Wake Up Call Missouri

Post-Dispatch responds to bullying charge

2008-03-10T11:48:00.001-05:00

I received the following email from the the Post-Dispatch on Friday;

Mr. Fischer: As promised, we have looked into your concerns regarding our story and reporter Paul Hampel. After discussions with the reporter and the subject, we feel both our reporting and our article were accurate, fair and responsible in dealing with a very sensitive and newsworthy topic. We believe the story humanized a current tension point in city halls across the area: the rights of citizens to hold public officials accountable vs. the rights of public officials to attempt to limit that access -- rightly or wrongly -- to ensure public safety. The story in no way cast aspersions on anyone. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Sincerely,
Adam Goodman
Assistant Managing Editor/Metro
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

First, these are not my concerns but are the concerns of many people who read the article. My posts on the article, "After Kirkwood shootings, gadflies under the microscope," are by far the most read posts on my blog. ( The following posts are about the article; Post-Dispatch platform is a fraud, Has Post-Dispatch resorted to bullying widows to make news? and Update on Post-Dispatch attack on citizen activism. I have received more comments and emails on this subject than any other issue I have addressed and unfortunately many people have simply given up on our only daily paper.

As to the Post-Dispatch "looking into this article" here is what I know they did. Chris Ave, the editor who approved the story, contacted Ms. Waters. Ave told her he did not see any problems with the story and repeatedly told her there was nothing "factually wrong" with the article. Ave told Ms. Waters it was not his decision whether a retraction would be done or an apology given but that he felt none was needed. He did tell Ms. Waters he was sorry the story upset her.

In regard to the email from Mr. Goodman, notice how the he frames the issue now; "the rights of citizens to hold public officials accountable vs. the rights of public officials to attempt to limit that access -- rightly or wrongly -- to ensure public safety." While that might have been a good article it is clearly not the article which was published. From the headline to the side bar this article accepted as fact the perception by some officials that citizens involved in local government are annoying at best and possibly a threat. Gadfly is not a term of endearment for citizen activists, nor is a psychiatrist necessary to look into their motives.

As to the decision of the Post to stand behind its article, this should come as a surprise to no one. Of course, the paper cares about any attacks on its credibility and for that reason the Post-Dispatch and its owner, Lee Enterprises, have been viewing my site at record numbers. They have also been running Google searches under various themes such as, "hampel and gadfly and post-dispatch." Why? Because, in my opinion, what the Post is really concerned about is that someone with a wider audience then mine will pick up on this story. There isn't an argument to be made that the article written by Paul Hampel was anything other than an unwarranted attack on three citizens who dare to get involved in local government. If the Post were to admit its mistake or if this story was to gain a wider audience, the Post would have to defend the article itself and the decision not to do anything about it. They hope by ignoring this issue, their own little "gadfly" will go away.

Is Eddie Curran flat wrong?

2008-03-08T15:36:00.002-06:00

Eddie Curran is a reporter with the Mobile Press Register. He claims his stories prompted an investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration. An investigation which led to Siegelman being indicted and later found guilty on public corruption charges. However, questions have surrounded the prosecution and conviction of Siegelman and these issues were recently raised in a 60 Minutes piece on the case. Following the piece Eddie Curran wrote a letter to 60 Minutes accusing the show and Doug Jones, one of Siegelman's lawyers, of being "flat wrong" about testimony given by Nick Bailey, a former aide to Siegelman.

Curran sites to the following from 60 Minutes;

“Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor's office, just the two of them,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers. “And then, as soon as Mr. Scrushy left, the governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have given him for the lottery foundation.” “Had the check in his hand right then and there? “ Pelley asks. “Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says. “That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey's testimony?” Pelley asks. “That's right, showed it to Mr. Bailey. And Nick asked him, ‘Well, what does he want for it?’ And Governor Siegelman allegedly said, ‘A seat on the CON Board.’ Nick asked him, ‘Can we do that?’ And he said, ‘I think so,’” Jones says.

And later in the segment;

In this new investigation, prosecutors zeroed in on that vivid story told by Siegelman’s aide, Nick Bailey, who said he saw the governor with a check in his hand after meeting Richard Scrushy. Trouble was, Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it. “They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand,” Jones explains. “That would seem like a problem with the prosecution's case,” Pelley remarks. “It was a huge problem especially when you've got a guy who's credibility was going to be the lynch pin of that case. It was a huge problem,” Jones says.

Curran writes;

Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors nor witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting. Doug Jones was flat wrong on this point which 60 Minutes thought so powerful that, out of what surely was a much longer interview, it used in the segment.

Curran's claim that the 60 Minute piece stated Bailey testified at trial about the $250,000 check is untrue. I have read the transcript and watched the program and there is absolutely nothing to support Curran's allegation. I will explain his "mistake" below. Curran also wrote;

The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting.

Again, Curran is wrong in this statement. The 60 Minutes piece claimed that Bailey "indicated" the $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at the first meeting. And, contrary to Curran's claim, this appears to be true. Legal Schnauzer did some research on what was reported on the trial and found the following;

From the Birmingham News, March 5, 2006;

Bailey also admitted his initial recollections to a grand jury were incorrect. He said that, after meeting with Scrushy in 1999, Siegelman showed him a check for $250,000 signed by Scrushy. On the date Bailey recalled, the check hadn't been written, and the check was from a Maryland land company, not signed by Scrushy.

From the Birmingham News, May 4, 2006;

Defense lawyers showed that Bailey's initial recollection to prosecutors about the meeting between Scrushy and Siegelman had to be false. Bailey said that after the meeting, Siegelman showed him a check Scrushy had given him, but the check was dated later. Bailey admitted he wasn't sure when the meeting occurred.

Now, to explain Curran's error; Bailey did testify that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting but this testimony was apparently given at the grand jury proceedings not at trial. Siegelman's lawyers used Bailey's grand jury testimony to impeach (attack his credibility) him at trial.

Curran was actually correct when telling his wide-eyed readers that there was no testimony at the trial from Bailey that Siegelman received the check at the first meeting. However, 60 Minutes and Jones never made that claim. Curran either made a major blunder on this point or is intentionally misleading his readers, in any case Curran is the one who is "flat wrong."

In fact, if you watch the 60 Minutes piece, you will see that Bailey's credibility was a major issue at the trial, which is why Bailey's claim that prosecutors made him write out his testimony over 70 times is crucial. These statements were not given to Siegelman's lawyers and this evidence would have been so damaging it is doubtful the prosecutor would have allowed Bailey to testify. Of course, it would also be serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutor to withheld this evidence, a point Curran choose to ignore.

Curran wrote;

It is my understanding that 60 Minutes spent months on this story. That you did so and got so wrong this crucial element of the evidence presented to the jury is stunning.

It is my understanding that Curran has spent years covering this story and he even claims his reporting is what led to the investigation. That he made such a major mistake in his letter to 60 Minutes is stunning and should call into question all of his reporting in this case.

Curran also wrote to 60 minutes;

I am sure that your sources on the defense teams have the transcript and if you asked, would provide it to you. If not, I will be glad to search my records for appeals briefs or could send you stories by me and other reporters from the trial. The issue is simply not in dispute. Your big witness – Doug Jones – was not at trial and he was totally wrong. I suggest you call him and ask him to provide the documentation to support what he told you with such an impressive degree of authority. Don’t rely on his memory – ask him to provide you with the documentation. This is what real reporters do and what an audience expects of 60 Minutes.

It looks like Mr. Curran has finally found something he and his critics agree on; he is not a real reporter.

Top ten jobs offered by Matt Blunt

2008-03-06T17:38:00.001-06:00

Apparently, Matt Blunt has come up with a new plan on how to help Republicans win elections, offer Democrats plum positions. However, the positions offered to State Sen. Frank Barnitz, D-Lake Spring (he declined) and 15th District State Senate candidate Kevin Gunn aren't the only offers Blunt has made. In a Wake Up Call Missouri exclusive, below are the top 10 other positions offered by Blunt;

10. Tony Messenger; Biographer for book about Blunt, "Matt Blunt, The Deleted Years."

9. Speaker of the House Rod Jetton; Sneaker of the House

8. Bill Luetkenhaus; Partnership in new real estate company, "The Blunt Team"

7. Jeff Harris; Chief sniffer for new "Blunt Commission on Sniffling CAFO's"

6. Nathan Cooper; Anything he wants, just as long as Blunt doesn't end up his roommate

5. Steve Ehlmann and Peter Kinder; Co-Chairs of Paul McKee Yes Man Committee

4. Colonel Jack Jackson; CEO of new fried chicken restaurant chain. ( This just in; Governor Blunt has announced that he has offered the position to Colonel Sanders instead.)

3. Kit Bond; Chief of Staff for Senator Roy Blunt

2. Mike Huckabee; Bass guitarist in Matt's new band, "Let's Be Blunt"

1. Sarah Steelman, Kenny Hulshof or Jay Nixon; A job in which nothing needs to be accomplished.

Update on Post-Dispatch attack on citizen activism

2008-03-06T14:31:00.002-06:00

My two posts on Paul Hampel's story "After Kirkwood shootings, gadflies under the microscope," continue to garner a lot of interest. ( Post-Dispatch platform is a fraud and Has Post-Dispatch resorted to bullying widows to make news? ) A few notes on the posts;

I never spoke with Sandy Waters before yesterday and I learned about her experience with Mr. Hampel from someone who reads my blog. That individual explained how Sandy had told her how Hampel mislead Sandy about the reason for his call. Later that evening I called Sandy and spoke with her for over an hour about the article. Sandy believes the Post-Dispatch and Hampel should publicly apologize for their actions. I agree Sandy.
I emailed my first story to Hampel along with a note that stated I thought he should apologize for the article (this was before I spoke with any of Hampel's targets) but that I didn't think he would because it was apparent from reading the article he just didn't get it. Hampel responded via email "You strike me as quite rude, Rick. But maybe you're just email-rude. I'll bet you're not a jerk in person." I thought this was rather ironic considering the hatchet job Hampel performed on his three random targets and I responded "I tend to be rude to people who abuse their power, sometimes even in person."
After I was told that Waters claimed Hampel mislead her, I emailed Hampel and the Post asking if they cared to comment. Hampel replied "First, you make rude comments to me. Then you reiterate that, even in person, you're a jerk. And now you want me to call you to respond to a nutty, anonymous email? What a clown you are! I'll never waste my time opening another email from you."
Adam Goodman of the Post sent me an email stating, "Your note to Arnie Robbins regarding Paul Hampel's story and the anonymous posting on your blog was forwarded to me. I am the assistant managing editor/Metro at the Post-Dispatch. I will look into this. Meanwhile, if you do end up communicating with the anonymous commenter, please ask the person to contact me directly if she has a complaint. Thank you."
The person who initially contacted me about Sandy Waters has indicated she prefers to remain anonymous because she doesn't want to be the paper's next victim. Sandy told me Hampel called and left her a message yesterday but she didn't want to speak with him because she did not trust him. And who can blame either one of them.
I have received a lot of emails and comments from people who read the article and said that my original post about the story stated exactly how they felt. Some people have forwarded me letters they wrote the paper, some have posted comments but many choose to remain anonymous because they fear reprisal. What a sad statement about the Post-Dispatch.
Finally, thanks to an alert reader who tipped me off to an editorial in the Post yesterday, "The temptation to overreact." The editorial discussed a citizen, Dan Sullivan, who filed a lawsuit against the Kirkwood School District over a property tax issue and lost. Sullivan has now decided to run for a seat on the school board and the editorial stated "We encourage his citizen activism." I wonder if the writer of that editorial had a good laugh with Mr. Hampel when crafting that sentence?

