The stenographer in Sunday’s Kansas City Star:

Best ethics bill in the universe? How spacey

….So the bill foundered. Frustrated, Democrats went to their trick bag and pulled out a little-used maneuver to force the bill out of committee without a vote and directly onto the House calendar.

Republicans, who are in the majority, didn’t like that. And that led to last week’s sudden flurry of activity around the bill by Republicans who, some said, were eager to punish Democrats for playing tricks with the bill….

Well, okay, but you neglected to mention this from Speaker Ron Richard (r) on January 6, 2010:

….Question:  Senator Shields has proposed a ban on contributions from lobbyists during the session. Is that something that you would support?

Speaker Richard: I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out.

Question: What is the advantage [inaudible] the ethics proposals [inaudible]?

Speaker Richard: Uh, I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis….

“…I will support whatever comes out of our bipartisan committee. Whatever comes out…”

Question: Why is it a problem for the republican majority and a sign of Democratic Party partisanship to old media if there’s discharge petition on a bill from a “bipartisan” committee which Speaker Richard said he would support? Just asking.

“…I want to make sure that both sides have the ability to, uh, have a dialog. And we go to the House, the floor, for [inaudible], you know as well as I do there’ll be several hundred amendments from all different sizes and shapes. Um, but I think that dialog is necessary and we’ll have an open dialog and, uh, we’ll get something to the Senate, uh, in a prompt basis…” Well, that didn’t go very well.

Not well at all:

….Question: Was any Democrat allowed to actually get up and speak on this bill (inaudible)?

Representative LeVota: No, no Democrat was allowed to speak on heir own behalf or offer any of the amendments to make the bill better…

And how did the republican bill look to the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal?:

5/10/2010 1:12:00 PM

Ethics bill looks more political than ethical

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

Editor

…As too often is the case with what should be a straightforward piece of needed legislation, the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government.

And how did Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) – in the 121st Legislative District, representing Warrensburg – vote on this bill?:

…On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

Hoskins 121

[emphasis added]

“…the shameful bill that came out of the House is a perversion of ethics twisted by partisan politics to the detriment of good government…”

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions in the actual bill, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 844 [pdf]:

….21.860. There is established a joint committee of the general assembly to be known as the “Joint Committee on Ballot Statements”….

Uh, isn’t that the job of the Secretary of State right now?

….26.016. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of lieutenant governor, the governor shall immediately fill such vacancy by special election as provided in section….

….27.015. In the case of any vacancy for any cause in the office of attorney general, the governor shall immediately appoint an acting attorney general to fill such vacancy until the vacancy is filled by special election….

….28.190. In case of death, resignation, removal from office, impeachment, or vacancy from any cause in the office of secretary of state, the governor shall immediately [appoint a qualified person to] fill such vacancy by special election….

[emphasis in original]

And there are similar provisions for State Auditor and State Treasurer.

Does anyone have an idea what a statewide special election would cost? Just asking.

….105.009. 1. Before taking office and once every two years thereafter, all state elected officials, state executive branch managerial staff, all department directors, and all members, officers, and leadership staff of the house of representatives and senate shall be subject to chemical testing of their blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of the blood. The costs of such testing shall be paid by such official, director, officer, member, or staff member….

If I recall correctly, this one was taken out on the floor. I could be wrong about that. The point is, the republican majority crammed a lot of stuff into a Senate bill and then didn’t allow the Democratic minority to debate it.

….(5) “Legislative lobbyist”, any natural person who acts for the purpose of attempting to influence the taking, passage, amendment, delay or defeat of any official action on any bill, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, report or any other action or any other matter pending or proposed in a legislative committee in either house of the general assembly, or in any matter which may be the subject of action by the general assembly and in connection with such activity, meets the requirements of any one or more of the following:…

…(d) Attempts to influence any elected official other than an elected official who represents the legislative district where the person resides. This paragraph shall not be construed to apply to any person who is testifying before any legislative, executive, or

128 administrative committee; or….

