’t be so polite.

Previously:

You think Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) has been smiling a lot this week? (February 23, 2017)
Where’s Roy Blunt (r)? (April 6, 2017)