False statements continue in Koch Road scandal

2008-03-05T23:28:00.000-06:00

I posted yesterday about the decision that was handed down by the Missouri Court of Appeals yesterday on the Koch Road scandal. In the post I mentioned three things the decision did not do, namely;

Find that the decision of the County to vacate Koch Road was proper.
Address the fact the the conditions under which Koch Road were to be vacated have never been met.
Change the fact that Koch Road was illegally torn out by the developer and builder.

I posted those things because I knew others involved in the litigation would attempt to mislead the public about what the court said. And they did. Let's start with McBride & Son CEO John F. Eilermann, who stated in the Post-Dispatch that the ruling "confirms what we have said all along: the suit had no merit. This, most importantly, confirms the homeowners have clear title, and the road vacation was proper."

Maybe Mr. Eilermann will correct these false statements tomorrow since McBride people have been reviewing my blog today, hopefully in an attempt to learn the truth. But just in case they still don't get it, the court's opinion stated that my clients did not have the right to question the vacation of Koch Road, and does not condone the County's action. The Circuit Court judge ruled the County's vacation of Koch Road was unlawful and the Court of Appeals did not say this decision was wrong but instead said that the court did not have jurisdiction to overturn the vacation, even if it was illegal.

However, even more troubling is the following comment from John Sonderegger who said county officials feel vindicated that they made the right decision, but they wish the matter had been resolved before homes were built. Sonderegger made a career misreporting at the Post-Dispatch before he was rewarded for his years of service to the builders/developers by County Executive Steve Ehlmann. However, Sonderegger's ability to mislead the public may also have been a consideration since he did such a fine job of it in his comment. The court did not vindicate the county as noted above and if the county was worried about the homes being built they could have stopped it if they followed the law. Or wanted to represent the citizens rather than special interests.

In any event, maybe the county will now correct its actions in filing the paperwork to finalize the vacation of Koch Road since they were put on notice in court that their actions were based on false information provided by O'Fallon. Are you going to ignore this Mr. Ehlmann? Hmm, the word conspiracy comes to mind, but only in a legal sense Steve.

Has Post-Dispatch resorted to bullying widows to make news?

2008-03-05T22:29:00.000-06:00

My story yesterday, Post-Dispatch platform is a fraud, has drawn more interest than anything I have posted before. And it should. The post was about a story written by Paul Hampel, who apparently had a bad day and decided to take it out on citizens who dare to question their local governments. Actually, after speaking with one of the people Hampel attacked, it appears it wasn't simply a bad day on Hampel's part, but rather a planned attack.

Sandy Waters is a 64 year old widow who has lived in St. Peters for over 34 years. She has been a trustee in her subdivision for over 20 years, a job that comes with no pay but a lot of headaches. She managed her son's baseball team when he was younger because no else wanted to do it. Sandy did all this while working part time in between being a mother and wife full time.

While she followed local politics, Sandy had never spoken at a St. Peters council meeting until 2005. What made her take the time to get involved? Sandy was watching a city workshop one night at home when Alderman Jerry Hollingsworth mentioned an idea in which St. Peters citizens could help out the community by paying for a street sign which read, "Keep Kids Alive, Drive 25". Sandy thought it was a good idea and that night went up to the council meeting and publicly volunteered to pay for such a sign. Her alderman, Patrick Barclay then followed Sandy's lead and also pledged to pay for a sign. Since then Sandy has been a semi regular at the meetings, sometimes praising the city for its actions, sometimes criticizing St. Peters but always caring about her city.

If you read the Post-Dispatch's Platform, you would expect them to celebrate and encourage citizens like Sandy rather than compare them to a murderer, but that is exactly what Paul Hampel and the Post did. Hampel called Sandy about ten days ago and left a message that he was with the paper and would like to talk to her. At first Sandy was hesitant since she had no idea who Hampel was or why a reporter would want to talk to her, but after talking with a friend she decided to call him back.

Sandy says that Hampel told her he covered local government and that Tim Bryant, a Post-Dispatch reporter who covers St. Peters, had said she was very educated on issues involving property values and taxes and that is what he wanted to talk to her about. Sandy thought that was odd and told Hampel the only reason Bryant might have said that is because she once spoke about issues regarding property values at a public meeting but she didn't consider herself an expert by any means.

Hampel followed up by asking Sandy about speaking at St. Peters city meetings without ever telling her what he really intended to write about. In fact, Sandy says when she would tell Hampel about some of the reasons she was involved, such as a statement made by former alderman David Hayes that "There's no free speech in this chamber," Hampel would act shocked that such things really happened. As Hampel reeled Sandy in he got more personal, asking her if she was married, and Sandy opened up to him explaining she lost her husband in 2003 and that she would always miss him.

Hampel seized upon this opening to ask Sandy if the reason she went to St. Peters meetings was to fill this void. (In the article Hampel quoted a psychiatrist who said "gadflies" often attended public meetings because this "is their only dynamic, if you will, in which they're interacting with people.") Sandy was insulted by the question because it insinuated her involvement in the community was some kind of a mental illness and that this involvement could replace her husband. As Sandy became suspicious of Hampel's true intentions he followed up with a question about whether she could ever become violent over the actions of the city. (In the article Hampel indicates he asked another of the "gadflies" if he could see himself committing an act of violence like Charles "Cookie" Thornton, who killed five people at a Kirkwood council meeting last month.)

At this point Sandy was growing even more suspicious of Hampel's motives and he finally mentioned the Cookie Thornton killings in Kirkwood before informing her that he had to go. It was only after she got off the phone that Sandy first suspected Hampel was going to try to compare her to Thornton and her suspicions came true when the article came out Monday.

Hampel's article was titled "After Kirkwood shootings, gadflies under the microscope." Hampel wrote "Often called gadflies, they see themselves as champions of freedom and watchdogs of local government. But post-Kirkwood, a conflict has arisen between security and First Amendment rights. Where these critics may once have been seen as annoying, if sometimes right, some are now being looked at as possible threats."

Gadfly is a term the Post has used in describing Thornton ("Charles 'Cookie' Thornton was the town gadfly", "It's not that Plummer thought the town gadfly....") And it is also the term Hampel used to describe this 64 year old widow whose only crime appears to be that she loves her home town and wanted to get involved.

According to Sandy, that is exactly what St. Peters Mayor Len Pagono told Hampel when he spoke with him. Pagano called Sandy and told her that he spoke with Hampel before the article ran and told him how she loved her city and her neighborhood, that she was civic minded and that he had known her for 25 years and considered her a friend. However, don't look for Pagano's kind words about Sandy in the article because they are no where to be found. Bullies like Hampel have no need to let the truth get in the way of their attempt to make 64 year old civic minded widows like Sandy Waters look dangerous.

Bad news for Premier 370 and St. Peters

2008-03-05T18:37:00.001-06:00

A Missouri Court of Appeals decision out of the Western District, could be a big blow to St. Peters and its financing of Premier 370, a development in a flood plain off of Highway 370. The decision reverses a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Cole County granting St. Peters Motion for Summary Judgment against claims brought by various entities and individuals (plaintiffs) challenging St. Peters usage of tax increment financing (TIF) on the development.

A Motion for Summary Judgment asks a court to enter a judgment against a party based upon undisputed material facts in the case. The "facts" in the motion are presented to the courts in various ways (such as affidavits, documents or deposition testimony) but the court does not here live testimony.

The Court of Appeals decision is not a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs but instead states that the Circuit Court was incorrect in entering a judgement on behalf of St. Peters based on the "undisputed facts" presented in the motion. This means the case can go forward and allows for a trial.

According to an article in the Post-Dispatch, St. Peters officials stated the court's comments about "a full-blown court trial to review municipal decisions rather than summary proceedings are very troubling." I have to agree with St. Peters on this one, allowing evidence to be presented in public about how the city makes its decisions could be very troubling for St. Peters as well as some of its elected officials and administrators, past and present. But then sometimes the truth can be troubling.

Post-Dispatch platform is a fraud

2008-03-04T22:36:00.001-06:00

"I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty." statement by Joseph Pulitzer, April 10, 1907

"What a bunch of crap." statement by Rick Fischer, March 4, 2008

I just ran across an article in yesterday's Post-Dispatch titled, After Kirkwood shootings, gadflies under the microscope. It is one of the most insulting, condescending, hateful articles I have seen in the Post in the last day. Lets start with the headline which describes those who participate in local government as gadflies-a person who stimulates or annoys especially by persistent criticism. Right off the bat the Post is telling its readers what it thinks of citizens who take the time to get involved, "we thought they were nothing more than annoying pests but now we have to consider whether they are dangerous!"

The writer, Paul Hampel, then discusses three "gadflies" in an attempt to make anyone who dares to follow local government seem clinically insane. In fact, the writer talks to a psychiatrist about what is wrong with these people and whether they could be dangerous.

"Our ability in behavioral medicine to predict violence on the part of the average citizen is very, very poor," said Dr. Paul Packman, a psychiatrist at St. John's Mercy Medical Center. "We don't understand at what point does someone decide, 'OK, this is it.'"

For some people, such meetings constitute a social life, said Packman, the psychiatrist." Being a committed gadfly is their only dynamic, if you will, in which they're interacting with people," he said. Others, he said, may attend because they failed to get elected and see meetings as their only avenue of influence. For some, public forums are entertainment. And then there are those who feel a great sense of responsibility that is out of proportion to their ability to affect change."These are people who feel very strongly as do-gooders, but these types tend to fall out of such systems when they realize that they have very little impact," Packman said.