[emphasis in original]

That reads to me if you contact anyone other than your specific representative you’re considered a “legislative lobbysist”. So, if a teacher wants to talk to the chair of an education committee about a bill on education and that chair is not their representative, the teacher is a lobbyist under the bill? That ain’t right.

…105.479. No member of the general assembly, statewide official, or any person acting at the request of a member or statewide official or on the member’s or statewide official’s behalf, shall accept or receive any cumulative expenditures from a lobbyist in excess of two thousand five hundred dollars…

…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative determination…

A $2,5000.00 limit on gifts from lobbyists. That’s nice to know.

“…Any item having a value of less than ten dollars shall not be included in the cumulative d
etermination…” Unlimited free lunches!

…115.427. 1 [Before receiving a ballot, voters] Persons seeking to vote in a public election shall establish their identity and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification to election officials. [“Personal identification” shall mean only] No form of personal identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted to establish a voter’s qualifications to vote….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, a voter turnout suppression clause.

…Section 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where state or federal law requires elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed….

[emphasis in original]

Ah, employee free choice is not a priority of the republican majority. And how did Representative Mike McGhee (r-122) vote on this bill?:

On motion of Representative Jones (89), HCS#2 SB 844 was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 087

McGhee

You think organized labor is aware of this?

…Section 4. 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, where mandatory dues are collected for membership in any labor organization as defined in section 130.111, a member of such organization shall be entitled to designate that such member’s dues shall not be used for any political activity whatsoever, including but not limited to advocating for the election of an individual candidate for public office or the promotion of a ballot measure. The designation opting out of the use of dues for political activities shall be clearly and conspicuously placed on the requisite card or form for the payment of dues, or shall be provided as a separate document to each member before payment of such member’s dues….

How come there’s no provision requiring corporations to allow stockholders to opt out in the same fashion? Just asking.

Oh, brother, there’s even tenther drivel in the bill:

…Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 27.060 or any other provision to the contrary, the governor, lieutenant governor, president pro tempore of the senate, speaker of the house, and speaker pro tempore of the house may institute, in the name and on the behalf of the state, any proceeding in law or in equity requisite or necessary to protect the natural or constitutional rights of persons within the state, and may appear or defend in any proceeding or tribunal the natural or constitutional rights of such persons….

And that, folks, is the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly at work.

I choose math challenged.

The stenographer in today’s Kansas City Star:

On Friday, the White House announced its three finalists for the Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge.

Blue Valley Northwest wasn’t one of them.

The high school had been named one of six semifinalists in the country still in the running to bring President Barack Obama to its graduation ceremony. Students had produced a video and completed other tasks to advance as far as it did.

An Obama spokesman insisted that the three finalists were picked by people who visited the White House website and voted.

But from the start, I thought that given Kansas’ GOP propensities, there wasn’t a snowball’s chance that Blue Valley Northwest would win.

Turns out that the three finalist high schools are in Ohio, Michigan and Colorado, each a pivotal swing state.

The White House flack told me I’m too cynical. Really?

Too cynical? They were being way too nice. You’re math challenged.

“…An Obama spokesman insisted that the three finalists were picked by people who visited the White House website and voted…” [emphasis added]

Uh, why did the White House spokesperson have to “insist” for you? Did you question the process? Just asking.

We sort of get the point that the Johnson County, Kansas school didn’t have a chance. But, it’s not the White House doing the voting.

The vote in Johnson County, Kansas and in the state of Kansas in 2008:

Johnson [Kansas President 2008]

McCain 152,627 54%

Obama 127,091 45%

That’s not a lot people, eh?

President [2008]

Kansas

McCain 699,655 57%

Obama 514,765 42%

So, would anyone who was not a stenographer think to check the differences in the presidential election voting population among the areas of the school finalists? You bet, that’s why we’re here.