Even worse, here is how the reporter frames the issue in speaking about Arnie Dienoff, a regular at meetings in Bellfontaine Neighbors; "Dienoff, who denies he would ever hurt anyone..." What was Hampel, who denies he would ever plagiarize, thinking? While Hampel, who denies he is an arrogant pin head, does everything to convince his readers Dienhoff is odd, there is no hint of any violence in Dienhoff's actions.

Hampel, who denies being a fascist, then asks the "gadflies" if they might be violent. To the best of my knowledge, the tragedy in Kirkwood was the first time a "gadfly" has gone on a shooting rampage in the area in...forever, but we do have a whole lot of politicians who are corrupt. Do you think Mr. Hampel, who denies having a clue, would write, "Senator Bond, who denies being a corrupt politician..?" Or conduct an interview in which he asked, "Now Senator McCaskill, could you ever see yourself taking kickbacks or bribes?" Of course not, because that would be a) stupid, b) poor journalism and c) stupid. But Hampel, who denies being a poor journalist and stupid, thinks nothing of it when covering the silly people who dare to keep an eye on local government.

Maybe if the Post and Hampel started covering local politics and reporting on it truthfully, he would have less of an elitist view on the subject. In fact, maybe a good place for him to start would be if he read the paper's platform and do something no one at the Post seems to be willing to do, follow it!

Koch Road decision handed down

2008-03-04T16:48:00.001-06:00

The Court of Appeals handed down their opinion today on the Koch Road scandal. The Court ruled that my clients (I am co-counsel for the group of residents which challenged the County's decision to vacate Koch Road) lacked standing in which to challenge the County's decision. Standing is a legal term which relates to the right to bring an action and the Court's ruling states that a group of residents do not have the right to challenge an illegal vacation of a County Road unless those residents have some injury different than the public as a whole.

This decision does not;

Find that the decision of the County to vacate Koch Road was proper.
Address the fact the the conditions under which Koch Road were to be vacated have never been met.
Change the fact that Koch Road was illegally torn out by the developer and builder.

Stay tuned.

Obama's ties to Chicago developer could cause problems

2008-03-03T22:43:00.003-06:00

Chicago developer Tony Rezko's trial on federal corruption charges was scheduled to began today. Rezko was indicted back in October of 2006 for allegedly using his influence with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to seek kickbacks and campaign donations from firms going after state business. While Barack Obama's name may surface from time to time in the trial he is not expected to be a major player. However, Obama's relationship with Rezko, including a questionable land deal, is certain to become a bigger issue in his campaign.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Robert Novak and TPM, to name just a few, all had stories on Obama's relationship with Rezko today. With the trial scheduled to last several months, you can be sure this relationship is going to continue to haunt Obama on the campaign trail.

Who would have guessed that a developer, a questionable land deal and a politician would become an issue in a campaign? If Obama ever needs a break from the controversy all he needs to do is pay a visit to St. Charles County where such actions get you buildings named after you rather than investigated.

Developer Welfare

2008-03-03T21:45:00.002-06:00

Last week I posted about how Matt Blunt and the State Senate reappointed Bill Luetkenhaus to the Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC) without mention of a questionable land deal involving Luetkenhaus and developer Jeff Smith. This land deal drew attention to the standards and rules under which the MHDC operates, however, all of that is apparently forgotten. Despite calls for stricter standards and a review of the conflict rules, the MHDC has done nothing. Of course, this might be because MHDC Chairman Richard Baalmann named Luetkenhaus to lead a committee to rewrite the standards. No, I'm not joking. The guy whose land deal was the reason the MHDC was looking into changing it's standards, Luetkenhaus, is in charge of changing those standards. Not surprisingly, Luetkenhaus' committee has not made any changes.

Anyway, Sunday's Columbia Tribune took a look at how the MHDC helps line the pockets of developers with taxpayer money. Since all of this is being done in the name of affordable housing for senior citizens I guess we are not supposed to question this expenditure. Take a look at the Tribune article and let me know what you think.

Karl Rove's America Update

2008-03-03T01:34:00.003-06:00

For those interested in reading about the Don Siegelman case, there is an update on Legal Schnauzer. In a post titled On Siegelman, 60 Minutes, and History, information is provided from various view points. While Legal Schnauzer believes that there are serious questions regarding the prosecution of Siegelman, the blog offers opposing views and is a good resource for anyone who wants more information on this disturbing case.

One of the things I have noticed is that Republicans (at least those who want this story to go away) seem to be employing the tactics of Morton Blackwell who teaches Republicans how to "Handle Negative Information" at his Leadership Institute. And yes, Karl Rove is a proud graduate of Mr. Blackwell's school.

Karl Rove's America, Part II

2008-03-02T00:10:00.003-06:00

Remember Scooter Libby? The guy who was convicted of lying to the feds about his involvement in the Valerie Plame case? The guy who received a pardon from George W. Bush shortly before he was set to begin serving his sentence? The guy who claimed he was a scapegoat to protect Karl Rove? That last part kind of got lost in the trial but that is exactly what Libby's lawyers said they would prove in their opening statements.

Here is a little refresher from a January 23, 2007 article in the New York Times;

Mr. Wells (Rove's lawyer) told the jury that the unnamed White House officials wanted to protect Mr. Rove because they believed his survival as President Bush’s political adviser was crucial to the health of the Republican Party.
Mr. Wells Jr. said his client, known by his nickname, “Scooter” was innocent and that a decision was made that “Scooter Libby was to be sacrificed.”
It was important to keep Mr. Rove out of trouble, Mr. Wells said, because he was Mr. Bush’s right-hand man and “was most responsible for seeing the Republican Party stayed in office. He had to be protected.”

In fact, Libby's lawyers even stated Vice President Dick Cheney agreed with Libby's belief he was being set up as a scapegoat;

But his most startling comment was his assertion that Mr. Libby became enmeshed in legal difficulty because of White House efforts to protect Mr. Rove.
Mr. Libby, Mr. Wells said, complained to Mr. Cheney that he was being set up as the fall guy. The Vice President supported that view, Mr. Wells said, and wrote a note by hand saying: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”
He offered his interpretation of the note, explaining that “incompetence” was a reference to the fact that the C.I.A. had mistakenly allowed the White House to use inaccurate information in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech about Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium in Africa. The staff official, he said, was Mr. Rove. Mr. Libby had been assigned to speak to reporters to straighten out the confusion from Mr. Bush’s speech, a chore Mr. Cheney likened to sticking his head in the meat grinder.

Opening statements are not evidence but instead an opportunity for a lawyer to provide the jury an outline of what evidence will be presented on behalf of his client. However, every good lawyer knows that if you tell a jury you are going to present evidence you better follow through because the jury is going to be expecting it, especially when you make claims such as Wells did. And, of course, Libby had good lawyers, very good lawyers. Which is why many were surprised when they didn't follow through on presenting evidence to support their theory that Libby was a scapegoat to protect Rove.

So why would Libby's very able legal team not present the evidence on Rove? The answer lies in their opening statement; Karl Rove was so important "he had to be protected." As soon as Libby's lawyers threatened to spill the beans on Rove the pardon was a done deal, all Libby had to do was keep his mouth shut. Just another example of how Karl Rove and his George W. Bush have taken our justice system hostage.

Wake Up Call Review

2008-03-01T19:55:00.002-06:00

Here are this week's most popular posts:

Mr. Olivo goes to Washington

Which one is better than the other?

Rod Jetton's mouth is a Democrats' best friend

Karl Rove's America

Suburban Journal leaders meet with Wake Up Call

Since I started the blog in November I have had an increase in hits every month but February was by far the biggest month for Wake Up Call. I hope to keep this trend going in March. If anyone has any comments, story ideas or criticism, you can leave a comment on the blog anonymously or send me an email at rfisc82376@aol.com.

It's 3:00 AM in Missouri, the phone rings...

2008-03-01T09:56:00.002-06:00

A new campaign ad put out by Hillary Clinton asks the question who would we want answering the phone at the White House in a crisis? Here is what you could expect if you call a Missouri politician at 3:00 AM.

Matt Blunt: "I understand it's an emergency but I've already accomplished everything I set out to do."

Jeff Roe: "No he puts his trash out on Tuesday night you idiot."

Jay Nixon: "And you're sure it was a Republican involved. O.K. I'll be right there."

Rod Jetton: "Why don't you get off your lazy a** and do it yourself. What? Oh, um I'm sorry Mr. Plaster, I'll get right on it."

Kit Bond: "Sam I know it's you. Now quit calling me. I told you my doctor said I needed to rest."

Susan Montee: Don't worry Mayor Pagano. I'll just say you're clean; nobody actually reads my audits.

Steve Ehlmann: Answering machine; If you're a developer who has donated money please press 1, If you're a developer who would like to donate money please press 2, All other callers, there is nothing I can do for you.

Blunt and State Senate vote for business as usual

2008-02-29T11:41:00.001-06:00

The Columbia Tribune reported yesterday that the Missouri Senate confirmed Gov. Matt Blunt’s decision to reappoint Bill Luetkenhaus to the Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC.) The MHDC provides state tax credits on housing projects to developers. Luetkenhaus was involved in a controversial land deal with Columbia developer Jeff Smith last year. In the deal Smith paid Luetkenhaus 1.7 million dollars for a piece of land Luetkenhaus bought two months earlier for $932,000. According to the Tribune article:

Smith is one of the state’s largest developers of low- and moderate-income housing. As a commissioner, Luetkenhaus votes on whether state subsidies should be distributed to developers like Smith.

When the Tribune reported this deal last year Blunt indicated that Luetkenhaus should recuse himself from any votes involving Smith. There was also talk of revising the standards of conduct policy for the MHDC. According to the Tribune;

Commission Chairman Richard Baalmann named Luetkenhaus to lead a committee to rewrite the standards. The panel was supposed to meet earlier this month, but Luetkenhaus cancelled the meeting because of other business. A new session has been scheduled for March 21.
"I think we will get something that will address disclosure more than what the current rules do," Luetkenhaus said.

No need to waste your time on "disclosure" Bill, if anyone was paying attention we wouldn't have to worry about you anyway.

Your Flag Lapel Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore

2008-02-28T23:10:00.001-06:00

Which one is better than the other?

2008-02-28T21:54:00.006-06:00

And here's my list of donors, I mean contractors I want on the job.

Are you an American or a Republican?

2008-02-28T21:07:00.000-06:00

The story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is gaining traction after 60 Minutes aired a story. However, the 60 Minutes story lasted less than 15 minutes, which is barely enough time to cover the highlights. Those interested in this story can read much more about it at the following sites; The Legal Schnauzer, TPM and Harpers. I have read extensively on the Siegelman prosecution, including from those who try to defend the actions of Karl Rove, the prosecutors and Judge Mark Fuller. And after reading all this, it is my opinion that Don Siegelman is a political prisoner.

Included in those calling for an investigation of the Siegelman prosecution is former Arizona Attorney General Grant Wood, a Republican advisor to John McCain's campaign. However, it appears the official Republican response is to stand in support of Karl Rove and defend the prosecution. Of course, when the facts get in the way of the party line, the Republicans turn to one of Rove's favorite tactics, attack the messenger.

The Siegelman case should scare every American without regard to party affiliation. Rather than simply follow the official party line I suggest Republicans review this case very carefully and make a decision; are you willing to support your party at the expense of the values of your country?

Springfield lawyer may play role in Siegelman case

2008-02-28T11:22:00.000-06:00

A 2003 affidavit filed by Springfield, MO. attorney Paul Benton Weeks regarding Federal Judge Mark Fuller may play a role in the investigation of wrongdoing regarding the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Fuller was the judge in the Siegelman case and was also the judge in case filed by Weeks. In a story written by Scott Horton for Harpers, Weeks stated he did a routine check on Fuller to see what type of judge would be handling the case. Weeks stated, "I was astonished by what I found,” and that immediately after the papers were filed, Weeks said that Fuller was removed as the judge handling the case.

According to Horton, Week's affidavit accuses Fuller of,

engaging in criminal conduct both before and after he came on to the bench. The charges include perjury, criminal conspiracy, a criminal attempt to defraud the Retirement System of Alabama, misuse of office as a District Attorney, and an obstruction of his background check by the FBI in connection with the review of his appointment by President Bush to the bench.

What does this have to do with the Siegelman case? Horton writes;

This means that at the time that Fuller was presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, a prosecution brought by Noel Hillman’s Public Integrity Section, he was or should have been the subject of an investigation by the Public Integrity Section. This presents a further appearance of serious impropriety both by Judge Fuller and by the prosecutors handling the case. Our earlier study of Fuller showed that he had three disqualifying conflicts: his undisclosed service on the Executive Committee of the Alabama G.O.P. at the time that it was running campaigns against Siegelman; his suggestion that Siegelman was responsible for “politically motivated” attacks on him in connection with his bookkeeping practices as a district attorney; and his business interests which are tied up almost entirely with U.S. government contracts.

Weeks told Horton that no one from Hillman's office had contacted him in regard to the allegations he raised. One other interesting note; when Siegelman was sentenced Fuller failed to rule on a motion to release Siegelman pending his appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Fuller to rule on the motion and when he did the Court of Appeals said his order was not sufficient. Fuller eventually issued a 30 page order denying Siegelman's request, however, Siegelman still can't appeal the case. Fuller's court has still not prepared a transcript of the trial which concluded over 20 months ago. The transcript is supposed to be prepared within 30 days of sentencing.

Karl Rove's America

2008-02-27T15:54:00.003-06:00

The 60 Minutes story on the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which aired Sunday, failed to appear on a CBS affiliated TV station in Alabama, WHNT-TV. Viewers who tuned in to WHNT instead found the following message:

We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.

However, CBS told Scott Horton, a writer who has covered the Siegelman story while blogging at Harper’s, that;

There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.

Horton goes on to state "I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama could only have been an editorial call." While WHNT denies it was an editorial decision it later changed its story on why the 60 Minutes piece did not run at the scheduled time. The station ran the segment later.

Why would WHNT censor the Siegelman story? The following from the blog Facing South might help explain the decision;

WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, an investment company managed by prominent supporters of President Bush, whose former advisor Karl Rove was implicated in the "60 Minutes" Siegelman investigation. But as the New York Times notes, the station is managed by a separate company, Local TV -- whose chief executive, Robert "Bobby" Lawrence, is a former Clear Channel Communications executive and also a major Bush contributor.

The Siegelman story is not going away but if we are lucky maybe Karl Rove will be, for a long time.

Mr. Olivo goes to Washington

2008-02-27T01:36:00.001-06:00

Brock Olivo, a former running back at Mizzou and then in the NFL, announced his candidacy for the 9th Congressional seat being vacated by Kenny Hulshof. Olivo's campaign got off to a rocky start when he was unable to answer some basic questions about why he was running. Things got worse for Olivo when it was revealed he has never voted. Everyone has taken a turn at making fun of Olivo but the more time I've had to think about it the more I think Olivo may be what we need in office.

Maybe Olivo's lack of experience means he won't know how to slip a provision into a lengthy bill to help a friend/contributor. Maybe being honest and admitting he doesn't have an answer is better than the patronizing, misleading answers we get from most politicians. Maybe Olivo hasn't learned how to use power to seek revenge or request special treatment. Maybe Olivo is smart enough to understand who he is supposed to be representing and whose money he is spending.

Maybe Olivio understands freezers are where we keep food, not money. Maybe Olivo understands what the "public" in public records means. Maybe Olivo knows what the definition of "is" is, what an oath means and what the difference is between public service and personal interest. And maybe Olivo knows the difference between right and wrong. If so, maybe we will be alright in sending a political newcomer to Washington because I'm not sure I like what others call "experience."

It's time for Karl Rove to quit hiding and answer questions under oath

2008-02-26T17:58:00.001-06:00

60 Minutes did a story on the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman Sunday night. Siegelman is serving a 7 year sentence and many believe he was not guilty of the bribery charges for which he was convicted. Even worse, many believe he was targeted for prosecution because he was considered a threat to the Republican party in Alabama. The 60 Minutes story also discussed allegations Karl Rove, who got his start in Alabama politics, might have been involved in targeting Siegelman. Rove responded to the allegations below;

Rove's denial of the alleagtions raised by Dana Jill Simpson were addressed by Ms. Simpson on the clip below from MSNBC;

Simpson went before Congress and told her story under oath, something Rove refused to do. I'm sure Congress will give Rove another chance and I'm sure Rove won't take it. For those interested in reading more about this story,the following sources may be helpful; The Legal Schnauzer, TPM and Harpers, which has a good story about Rove's appearance on Fox. This is a story that should scare us all.

Translation-Dempsey wants to run for higher office

2008-02-26T11:38:00.000-06:00

The Columbia Tribune's Politics Blog had an interesting story yesterday regarding Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles. Dempsey voted for the 2006 bill which eliminated campaign finance limits but he voted against the 2008 bill to do away with the limits. Jason Rosenbaum, of the Tribune, asked Dempsey to explain his vote. Here is what Dempsey had to say along with some comments from Rosenbaum;

“The bill that I filed didn’t have elimination of limits in it,” Dempsey said. “It did have a component that if you look in the bill that’s filed that raised the limit and eliminated the ten times the limit on the party committees. There was a campaign finance piece. We took that out and sent it over to the Senate side. But the primary drive behind the bill in 2006 for me was elimination of the caucus system that had been abused for decades.”
Dempsey is referring to a loophole in the lobbyist disclosure process that allowed gifts to be attributed to members of ‘caucuses’ instead of individuals. That prevented disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of meals and entertainment from Missouri Ethics Commission reports.
Nevertheless, Dempsey still ultimately voted to pass that 2006 version of the bill. I asked him what made him change his position for this year’s legislation.
“As I consider what the priorities for the state should be, I frankly didn’t think this was a priority for me. It’s not in my top ten, it’s not in my top twenty,” Dempsey said. “We have a flawed system to do this. While I understand it and agree with it in principle, you’re still going to have negative campaigning. You’re still going to have huge sums of money raised. You’re replacing one flawed system with another somewhat more transparent, but also flawed. For me it wasn’t a priority. And from a timing standpoint with the campaigns this year, it just didn’t think it was something that we should be considering.”

Translating this from "politico speak" into English, I think what Dempsey is saying is that he plans to run for higher office someday and doesn't want a vote to eliminate campaign finance limits to be used against him although he really agrees with doing away with the limits.

You Paid For It story on streets in Bayfield

2008-02-26T10:48:00.001-06:00

You Paid For It (which covers waste in government and airs on Fox 2 St. Louis) ran a story on the problems the Bayfield subdivision is having with its streets. I do not have a lot of knowledge on this issue and would like to hear from someone who can better explain the situation. For what its worth, the O'Fallon Journal ran an article on this story a couple of weeks ago entitled Subdivision has checkered jurisdiction, which may help explain the issue. You can view the You Paid For It piece by clicking here.

The Truth Held Hostage-Day 98

2008-02-26T10:47:00.000-06:00

Back in November, the O'Fallon Journal reported false information in regard to the Koch Road scandal. The information reported by the Journal was in regard to the date Koch Road was vacated and by falsely reporting that date, Journal readers were not provided information which would show McBride & Sons, the builder and a major advertiser in the Journal, illegally tore out the road. O'Fallon's role in improperly issuing building permits to McBride was also not properly reported because of the Journal's "mistake." It now has been;

98 days since I informed the Journal reporter, Elizabeth Perry, of the error in her story.

71 days since I was told the Journal would be correcting its "mistake" (after Perry wrote a second article containing the exact same false information) regarding the Koch Road vacation.

40 days since Journal editor Erin Schultz told me the Journal "will correct factual errors as quickly and clearly as possible."

16 days since Ms. Perry mislead her readers again as to the destruction of Koch Road, and was once again informed of her "mistake."

12 days since I met with Bob Williams, the Journal's publisher, Dave Bundy, the editorial director, and Ms. Schultz to explain the "mistakes" the Journal had made in its stories.

Since everyone from the publisher on down knows the Journal incorrectly reported this story, the Journal can no longer claim this was a "mistake." Instead, I think we can now safely state that falsely reporting the story is the official policy of the Journal.

Democrats don't want too much democracy

2008-02-25T22:53:00.002-06:00

I've never seen a Democrat claim the Republicans should not have a candidate for President. Instead, the Democrats try to convince the voters they should not vote for the Republican candidate because of policy differences or because the candidate is not qualified to be President. So what's the Democrats problem with Ralph Nader, who recently announced he will run for President in 2008? The fact that Nader is running.

Democrats believe a Nader candidacy could siphon off enough votes from their candidate to help elect John McCain. And to that I say, who cares? Democrats and Republicans have become so arrogant that they now believe the Presidency is the exclusive right for one of their candidates. Third party candidates are seen as a nuisance rather than a democratic option for those of us fed up with the two party monopoly of power. When that nuisance threatens to interfere with the Democrats right to the presidency, Democrats show their true colors. Democracy is great just as long as it doesn't interfere with their power.