The White House press release:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 30, 2010

Top 3 Finalists Announced for Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge

National winner to be selected by President Obama for commencement speech

WASHINGTON – The White House and the Department of Education announced today the top three finalists of the first annual Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge.

The top three finalists, in no particular order are:

• Clark Montessori Jr. & Sr. High School in Cincinnati, OH

• Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, MI

• Denver School of Science and Technology in Denver, CO

Between April 26th and April 29th, over 170,000 people weighed in on the six high school finalists.    President Obama will now choose a winner from the top three rated schools and deliver their commencement address later this spring.  The final winner will be announced on Tuesday, May 4.

In recognition of the extraordinary achievements and outstanding efforts by each of the original six finalists, the Obama Administration will work to provide a Cabinet secretary or senior administration official to deliver the commencement address at each of the five schools not selected as the national winner.

The Commencement Challenge, launched in late February, invited public high schools around the country a chance to show how they are challenging their students to excel in academics, take personal responsibility for their education, and graduate high school ready for college and career.  Over one thousand schools submitted applications.

# #

[emphasis added]

Well, Blue Valley Northwest does get a consolation speaker. Secretary Sebelius, perhaps?

Let’s take look at President Obama’s most recent approval numbers in Kansas, via Survey USA:

Geography: Kansas

Data Collected: 04/09/2010 – 04/11/2010

Release Date: 04/14/2010

Sponsor: KWCH-TV Wichita

600 Adults

Margin of Sampling Error: ± 4%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as President?

Approve – 34%

Disapprove – 62%

Not Sure – 4%

If you were anything but a stenographer would you think if the President wasn’t too popular in a state that perhaps people wouldn’t go out of their way to vote on-line to bring the President to speak at a high school graduation ceremony?

Let’s take a look at some of the 2008 election results for the locations of the finalist schools:

Denver [Colorado President 2008]

Obama 204,882 76%

McCain 62,567 23%

Okay, that’s a lot more people voting for the President in 2008 than in Johnson County, Kansas.

Kalamazoo [Michigan President 2008]

Obama 77,051 59%

McCain 51,554 39%

Well, there are fewer voters than in Johnson County, Kansas, but, to be sure, Sunday Talk Show President McCain lost the county by twenty points.

Hamilton [Ohio President 2008]

Obama 224,644 53%

McCain 195,107 46%

Yep, more people voted for Obama in 2008 in Cincinnati than in Johnson County, Kansas. Go figure. Yeah, the percentages are similar but the numbers are larger.

“…Turns out that the three finalist high schools are in Ohio, Michigan and Colorado, each a pivotal swing state…”

Uh, it turns out that President Obama carried Ohio, Michigan and Colorado in 2008. He didn’t carry Kansas in 2008. You think that people who didn’t vote for him in 2008 were gonna vote to bring him to their community in 2010? Just asking.

Heads or tails? Stenography can be so difficult sometimes.

The stenographer spent some time in today’s edition of the Kansas City Star trying to flip coins (or read the tea leaves) for the upcoming Kansas City mayoral race.

Who leads the mayor’s race? Who knows?

By STEVE KRASKE

The Kansas City Star

…Maybe the bigger question is: How could it come to this…?

…For others, maybe it’s the blogosphere world we live in, where even the wisest decisions are pilloried as stupid and a sure sign of Stalinism, Maoism or Attilaism.

Take Barnes. Some speculate that at 72, she could be talked into running. The city charter says she can run again after sitting out a term.

But didn’t she drag the city down into a financial rathole with the downtown entertainment district? At least, that’s what you hear from some bloggers.

See? Who needs it?

Wisest decisions? And which self appointed gatekeeper is the arbiter of that?

You left out McCarthyism.

Yeah, those unruly bloggers, asking uncomfortable questions, are such a bother. Who knew that they were so influential? Do you think it’s because old media is failing and nature abhors a vacuum?

By the way, it’s blogtopia (y, sctp!).

I get the Kansas City Star in the morning.  It has a great April Fool’s Day story on its front page.