Fish & Ships, February 26, 2008

2008-02-25T21:05:00.001-06:00

On tomorrow's Fish & Ships program (the most dangerous 15 minutes on the radio) we will discuss;

Is liberalism a mental disease?

St. Peters latest problems with Premier 370.

Ralph Nader enters the race

The prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

WARNING: Residents of St. Peters are reminded to avoid listening to Fish & Ships. Information on the city can only be obtained through St. Peters PR(avda) department.

Premier 370 work still can't go forward

2008-02-25T13:53:00.002-06:00

Work is still on hold at Premier 370 Business Park in St. Peters according to an article in today's Post-Dispatch. Premier 370 is being built in a flood plain and St. Peters has invested millions of dollars in the project, money the city stands to lose if the project does not go forward. FEMA has not yet approved the development for federal flood insurance and until it does the project will remain stalled. According to the Post article, critics of the plan include;

Illinois officials who contend the levee will worsen flooding in Grafton and other areas.

The Great Rivers Habitat Alliance, an advocacy group for flood plain preservation, which alleges the work on the 4 mile long levee has not been done properly. The levee cost St. Peters 22.5 million dollars to date.

There are also concerns on how the city will handle flooding issues on two spots where railroad tracks cross the levee. The Post article indicates the city has failed to respond to FEMA's latest concerns and that if St. Peters does not respond by March 17 the application will be suspended and the process will have to start over again.

The Premier 370 project has been steeped in controversy from the beginning with other issues including;

Appraisals not done on some of the land purchased for the project.

Land Purchased from former Mayor Tom Brown's son-in-law at a much higher rate than other land.

Bonds not competitively bid on the project.

No request for proposal (RFP) on the project.

Failure of St. Peters to keep proper documentation of records on the project.

State Auditor Susan Montee noted the project was "at risk" because the city had not secured final approval from FEMA and she also discussed the other problems mentioned above. However, Montee offered no explanation as to why there was a hold up with FEMA and ignored all the problems set out in her audit when she stated publicly that St. Peters "was a clean city." The Post article further illustrates what a poor job Montee did on her audit and how St. Peters officials have taken unnecessary risks with the taxpayers money.

You Paid For It returns to O'Fallon

2008-02-24T23:04:00.002-06:00

You Paid For It is airing another segment on O'Fallon, Mo. Monday night. The You Paid For It team covers wasteful government spending and was in O'Fallon a few weeks ago regarding a story about the Koch Road scandal. Promos running on Fox 2 indicate Monday's story will be about O'Fallon's crumbling roads.

During former Mayor Paul Renaud's tenure as mayor, his friends in the building community (and his employer McBride & Sons) were able to pass ordinances that lowered the standards under which streets had to be poured. In addition, the city failed to properly inspect the work on streets by the developers and it later turned out many of these streets did not meet the lowered standards. Under Mayor Donna Morrow and City Administrator Bob Lowery, the city has returned escrow money to developers who failed to properly pour streets. I'm not sure if this is the angle You Paid For It will be covering but it is a story the residents need to hear.

60 Minutes looks at Karl Rove's Justice Department

2008-02-24T20:52:00.005-06:00

60 Minutes aired its much anticipated story entitled The Prosecution Of Governor Siegelman tonight. Siegelman is the former Democratic governor of Alabama who was convicted of bribery. The main charge against Siegelman was that he gave a position on a state board to businessman Richard Scrushy, in return for a substantial contribution from Scrushy to a campaign to bring a lottery to Alabama. Siegelman was a proponent of the lottery.

The 60 Minutes story looks at two issues with the case, (1) Was Siegelman targeted by the Justice Department for political reasons; and, (2) Was Siegelman guilty. Karl Rove, who played an integral role in the Siegelman case, has refused to discuss his role and the White House and Justice Department have not cooperated with an investigation by Congress. The Siegelman case is just one part of a series of allegations regarding the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department for political purposes.

For those of you in Republican St. Charles County who wonder how the people involved in widespread corruption continue to go untouched, take a look at this video and remember our County Prosecuter, Jack Banas, and US Attorney, Catherine Hanaway, are both Republicans.

Obama is a "thoroughly dangerous man!"

2008-02-24T14:02:00.008-06:00

1973 at the Dew Drop Inn, Jackson, Mississippi on a Saturday night. (From Uneasy Rider, Charlie Daniels)

Now he let out a yell that would curl your hair,
But before he could move I grabbed me a chair,
And said, "Watch him folk, 'cause he's a thoroughly dangerous man.
Well, you may not know it, but this man's a spy.
He's a undercover agent for the FBI,
And he's been sent out here to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan.

"He was still bent over, holdin' on to his knee,
But everybody else was looking' and listenin' to me,
And I laid it on thicker and heavier as I went.
I said, "Would you believe this man has gone as far
As tearing `Wallace' stickers off the bumpers o' cars,
And he voted for George McGovern for President."

"Well, he's a friend of them long-haired, hippy-type, pinko fags,
I betcha he's even got a Commie flag,
Tacked up on the wall inside o' his garage.
He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys,
He may look dumb, but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

2008 at the Republican National Convention, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, September 1-4.

Now his ole lady told that crowd
What she thinks of our country, she ain't proud
And he don't seem bothered at all by that.
Hell, with a last name like Obama
He's surely an undercover agent for Osama
And he's been sent out here as a Democrat.

I been told he won't pledge to our flag
But that's no surprise from a pinko fag
And he ain't really Christian like you and me.
His preacher is a friend of Louis Farrakhan
Barack wants to talk to the nuts in Iran
And he's probably still on drugs, we should make him pee.

I'm sure he's a Muslim from his name
And those people just don't think the same
Cause they're spending their time reading the Koran
He can't be trusted, I tell ya guys
He may talk nice, but that's a disguise
Because this Obama is a thoroughly dangerous man.

Did Busplunge break the blog ranking code?

2008-02-22T17:08:00.001-06:00

Last Sunday I wrote:

I was ranked as the fifteenth most influential political blog in Missouri last week by Blognetnews.com. I'm not sure what that means but the 100 Year Old Weblog, which posts stories from 100 years ago, was 18. If they ever make it to the 1950's I'm toast.

Well the 100 Year Old Blog stayed true to its name but it still flew past me as I dropped two spots to number 17 while 100 Year jumped all the way to number 11. How Blognetnews comes up with these rankings is a mystery even after you read its explanation:

BlogNetNews' Blogosphere Influence Rating combines a variety of data sets to determine which blogs are most powerfully influencing the direction of the Missouri political blogosphere. The exact method BNN uses to calculate influence scores must remain proprietary in order to prevent attempts to game the system. BNN's methodology takes into account the fact that all Internet data is profoundly limited in its reliability by using multiple data sets that, when combined, reveal a fair picture of activity in the blogosphere.

Huh? I still haven't figured out how McDonalds makes its special sauce so I'll have to leave the interpretation of that explanation to others. And while I'm not sure if Jim at the Busplunge (coming in at a solid number 7) can tell me what all this means, he may have found the key to the code. In a post titled Homosexual Males Prefer The Color Blue, Busplunge explains the results of its week long study in which "homosexual" or "gay" were the subject of numerous posts. Jim's theory was that posts that covered these subjects would propel him up the Blognetnews rankings and at weeks end he moved up from number 14 to number 7.

While I still haven't figured out how to put this information to use, we should all applaud Busplunge for sharing the results of the experiment. Just think of what could have happened if this information fell into the hands of someone less scrupulous than Jim at Busplunge? I'm not sure we are ready for the 100 Year Old Gay Weblog.

Wake Up Call Review

2008-02-22T15:50:00.003-06:00

Here are this week's most popular posts:

Missouri Political Idol was a runaway favorite and I may have a new episode next week. I never got to a new top ten list so I hope to do that next week as well as a further look at ethics in journalism. By the way, the Suburban Journal still hasn't corrected its "mistake" on the Koch Road scandal although the information has now been provided to the publisher, two editors, the reporter and the corporate headquarters in Iowa of the Journal's owner, Lee Enterprises. I'm not sure if it is even fair to discuss the Journal in regards to ethics in journalism anymore, instead maybe we should just consider it an advertising circular.

If anyone has any comments, story ideas or criticism, you can leave a comment on the blog anonymously or send me an email at rfisc82376@aol.com.

Jetton released as trade for honest politician falls through

2008-02-22T14:43:00.001-06:00

The State of Missouri announced today that it has released its Speaker of the House, Rod Jetton after trade talks broke down. Jetton has had a controversial career with the state and last year he was accused of putting his own interests ahead of the teams. Jetton's contract expires later this year and many believe he has been using his employer's resources to find work. Apparently the last strike for Jetton was when he accused some of his employers of being "lazy."

Efforts to trade Jetton centered on obtaining an honest politician in return but team officials indicated the market was inundated with dishonest, mean spirited, self centered politicians like Jetton. "The only offer we got was for that new kid playing for the feds, Nathan Cooper, but we don't see much of a difference between the two," said a team official speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Lets be honest, we made a mistake when we originally signed Jetton and we can't expect someone to give us something of value for him," the official went on to state.

When reached for comment Jetton said he already has an offer to play for a new franchise proposed for Plasterville but Jetton indicated he expected other offers as well. "I still have a lot to offer," Jetton stated, "besides, when you been around the game as long as I have you can always call in a few favors."

Susan Montee has no credibility

2008-02-21T17:09:00.002-06:00

Susan Montee released her audit report on Governor Matt Blunt's office and unless she comes out and announces what a clean office he runs we should ignore everything she does and says here on out. After Montee audited St. Peters she stated publicly it was on of the cleanest city's she had audited. However, as I stated in one of my posts about the audit (links are set out below);

When reviewing the audit one should also consider that former Mayor Tom Brown was not only guilty of "abuse" regarding the land sale but Montee completely failed to mention that Brown and the city were found to have unjustly interfered with a local business because the owner dared to speak out against Brown and the city. This could end up costing the residents over a million dollars. Couple this with the fact that Tom Brown's successor, Shawn Brown, is in federal prison for bribery and you get a picture that St. Peters is not a clean city but instead it is one of the dirtier cities in the region. Based upon the facts, I challenge anyone to claim St. Peters is a clean city.