It begins innocently enough.

JEFFERSON CITY | It’s been a quiet week in Jefferson City.

Legislators writing laws. Debating the budget.

Training with handguns.

Obviously, with the huge budget problem before them, this is clearly a joke.  

More evidence after the fold.

Here is the clincher.

On the same day of the lawmakers’ firearms class, the House gave first-round approval to a bill that would expressly allow legislators, their aides and employees to carry concealed weapons in the statehouse.

“If you stay up with your news and what’s going on in the world, you know bad things happen all over the place,” said Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Mokane Republican who sponsored the amendment that added the Capitol language. “It would be nice for us to not be a statistic.”

I like the use of a real name of a representative. However, the key that this must be an April Fool’s joke is the line “if you stay up with the news and what’s going on in the world.”  

I like to think I do and I can’t think of a single story about someone entry a state legislature with a gun and killing people.

We saw the Tea Partiers yelling at members of Congress and spitting on Cleaver, but being armed would not have stopped that.  

The last line really show what a joke this story is.

In the class’ final meeting later this month, participants must demonstrate their marksmanship. To pass, they must hit a target with at least 15 of 20 rounds from 7 yards away.

A person is going to feel safe with a pass being 75% accurate on a target that is 21 feet away?!?!

The Star put up a really good April Fool’s story today. It gave me a good laugh.

The stenographer weighs in on the open seat race in Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District (Johnson County) in today’s Kansas City Star. The rumor reported by the Star is that Stephene Moore, the spouse of retiring Congressman Dennis Moore, is considering a run. Consider the following two statements in the article:

…Democrats view the always-on-the-move nurse and community activist as sharp and pleasingly energetic…

[emphasis added]

…Doubters are surfacing. One of them showed up at a talk I gave last week on the Plaza.

“What has she done besides being a congressman’s wife?” one man asked with obvious disdain…

Uh, that question was clearly answered earlier in the article. Yes, it was a direct quote from an unnnamed “doubter,” but really, shouldn’t the Star’s political stenographer expend a little less ink on repeating baseless cliches about women?

This is the forty-first 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

Yesterday: “A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party…

Benoit Wesly spells his last name with one “e”. You wouldn’t know that, or evidently, bother to check if you wrote for the Kansas City Star.

Yael T. Abouhalkah, an opinion columnist for the Star, weighed in on the story with an on-line opinion piece: Jewish benefactor’s actions hurt University of Central Missouri

What, from that headline you’d think that the evil Ben Wesly has victimized the university?

Where to start?

“There must be a lot more behind the scenes to the story of why Benoit Wesley pulled the plug on his significant, longtime contributions to the University of Central Missouri…”

No shit, Sherlock. Might I be so presumptuous as to suggest reading the previous forty posts conveniently linked below the fold here?

“…The remarks in question were made by Greg Hassler, part-owner of a radio station that broadcasts UCM sporting events.

Special note: He’s not even paid by the university….”

Special note: the university pays him in meals, lodging, and warm-up suits. Oh, and his radio station has a ten year exclusive contract [pdf] with the university. With, you know, clauses in it. Like payments. And advertising revenue. And sloppy bookkeeping when it comes to advertising revenue.

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: “…a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of…”

…So, so, we developed a situation where now where we’re at, at this point, we receive a rights fee every year. An up front amount of money, uh, that we know we’re gonna get. Then, my self, my staff and the sales staff of the radio station, we sell the advertising together. And we split the advertising where the station gets seventy-five percent, we get twenty-five percent. If I sell to somebody on their list they get the money, the, the person who’s the sales person, so they don’t lose any commissions.

The, the point being is, is we have a situation where we are true partners. We work together, but, but the onus is on them to go out and make the money. Uh, as an institution what I want to do is just get our events on there. But they’re so happy to, to be making the money and to be the home of Central Missouri Athletics and, and we’re so happy to have this great partner. And so it works very well.