Montee's public statements about the St. Peters audit were in stark contrast to what she reported not to mention what she failed to report. The allegations she raises against Blunt appear to be much less serious then the issues she failed to adequately report in St. Peters and her credibility should be called into question by anyone reporting on her findings. Republicans are already claiming Montee's audit is politically motivated and anyone who has seen her work would have to agree.

Susan Montee's audit of St. Peters should be investigated

St. Peters is a dirty city-Part 1

St. Peters is a dirty city-Part 2

Is O'Fallon looking for new source of income?

2008-02-20T16:25:00.001-06:00

O'Fallon officials have asked the state to increase the amount of fines cities in St. Charles County can levy against someone who violates city ordinances. Currently the maximum fines are limited to $500.00 by state statute and O'Fallon wants it increased to $1000.00. In an article which appeared in the O'Fallon Journal, O'Fallon Mayor Donna Morrow claims the changes are needed because more serious charges are being handled in Municipal Court.

If that is true O'Fallon has only itself to blame. Serious criminal matters should always be filed at the state level as a misdemeanor or felony and if O'Fallon is keeping cases at the Municipal level that involve more serious charges it is doing so by choice. The Journal article notes that the most serious cases the city courts deal with are for assault and harassment, however, these types of cases can almost always be filed as state charges.

The article states:

The case that touched off (Scott)Rupp's legislation involved a young man who in 2007 was accused of sending thousands of harassing messages to a 17-year-old girl, Stephanie Price, through her Internet MySpace account, Morrow said. Stephanie Price told her parents, who contacted police. O'Fallon police tried to offer the case to the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney's office, which didn't take it, said O'Fallon municipal prosecuting attorney Larry Nesslage. County Prosecutor Jack Banas has said, in turn, that O'Fallon police did not file a formal application for charges with his office. O'Fallon police then issued the young man a summons for harassment. Nesslage later changed the charge to littering and gave the defendant the maximum fine, $500. Nesslage said he couldn't charge the young man with harassment because of the way the harassment statutes are written.

Nesslage's statement (in the bold above) makes absolutely no sense. If it was true that Nesslage couldn't bring harassment charges (which I don't believe) then his duty as a prosecutor is to dismiss the case or refer it to the County Prosecutor. How does Nesslage explain charging the defendant with littering?

What almost certainly happened here is that O'Fallon kept a case it should have referred to the County. The defendant then hired an attorney who negotiated a plea agreement with Nesslage. Littering is frequently the end result of a plea bargain in Municipal Court and it makes no sense to charge someone with a crime they didn't commit (littering) because you can't bring charges for a crime they did commit (harassment.) The article indicates the victim was not happy with the disposition of the case, therefore, my guess is that O'Fallon is trying to cover its actions at this point.

Going back to why O'Fallon wants to increase its fines, the most obvious and common explanation probably applies, the city wants more money. O'Fallon is deep in debt and needs money now to deal with major problems such as its sewer system and an understaffed and poorly equipped police force. Residents of O'Fallon should be wary of Morrow's claims the city wants to get "tough on crime" because the end result is likely to be the opposite. O'Fallon will be even more tempted to file charges in Municipal Court so that it can tap in to a new source of revenue.

Missouri Political Idol

2008-02-20T12:03:00.003-06:00

While the political junkies were following the news on Election 2008, most of the people watching TV were tuned in to American Idol. Luckily, I came across a show that combines politics and music; ladies and gentlemen welcome to Missouri Political Idol.

Nathan Cooper got the show off to a great start with his rendition of I Fought The Law And The Law Won which was followed by Chuck Graham doing his best Frank Sinatra on One for My Baby (And One More for the Road.) Peter Kinder gave one fan at least 100 million reasons to cheer with his version of Willie Nelson's Me and Paul. Colonel Jack Jackson, who had originally planned on singing Matt Blunt's selection agreed to sing another song, however, Kinder ended up taking Jackson's second choice. Jackson finally settled on the Big & Rich song, Never Mind Me but later withdrew from the competition to help another contestant.

The show was stopped for a while when Kit Bond's version of Big Boss Man was interrupted by Sam Graves who started singing Time Will Tell by Bob Marley. However, the show went on and Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser dedicated his song, Why Don't You Get a Job, to his wife Gloria Squitiro and she later took the stage herself to sing the Pam Tillis song Don't Tell Me What To Do. The judges were all impressed by Jeff Roe's heartfelt cover of Low Life by the Police which was followed by Paul McKee's song, which he dedicated to his friends in North St. Louis, Eve of Destruction.

Also in the competition were;

Jay Nixon singing Lucky Man.

Kay Barnes who covered David Allan Coe's You Never Even Called Me By My Name.

Sarah Steelman who sang Look At Me, an old Buddy Holly song.

Rod Jetton's cover of the Todd Snider song Looking For a Job.

Chris Koster singing Party of One.

Finally, Matt Blunt closed out the show with a medley starting with Sittin' On Top Of The World, followed by an old Marty Robbins song, I Can't Quit (I've Gone Too Far) and closing with Fade Away by Oasis. Next week's show should be interesting as each singer gets to pick a song to send a message to their fans, however, the show has already caused infighting between the contestants about who will be allowed to sing John Lee Hooker's song I Need Some Money. Stay tuned.

Ethics in journalism-Part I

2008-02-19T11:19:00.001-06:00

I have discussed on here the failure of the Suburban Journals and the Post-Dispatch (both are owned by Lee Enterprises) to cover stories in St. Charles County which were negative to their major advertisers. In fact, both papers have done stories highly critical of those who have dared to speak out against the control the builders/developers (major advertisers in the papers) have over politics in St. Charles. In the opinion of many, this slanted coverage is a direct result of the money spent on advertising and this has been going on for years. However, in this post I want to discuss another potential form of bias relating to an editor seeking a job from a municipal government they are responsible for covering.

Brad Mudd was the managing editor of the St. Charles Journals (including the O'Fallon Journal)back in 2004. This was a time when allegations of corruption involving builders/developers and city officials in O'Fallon were widespread. Many of the allegations were later found to be true in a state audit and through documents obtained by citizens. However, the O'Fallon Journal and the Post failed to report on these issues for the most part. Some of the most damning evidence was obtained from a request to O'Fallon for emails. The city attempted to illegally delete the emails but someone failed to delete the deleted emails file before the CDs were given to a citizen. When the city learned of its mistake it sent out the police chief in an attempt to get the CDs back and later had its attorney send threatening letters. The CDs were not returned and copies were later distributed to other citizens and the Journal and Post.

One of the emails read as follows:

Cheryl, I had heard from a little birdie that Dave Dorr resigned as the PR director for the city. I have tried to contact him to wish him well, but have not heard back.

The main reason I'm sending you this message is to see if the city has anyone in mind for the position. The position is not listed on the city's Web site under employment opportunities. I am interested in applying for the position if it is open. Any advice on timing and how I should apply for the job would be much appreciated. As you can probably imagine, I would not like it to be widely known that I have an interest in working for the city.

Thank you for any information you can give me.

Brad

Cheryl refers to former O'Fallon alderman Cheryl Hibbeler and the sender is Brad Mudd of the Journal. The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics which is considered the standard to which journalists are held. Under the heading Act Independently the code of ethics state:

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know. Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Mr. Mudd had every right to seek other employment, however, once he took a job as a journalist he presumably agreed to follow the code of ethics for journalists. There can be no doubt that a person seeking employment from O'Fallon is not likely to report unfavorable information on the city and Mudd's actions violated the code of ethics in several respects. In addition, the code of ethics requires that unavoidable conflicts be disclosed, however, this was not an unavoidable conflict but was one that Mr. Mudd chose. The Journal was made aware of this conflict but has never disclosed this information to its readers.

I would be interested in hearing from others regarding what they believe the Journal should have done and whether the paper still has an obligation to report the conflict to its readers.

Fish & Ships

2008-02-18T16:52:00.003-06:00

On tomorrow's Fish & Ships program (the most dangerous 15 minutes on the radio) we will discuss;

President's day with a look at the best and worst President's poll.

Roger Clemens and Spygate.

Jon Dolan's potential comeback to politics.

WARNING: Residents of St. Peters are reminded that the city does not recognize free speech.

The Sunday Funnies?

2008-02-17T08:54:00.001-06:00

A recent Harris poll ranked the top ten U.S. presidents with Abe Lincoln leading the way. George W. Bush, whose approval ratings have dropped to 30%, finished tenth. The poll also found that 100% of those polled could not name 11 presidents.

Speaking of polls, a recent poll by Wake Up Call revealed that 100% of those I polled had never been polled.
I was ranked as the fifteenth most influential political blog in Missouri last week by Blognetnews.com. I'm not sure what that means but the 100 Year Old Weblog, which posts stories from 100 years ago, was 18. If they ever make it to the 1950's I'm toast.
Speaking of old news, I found a copy of an O'Fallon Journal from 1948 which reported "Dewey Defeats Truman." A spokesmen for the Journal indicated the paper never ran a correction and that he was unsure what the problem was with the story.
Spring training has started and word out of the Cardinal camp is Tony LaRussa is considering batting the pitcher first this year. According to LaRussa this would be like having 8 lead off hitters.
Could there be any worse example of government waste than Kansas having an office for tourism and travel? Attractions like The World's Largest Ball of Twine really don't need any help from the government do they?
Roger Clemens needs to understand the "I'm not here to talk about the past" defense doesn't work after you've been charged with perjury.
There have been a string of faintings recently at rallies for Barack Obama. Meanwhile the McCain camp reports a string of scooter accidents.

What is Steve Ehlmann hiding?

2008-02-16T20:15:00.001-06:00

In August of 2007 state lawmakers passed a lengthy bill (SB 22) which made numerous changes to Missouri laws affecting municipal government. SB 22 was filled with so many changes to the law that our elected representatives were voting to change laws without any knowledge of the reasons for the changes or even what was being changed. This type of legislation allows for legislators to sneak in changes to laws which benefit special interests or even one or two "friends" of the legislator.

One example of this was the change in the law on how to incorporate as a Village in Missouri. Rod Jetton has never fully answered questions regarding his role in changing this law but once the new law went into effect, Jetton's friend and contributor, developer Robert Plaster filed under the new law to incorporate his land as a Village. While Jetton and the new law were widely criticized, a similar change in a law (Section 228.110) on how to vacate a public road has been ignored. However, like the Village law, the change in this law appears to be done to help a developer and builder on one project, this time in St. Charles County. Of course, that road is Koch Road which has been the subject of legislation in O'Fallon, St. Charles County and Jefferson City, each time in an attempt to give this public property free of charge to a developer.

I spoke with one of the sponsors of the change in the road vacation law this week, Rep. Doug Funderburk, R-O'Fallon. Funderburk explained to me that he was contacted by St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann who lobbied for the change. This caught me by surprise because Ehlmann had requested a meeting with three of the residents involved in the Koch Road dispute a few weeks ago. At that meeting Ehlmann volunteered to the residents that he had no involvement in the changes made to the law in Jefferson City. Ehlmann also told St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazil that he had nothing to do with the changes made at the state level. This directly conflicts with Funderburk's statement that Ehlmann was the only person who contacted him regarding this change.

At the time I spoke with Funderburk I had no reason to doubt Ehlmann's statements regarding his involvement in the state legislation and I never asked Funderburk if Ehlmann played a role in the matter. Funderburk was simply explaining the reasons why he supported the legislation, reasons which came mostly from Ehlmann's lobbying efforts.

So it appears Ehlmann is lying about his role in changing a state law to benefit a builder and developer on one project in O'Fallon, but why? It is already a matter of public record that under Ehlmann's leadership the county has ignored the illegal destruction of Koch Road and O'Fallon's deliberate false statements regarding New Koch Road. It is also a matter of record that under Ehlmann, the county has failed to protect the interests of the citizens but instead has advocated on behalf of his builder/developer friends. The large sums of campaign contributions Ehlmann has received from builders and developers is also public information, including those who directly benefit from Ehlmann's positions on Koch Road.

So what is Steve Ehlmann hiding? I emailed Ehlmann the information about his "contradictory" statements on Monday and he has not offered an explanation or response. My guess is Ehlmann wanted to keep his role as a (paid?) lobbyist for the builders and developers a secret. However, with everything else we know about Ehlmann, why would anyone be surprised.

Fight is on to stop eminent domain abuse

2008-02-16T12:09:00.001-06:00

Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (CPR) is a grass roots organization fighting to put an end to eminent domain abuse in Missouri. Eminent Domain is a process by which the government can take property away from private citizens to put that property to a "public use." However, our elected representatives and courts have expanded the meaning of "public use" to a point in which property is often taken from private citizens to be used for another private purpose. Even when eminent domain is used for a proper purpose, the process is stacked against property owners. Faced with overwhelming public support for a change in how and when government can use eminent domain our elected representatives did what the do best, talk a big game while passing legislation that fails to address the concerns of Missourians.

For this reason CPR is working to correct this issue in one of the purest forms of democracy, an initiative petition to amend the constitution to stop our government from abusing its power of eminent domain. While I think we should be very cautious anytime we are asked to amend our constitution, our elected representatives have shown us time and again that they cannot be trusted with the power of eminent domain. There are many ways to join in this fight including;

volunteering to gather signatures

donating money to the cause

signing the petitions

talking about the fight with friends and neighbors

For more information on how to help or to learn about why this is important visit the web site of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights.

Wake Up Call Review

2008-02-15T17:54:00.003-06:00

Here are this week's most popular posts:

Top ten reasons Kinder dropped out

WARNING: THE JOURNAL HAS BEEN FOUND TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION

Friends don't ask friends to lie under oath.

Can I get a Big Mac, an order of campaign finance reform and a large coke?

Does the O'Fallon Journal have a credibility problem?

Apparently the top ten lists are favorites as my top ten list on Rod Jetton (Top ten "explanations" Jetton supported Village law) was also one of the more popular pages. I hope to have another top ten list next week as well as more on media bias, Steve Ehlmann, Koch Road and the presidential election. If anyone has any comments, story ideas or criticism, you can leave a comment on the blog anonymously or send me an email at rfisc82376@aol.com.

Is Jon Dolan ready for the scrutiny?

2008-02-15T17:14:00.001-06:00

Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Tribune reports today in his Politics Blog that Jon Dolan is considering running for Kenny Hulshof's seat in the Ninth Congressional District. Dolan resigned his seat in Missouri’s Second Senatorial District in 2006 to become the Executive Director of the Missouri Health Care Association, a long term care trade association in the state that represents skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and businesses serving the long term care profession. Dolan moved to Jefferson City after he quit the State Senate and no longer lives in the Ninth District, although that is not a requirement to run.

Maybe Dolan thinks the residents in this area forgot how he quit on them to take a more lucrative job in private industry, however, how can Dolan ever make a claim he is seeking public office for any reason other than his own personal gain? Of course, he could simply admit he wants the job because of the increase in pay and other "benefits."

If Dolan decides to run for office a few issues that went away when he quit may resurface. One of those issues involves allegations of a cover up involving a drug overdose death at the home of former state representative Don Kissell. Kissell's daughter was sentenced to 8 years for her role in the death. Former O'Fallon Police Chief Steve Talbott was fired by the city, in part, because of his handling of the investigation. St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas criticized the O'Fallon police department's work on the case. Dolan had contact with Talbott and Kissell the day of the murder and O'Fallon officials alleged Dolan changed his story on what he was told by Talbott.

Another issue of concern with Dolan is his relationship with developer Paul McKee. McKee has been the focus of increased scrutiny because of his involvement in buying land in North St. Louis. Last year McKee's lawyers helped draft legislation which could award him 100 million dollars in tax credits. Dolan has told people how much he looks up to McKee and that he considers McKee his mentor. Up to this point McKee's influence over politics in St. Charles County has all but been ignored by the media.

Dolan can be assured that the issues he left behind when he walked out on his last job as an elected official are going to resurface if he decides to re enter the political arena. He cannot count on a complacent media to keep quiet in a high profile race for Congress, and a well financed opponent and the increased popularity of political coverage on the Internet will result in a new political world than the one Dolan left behind in 2006. I'm not sure someone with Dolan's temperament is cut out for such a race. And I don't believe we will find out.

Suburban Journal leaders meet with Wake Up Call

2008-02-15T10:32:00.002-06:00

Regular readers of this blog are aware of the problems with the Suburban Journal's coverage of St. Charles County. I have pointed out in detail the Journal's "mistakes" in regard to the Koch Road scandal, which is a result of the paper protecting one of its biggest advertisers (McBride & Sons) in my opinion. Elizabeth Perry has been covering the story for the Journal, therefore, her reporting has been the focal point of much of my criticism. After Ms. Perry mislead the Journal's readers again this week about the Koch Road story she responded to an email I sent her by asking that I not contact her anymore. To be quite honest, I was surprised by how long it took her to get to that point.

Another reporter for the Journal, Steve Pokin, had manufactured a quote he attributed to me in a story he wrote a couple of years ago. After several emails in which I asked Pokin to provide me the source of the quote, Pokin finally responded by saying it was in an email I had sent him. Pokin was unable to produce the email and when I forwarded him copies of all of our emails Pokin simply quit responding to me. Two years later and Pokin still hasn't admitted his mistake or responded to me and I imagine he advised Perry long ago to follow his cowardly ways.

When Pokin quit talking to me he claimed he did so at the request of his editor, however, his editor also quit responding to my requests that the Journal correct Pokin's false report. The Journal is taking a different approach this time as evidenced by the following email I received from Dave Bundy;

I'm the editorial director for the Suburban Journals. I oversee the news operations for all 31 of our publications across the Greater St. Louis area. I understand that you have not been happy with the way Elizabeth Perry and Erin Schultz have addressed your complaints regarding Koch Road and related issues. Suburban Journals Publisher Bob Williams and I have reviewed your blog entries, so we have some familiarity with your situation. But it would benefit us if you would sit down with Bob, Erin and me to see if there's more we can or should be doing. Would you be available to meet for about at hour at 4 p.m. on Thursday at our office in St. Peters? I'm not certain we can make you entirely happy, but I'd like to make certain you feel you've been listened to.

So at 4:00 PM yesterday I went to the Journal's office in St. Peters. The meeting lasted about 40 minutes, with about half of that time wasted on Bob Williams, the publisher, and Erin Schultz (an editor) asking me to clarify my issues with the Journal's coverage on Koch Road, something I have done to the point where there can be no legitimate failure to understand. Of course, these are not "my issues" anyway and the Journal's repeated "mistakes" in its reporting are issues which call into question the credibility of everything the paper is reporting. When I asked the simple question as to why the Journal had not corrected its mistakes or reported the full story, Mr. Williams simply ignored the question and responded by telling me that I was wrong in my opinion regarding the influence big advertisers have over the Journal's coverage. And so it went for 40 minutes.

While I'd like to think the Journal met with me because it really wants to report the news fairly and accurately, I suspect something else is at play here. My guess is that the Journal has an unhappy reporter in Perry who is tired of taking the heat for the paper's refusal to truthfully report the news about Koch Road. The meeting yesterday was an attempt to appease me while making Perry think the Journal is doing something. From the questions I was asked about the time tables involved in the various lawsuits filed over Koch Road, I think the Journal was trying to figure out how much time it has before it will have to report on this story again. And when the Journal does report on Koch Road my bet is that it will simply avoid any aspect of the story which brings into question the illegal destruction of the road.

I could be wrong about why the Journal wanted to meet with me and I hope I am. However, the Journal didn't need to meet with me if all it wanted to do was report the news truthfully. Correcting past mistakes and reporting the news truthfully in the future would do a lot more than meeting with one vocal critic.

Is Obama the next Ronald Reagan?

2008-02-14T12:36:00.004-06:00

Conservatives who worked themselves into a lather because John McCain was not a Reagan Republican are now trying to come to grips with McCain as the proverbial "lesser of two evils" candidate. However, if conservatives really want the next Reagan, maybe all they need to do is look on the Democratic side at Barack Obama. Obama shares many of the same attributes that got Reagan elected, i.e. charismatic personality, good public speaker, call for "change" and he is viewed as a Washington outsider.

Of course, conservatives want to believe Reagan's popularity was due more to his conservative principles rather than his personality. However, how do they explain the election of Senators and Congressmen whose stated beliefs were in stark contrast to Reagan's? Or why the American people have not elected a "Reagan Republican" for president since? Did the American people change from their conservative values once Reagan left office?

The answer is that we elect presidents more on personality than policy, a fact conservatives do not want to admit because it reveals the myth of the Reagan revolution. While I applaud conservatives who put their principles ahead of blind allegiance to a party, they need to realize the voters are looking for a very different "next Ronald Reagan" and that this person may very well be a Democrat.

Friends don't ask friends to lie under oath.

2008-02-13T22:54:00.005-06:00

What would you do if you were asked to testify under oath about something damaging to a close friend? I think most people would start by questioning what they are being asked to testify about in hopes of convincing themselves they could be wrong. If there was no question their testimony would be damaging to their friend the next question would be whether to lie. In the end most of us would do what Andy Pettitte did. Pettitte signed an affidavit stating his close friend and former teammate Roger Clemens told him he had used HGH.