And now we have football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, some softball games on the air. They let us use their Internet site to carry some, some softball, some volleyball. We have coach’s shows. We have a weekly coach’s show. Uh, they give us advertising now. I mean they literally give it to us, uh, and a chance to promote our upcoming events because we’re truly partners.

Uh, we don’t treat them like, uh, just a member of the media. Um, you know, and, and we share all revenues, we, we trade spreadsheets often. So, it’s a very nice situation.

And, and when you make somebody a partner it’s important when we have that, uh, that gear day that you guys all know and the coaches get their gear in. I make sure that the sports director at the, at the local station, he’s got his new shirt and his new warm ups. And, and if we have a team that is fortunate enough to advance and, and maybe participate in an elite eight or, or win a regional and, and we’re buying rings for the team, you know, I, I go to my, my boss, the athletic director, and say, can, can we get a ring for the sports director, he travels, we’ve got this partnership? And, and those are the kind of things we do. So, we’ve really created a, a wonderful relationship there we’re really proud of….

And, evidently, jewelry.

…But it’s interesting to note that Podolefsky appears to take the incident quite seriously,…

No shit, Sherlock. That would be our second iteration of that colorful expression for those of you keeping score. This has got to be some kind of record for us.

…not realizing it’s one of those occasionally silly things that gets said on the radio…

Yeah, it was never the ugly culmination of a series of broadcast barrages loosed over a lengthy period of time about Aaron Podolefsky and his spouse:

…On Jan. 18, 2008, AP Writer Alan Scher Zagier filed a story headlined “Abuse claims divide small town,” saying Ronnie Podolefsky “has been a particular target in a town long-accustomed to cordial relations with the Central Missouri campus.” He wrote that Hassler’s “on-air broadsides against Podolefsky have fueled the criticism…”

Greg Hassler was doing his live radio broadcast happy dance the day following the released news that the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors were not going to renew Podolefsky’s contract, something Hassler advocated. And Hassler helpfully articulated what got him started in his disdain for the university’s president:

Greg Hassler: ….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?

“…The, the thing that really upset me, that kind of got [garbled] going originally…”

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

The University of Central Missouri is a state institution. Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. The University of Central Missouri is a state institution.

For anyone to (incorrectly) assert that an individual should be held accountable for halting the placement of a sectarian symbol on state property in Missouri, and further, to state that that’s what started their “upset” originally with individuals who are Jewish, would indicate stupidity of epic proportions, appalling ignorance, anti-Semitism, or some combination thereof. Helpfully, the Star editorial columnist has eliminated two of the four as possibilities. I feel so much better now, as I’m sure the Podolefskys do, too.

…And it’s a shame that a remark made on a radio station by someone not even paid by the university has led to the loss of millions of dollars in future funding for education at the university.

A shame indeed. And who’s fault is that?

Gentleman’s Agreement (1947

“….But I’ve come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew. People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That’s the biggest discovery I’ve made. The good people. The nice people….”

But, we repeat ourselves.

Are we all living in a movie starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell?

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)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control (January 26, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control, part 2 (January 28, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: welcome to the party… (February 1, 2010)

…four months late.

In today’s Kansas City Star – they finally covered the story: Radio host’s remarks cost University of Central Missouri a big benefactor

This is the fortieth 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

The Star published a substantial (for them) story on-line and on page A5 in today’s Kansas City Edition:

…Hassler told The Kansas City Star that his remark “was spun out of context” and he apologized on the air in December.

“I said that is not what I meant,” Hassler said. “I have nothing against anybody at all. I am not anti-Semitic.

“Did I actually say I was sorry? No, but I think that could be considered an apology. The whole thing is just silly.”

Podolefsky said he didn’t think it’s silly…

A source has since confirmed that the following is from a December 10, 2009 radio broadcast:

…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….

As we noted on January 26th:

…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…

“…Did I actually say I was sorry? No, but I think that could be considered an apology. The whole thing is just silly…”

Evidently Ben Wesly doesn’t think so and some at the University didn’t appear to understand that.

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)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control (January 26, 2010)

“A Gentleman’s Agreement”?: a lesson on how not to attempt damage control, part 2 (January 28, 2010)

I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

The stenographer writes in today’s Kansas City Star:

Posted on Sat, Dec. 12, 2009 10:18 PM

ON POLITICS

Ex-lawmaker calls Missouri General Assembly a ‘scam’

By STEVE KRASKE

Former Missouri lawmaker Brian Yates couldn’t hold back.

Having resigned his seat Dec. 1, midway through his final term, the Lee’s Summit Republican let loose last week with a no-holds-barred assessment of the state of Jefferson City….

….Serving in the General Assembly, he said, had become a “scam….”

….The 34-year-old lawyer ticked them off: the passage of legislation in exchange for campaign donations, the underhanded dealings of former House speaker Rod Jetton, price tags placed on committee chairmanships, wealthy folks getting all the attention, all that political money sloshing around the Capitol….

The stenographer fails to mention what our good friends at Fired Up point out:

Brian Yates (R-Payday Loans)

Submitted by .Sean on November 30, 2009 – 5:43pm

Rep. Brian Yates (R-Lee’s Summitt) is officially resigning at noon tomorrow to work full time for QC Holdings.  It’s a payday loan company, with stores operating mostly as Quik Cash or National Quik Cash.

H’ray usury!

We did a search at the Missouri Ethics Commission for campaign contributions by QC Holdings during 2008 and this is what we came up with:

[Note: duplicate listings for the same single contribution will show up due to ammended campaign finance reports]

C000223 CUNNINGHAM CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 12/19/2007 $625.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071143 CITIZENS TO ELECT SUE ALLEN — QC Holdings 10/05/2007 $325.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071365 SPEAKER JETTON LEADERSHIP FUND — QC Holdings INC 12/29/2007 $2,500.00 Yes — AMENDED JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000801 MO SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 11/29/2007 $1,000.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C031227 REPUBLICAN 18TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT COMMITTEE — QC Holdings Inc 10/17/2007 $500.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C051222 CITIZENS TO ELECT JAMILAH NASHEED — QC Holdings Companies 11/01/2007 $325.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071365 SPEAKER JETTON LEADERSHIP FUND — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 12/29/2007 $2,500.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000745 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 11/14/2007 $2,500.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071094 MAJORITY FUND INC — QC Holdings, Inc. 12/05/2007 $3,750.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C010289 PEOPLE FOR MICHAEL SPRENG — QC Holdings , inc 10/24/2007 $325.00 Yes — JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000801 MO SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 11/29/2007 $1,000.00 Yes — AMENDED – JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000953 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY — QC Holdings, Inc.   01/11/2008 $18,000.00 Yes — 24 HOUR EXPENDITURE REPORT – SPECIAL ELECTION

C010402 ZWEIFEL FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE — QC Holdings 02/21/2008 $325.00 Yes — APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C001096 FRIENDS OF DELBERT SCOTT — QC Holdings 01/02/2008 $650.00 Yes — APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C031160 FRIENDS OF TILLEY — QC HOLDINGS INC 01/02/2008 $325.00 Yes — APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071094 MAJORITY FUND INC — QC Holdings, Inc. 02/28/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000223 CUNNINGHAM CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc.   12/19/2007 $625.00 Yes — AMENDED – JANUARY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000656 MO HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 2/26/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071094 MAJORITY FUND INC — QC Holdings, Inc. 02/28/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — AMENDED – APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C051104 MISSOURIANS FOR STEVE HOBBS — QC Holdings 06/30/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C051104 MISSOURIANS FOR STEVE HOBBS — QC Holdings 06/30/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000745 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 04/24/2008 $5,000.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000745 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 06/30/2008 $5,300.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C041065 FRIENDS OF WARD FRANZ — QC Holdings, Inc. 06/27/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C010503 CITIZENS FOR JAY WASSON — QC HOLDINGS, INC. 06/26/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C051087 CITIZENS FOR TIMOTHY W JONES — QC Holdings, Inc. 06/05/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C031212 BRUNS FOR REP — QC Holdings Inc –   06/29/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C061248 FRIENDS OF RICK STREAM Yes QC Holdings, Inc 06/05/2008 $325.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C081056 GINA LOUDON FOR SENATE — QC Holdings Inc   04/10/2008 $650.00 Yes — JULY – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C041135 CITIZENS FOR BOB NANCE — QC Holdings 07/11/2008 $325.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C061401 MO LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE — QC HOLDINGS, INC. 07/01/2008 $2,500.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C051286 CITIZENS FOR MIKE TALBOY — QC Holdings, Inc.   07/01/2008 $325.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C010334 FRIENDS OF CHARLIE DENISON — QC Holdings, INC 07/11/2008 $325.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C061291 LEADERSHIP FOR TOMORROW — QC Holdings, Inc 07/24/2008 $500.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C051232 CITIZENS FOR RYAN SILVEY — QC Holdings, Inc. 07/02/2008 $325.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C051161 CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GOVERNMENT — QC Holdings Inc. 07/01/2008 $500.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C051286 CITIZENS FOR MIKE TALBOY — QC Holdings, Inc. 07/01/2008 $325.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE PRIMARY ELECTION

C010193 RON RICHARD 2010 — QC Holdings 09/03/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000745 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC   09/04/2008 $2,500.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000745 HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 09/10/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071368 STEVENSON PAC — QC Holdings Inc – 07/14/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000762 GREATER KC WOMENS POLITICAL CAUCUS PAC — QC Holdings 09/29/2008 $1,250.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C071384 ECONOMIC GROWTH COUNCIL — QC Holdings 07/28/2008 $12,500.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000801 MO SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 7/11/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000801 MO SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 7/11/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — AMENDED – OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C041584 0011TH SENATORIAL LEADERSHIP COMM — QC Holdings Inc. 10/16/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C041050 COMMITTEE TO ELECT KENNY JONES — QC Holdings Inc. 10/20/2008 $400.00
Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C010293 MISSOURIANS FOR GOODMAN — QC Holdings 10/10/2008 $675.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C071320 SCHMITT FOR SENATE — QC Holdings Inc 10/17/2008 $675.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C001285 COMMITTEE TO ELECT JOAN BARRY — QC Holdings Inc   10/20/2008 $675.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C061646 STAN COX FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE — QC Holdings, Inc 10/20/2008 $400.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C071094 MAJORITY FUND INC — QC Holdings, Inc.   10/21/2008 $5,000.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C031110 MISSOURIANS FOR CROWELL — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC 10/20/2008 $675.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C041628 ENGLER 08 — QC Holdings Inc –   10/10/2008 $675.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C000960 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 10/15/2008 $10,000.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C051320 COMMITTEE FOR EL-AMIN 57TH Yes QC Holdings, INC 10/10/2008 $400.00 Yes — 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C081082 CITIZENS TO ELECT GRAY Yes QC FINANCIAL/QC HOLDINGS, INC. 10/23/2008 $400.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C081082 CITIZENS TO ELECT GRAY Yes QC FINANCIAL/QC HOLDINGS, INC. 10/23/2008 $400.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C000223 CUNNINGHAM CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 10/28/2008 $500.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C081082 CITIZENS TO ELECT GRAY Yes QC FINANCIAL/QC HOLDINGS, INC. 10/23/2008 $400.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C001285 COMMITTEE TO ELECT JOAN BARRY — QC Holdings Inc 10/20/2008 $675.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C041628 ENGLER 08 — QC Holdings Inc – 10/10/2008 $675.00 Yes — AMENDED – 8 DAY BEFORE GENERAL ELECTION

C000223 CUNNINGHAM CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 10/28/2008 $500.00 Yes — AMENDED – 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000960 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc.   10/27/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000960 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 10/27/2008 $5,000.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C051108 CITIZENS FOR RIDGEWAY — QC Holdings INC QC Holdings INC   10/24/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000656 MO HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 10/27/2008 $2,650.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000953 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY — QC Holdings, Inc. 10/27/2008 $10,000.00 Yes — 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000656 MO HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 10/27/2008 $2,650.00 Yes — AMENDED – 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C000801 MO SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings, Inc. 7/11/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — AMENDED – OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000656 MO HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 2/26/2008 $1,000.00 Yes — AMENDED – APRIL – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000656 MO HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE — QC Holdings 10/27/2008 $2,650.00 Yes — AMENDED – 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

C071384 ECONOMIC GROWTH COUNCIL — QC Holdings 07/28/2008 $12,500.00 Yes — AMENDED – OCTOBER – COMMITTEE QUARTERLY REPORT

C000953 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY — QC Holdings, Inc. 01/11/2008 $18,000.00 Yes — AMENDED 30 DAY AFTER SPECIAL ELECTION

C000953 MO REPUBLICAN PARTY — QC Holdings, Inc. 10/27/2008 $10,000.00 Yes — AMENDED 30 DAY AFTER GENERAL ELECTION

[emphasis added]

There are a number of relatively small contributions and, of course, we also note contributions to candidates and committees of both major political parties.

What’s interesting is that old media fails to point out the irony of a critic of the system and the culture of the previous Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives quitting the House and going to work for an entity that made a significant amount of political contributions.

Ultimately the voters get the campaign finance world they deserve. If they want to change it for the better individual voters can get of their duffs, decide on the individual candidates they want to support, and send them each a check for ten dollars. If enough people get it and start doing such there wouldn’t be a culture that exploits the need for large contributions from other entities.

The stenographer holds forth in the Kansas City Star on President Obama’s Wednesday speech on health care to a joint session of Congress – referring to, among others, Emanuel Cleaver (D), Sam Graves (r), Bob Dole (r), John McCain (r), and Dennis Hastert (r) – and then coming to the brilliant conclusion:

…For me last week, our politics suddenly seemed off-kilter, out of sorts, utterly off-track. A system that had been suffering from out-of-control partisanship – from both sides – had finally hit a wall and broken into a hundred parts…

Suddenly? Uh, where has he been for the last twenty years?

Both? Ah yes, false equivalence.

Uh, how is Congressman Emanuel Cleaver’s mind going to be changed by the speech? He supports the President’s agenda. And asking the question somehow makes sense?

The agenda of the republicans in Congress is nothing more than obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. And asking them if their minds were changed by the speech is somehow relevant?

John McCain complained that the process hasn’t been bipartisan. Really?

Bob Dole had a “bipartisan” health care plan? Really? Was it passed by unanimous assent and signed into law? If so, I guess that would make him a successful bipartisan politician when it comes to much needed comprehensive health care reform. I rest my case.

The stenographer citing the words or “legacies” of two Democrats and eight republicans tells us all we need to know. It’s the republicans’ and a stenographer’s fantasy world, the rest of us only live in it.

Today’s Kansas City Star has a lead editorial in their dead trees edition scolding all those unruly Internet barbarians populating the Star’s very own web site.

Incivility? Oh, the humanity. Well, yeah, welcome to blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!).

The Star:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 12, 2009 10:15 PM

Show some civility in cyberspace, please

…There’s virtually no argument that the Internet has promoted incivility….

…Check out the comment section on any newspaper Web site (preferably The Star’s). Sandwiched between well-reasoned points and fully constructed arguments are vitriolic ad hominem attacks…

Their point seems to be that we should all learn to keep a civil tongue. Okay. Where have you all been the last twenty years? It’s their world, the rest of us just live in it.

But they’re also complaining about the content in the comments at their own web site. Uh, it’s your web site, do something about it. And please don’t whine about the volume.