Clemens went before Congress today to protect his reputation against allegations that he used steroids and/or HGH. The allegations were raised by Brian McNamee, Clemens former personal trainer. However, much more damaging to Clemens was the affidavit filed by Pettitte. Clemens claims Pettitte "misheard" him or "misremembers" what he said but that he still considers Pettitte a friend. You can be sure that Clemens did everything he could to convince Pettitte he "misremembered" what Clemens told him and that Pettitte did everything he could to convince himself his friend was right. Which makes Pettitte's testimony even more compelling.

If Clemens is lying you have to wonder what kind of person he is to force his "friend" into this position. Do you know anyone who would put a friend in this position? I do but I'll save that story for another day.

Paper reports on illegal destruction of Koch Road

2008-02-13T13:59:00.001-06:00

In an article which appeared in the February 9, 2008 edition of the First Capitol News, the story of the illegal destruction of Koch Road is reported. The article, entitled Here's The Story About Koch Road Controversy, looks into the role of former county councilmen Bob Schnur in the scandal and lays out a time line of the case.

Let's hope that the increased media attention of this abuse by builders, developers and our elected representatives will force the mainstream media to take note. At the very least maybe the Journal and the Post will be shamed into reporting the facts.

Can I get a Big Mac, an order of campaign finance reform and a large coke?

2008-02-12T19:07:00.000-06:00

Three legislators from Mississippi recently proposed a bill to prohibit restaurants from serving fat people. Apparently the purpose of this bill is to fight obesity, which is kind of like trying to stop people from smoking pot by banning the sale of munchies to people who are stoned. Or like using campaign finance reform to stop corrupt politicians.

While lawmakers in Mississippi or trying to stop fat people from buying Whoppers, in Missouri we are trying to stop fat cats from buying politicians. Missouri legislators pretend they can do this through campaign finance laws, a favorite tool of politicians to make the voters think their elected representatives are doing something. Politicians who favor reform argue, in the words of State Representative Jeff Smith D-St. Louis, that "we don't want government to be auctioned off to the highest bidder." This is an interesting statement in that the "we" Smith is talking about obviously includes him, while the "government" includes those unnamed government officials who can be bought.

This type of statement is typical of the "honest" reformers who want to limit the ability of wealthy individuals and businesses to corrupt their "dishonest" colleagues. However, I have yet to see a campaign finance reform law that donors and donees have not found a way around and that does not even consider the more direct forms of bribery. And make no mistake about it, when Smith talks about auctioning government off to the highest bidder, he is claiming there is a problem with bribery. While I agree with Mr. Smith's assessment of the problem, his solution of campaign finance reform ignores the direct solution, prosecutions.

Making politicians get their money under the table isn't going to stop corruption anymore than making obese people eat at their tables at home rather that at restaurants is going to cure obesity. Instead what "reformers" like Jeff Smith need to do is start naming names of the corrupt officials they claim to be protecting us from so that the guilty parties can be prosecuted. And while you're at it Mr. Smith, Super Size it.

Fish & Ships

2008-02-11T16:55:00.000-06:00

On tomorrow's Fish & Ships program (the most dangerous 15 minutes on the radio) we will discuss;

The Kirkwood tragedy

The federal stimulus package (Is Lyn Schipper finally seeing the light about Republicans?)

The coverage by the Post and Journal of Koch Road and

The Missouri gubernatorial race

WARNING: Residents of St. Peters are warned that prolonged exposure to Fish & Ships may cause you to question authority.

Rod Jetton's mouth is a Democrats' best friend

2008-02-10T23:45:00.000-06:00

Rod Jetton spoke at the annual Lincoln Days gathering of Missouri Republicans and, as is usually the case, he did not disappoint...Democrats. Jetton, who suffers from an incurable case of athletes mouth, shared his thoughts on illegal immigrants with his fellow Republicans. According to a report by Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch;

Jetton ignited even more applause when he said illegal immigration was to some degree the public's fault. "I hate to tell you, but there are a lot of lazy Missourians out there who don't want to work," Jetton said. "I'd like to trade some of our people for some of the Mexicans who work so hard." Jetton isn't running for re-election this fall and plans to focus on his political consulting business. Hulshof is among the candidates who have been cited as potential Jetton clients.

Jetton's statement is interesting in several respects. First, it is probably not a good idea for a guy looking to drum up business for his "political consulting" business to attack his target audience. However, Jetton's statement also shed light on the big lie that Missouri Republicans want to do something about illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is important to the big business contributors the Republicans rely on and Jetton's statement is right out of the PR department of the industries which violate the law by employing the illegals.

While Jetton's statement was probably shared by the group of elitist Republicans he was speaking to, it was certainly inconsistent with the "party line" which Republicans are selling to get elected. It was also inconsistent with the rank and file membership of the party. You would think a "political consultant" would know this.

WARNING: THE JOURNAL HAS BEEN FOUND TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION

2008-02-10T21:22:00.000-06:00

If papers were required to warn their readers of the dangers of their product as other products are, the Suburban Journal would be required to place in big bold letters the following; WARNING: THE JOURNAL HAS BEEN FOUND TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION. As I have reported in detail (Does the O'Fallon Journal have a credibility problem?) the O'Fallon Journal has not only failed to report on the actions of one of its biggest advertisers, McBride & Sons, in illegally destroying a a public road but the Journal has actually reported false information on this story. Despite having been fully informed of the truth, the Journal continues in its attempt to protect the guilty parties.

In an article dated February 9, 2008 entitled Koch Road Case Continues, the writer, Elizabeth Perry reports,

Last year, St. Charles County Circuit Judge Lucy Rauch determined St. Charles County was wrong in deeming the road "useless," a decision that led to the destruction of that portion of road and homes being built on the property.

A reader unfamiliar with the facts (i.e. readers of the Journal and Post-Dispatch) are led to believe that St. Charles County's finding that Koch Road was "useless," allowed McBride & Sons (and the developer Hyland Green) to tear out the road. This is absolutely false and Ms. Perry and her editor Erin Schultz are aware this is false. However, by reporting the story in a false light the Journal is able to protect McBride & Sons from further exposure of its illegal actions.

The Journal promotes itself as providing "the most comprehensive coverage" of the St. Louis area. Journal readers should be warned that the Journal's "coverage" is limited to news, whether true or not, it wants to report.

Top ten reasons Kinder dropped out

2008-02-08T22:49:00.000-06:00

Peter Kinder announced that he was dropping out of the Missouri governor's race tonight in Springfield. Kinder stated he dropped out to avoid a fight in the Republican primary. However, in a Wake Up Call exclusive, we have the top ten real reasons Kinder dropped out of the race. Drum roll please...

10. Republican leaders convinced him it was better to be a Lieutenant and a governor.

9. Wants to finish work on 100 million dollar tax credit for guys with first name of Paul and last name of McKee.

8 Decided to challenge Rod Jetton for mayor in Village of Plasterville.

7. Tired of being bullied by Kit Bond on MySpace account.

6. Decided to take position as political crony in Ehlmann administration.

5. Wants to spend more time collecting urine samples at Tour of Missouri.

4. Hulshof gave in to demands for access to delete button.

3. Wasn't interested in moving in with Nathan Cooper.

2. Afraid those "dumb animals" were going to kick his a**.

1. Accomplished everything he set out to in campaign for governor.

Wake Up review

2008-02-08T17:51:00.000-06:00

This weeks most popular pages are as follows:

Does the O'Fallon Journal have a credibility problem?

Does Bob Lowery believe complying with the law is frivolous?

The Journal's response to allegations of favoritism

No charges in Megan Meyer case

You Paid For It on Koch Road

The stories about the O'Fallon Journal's coverage of Koch Road have been very popular and have generated a lot of discussion. I will be following up on this story and the Koch Road scandal in the coming weeks. Searches on Google regarding the Megan Meyer case have brought people from all over the world to my site and the You Paid For It story on Koch Road continues to generate interest. Fox 2 has links to some of my posts on its You Paid For It page. As always, if anyone has any comments, story ideas or criticism, you can leave a comment on the blog anonymously or send me an email to rfisc82376@aol.com.

Roe lawsuit allowed to go forward at this time

2008-02-08T11:45:00.000-06:00

The motion to dismiss filed by Joe Brazil against Jeff Roe was denied today. Brazil originally filed a lawsuit against Roe for libel regarding false allegations Roe posted on his web site, The Source, about a tragic accident that occurred back in 1982. Roe then filed a counter claim against Brazil apparently claiming Brazil was the source of information for a column which appeared in the First Capitol News calling Roe "a political assassin." Roe has also sued First Capitol.

In ruling on Brazil's motion to dismiss the issue is simply whether a cause of action is stated. The court is required to assume Roe's allegations in the lawsuit are true and then determine if these allegations would be grounds for a lawsuit. Roe's lawsuit could still be dismissed at a later date by the court or all of the cases could proceed to trial. This ruling has no effect on Brazil's lawsuit against Roe.

The Journal's response to allegations of favoritism

2008-02-06T21:00:00.000-06:00

Prior to posting my story on the Journal's coverage, I sent a draft to the paper's editor, Erin Schultz. I asked her to let me know if my post contained any factual mistakes. Ms. Schultz's response to my email stated; "Rick, here is my response. I respectfully request that it be posted in full. Thank you." Her comments are set out in full below;

The Journals have reported on the court's decision that Koch Road was vacated illegally and will continue to report on future decisions about the road. Mr. Fischer has made numerous claims that the Journals are ignoring parts of the story. When asked to elaborate on what he thinks the paper should cover with regard to the road, Mr. Fischer has responded not with answers but with a barrage of false allegations that the newsroom is acting to protect Journal advertisers. These allegations are untrue. The Journals will continue to report independently on the Koch Road issue. We respect Mr. Fischer and his work as a community watchdog, and we welcome his criticism. While we may not always agree with his work, we will not spread false allegations about his character or ethics. We hope he will extend the Journals the same courtesy.

According to Ms. Schultz, the Journal has asked me to "elaborate on what (I) think the paper should cover with regard to the road" and that I have not answered their requests but instead replied with "a barrage of false allegations that the newsroom is acting to protect Journal advertisers." First, let me cover what is true in that statement; I am absolutely alleging the "newsroom" at the Journal is acting to protect its advertisers. Ms. Schultz simply dismisses my allegations as false. Rather than simply dismiss Ms. Schultz allegations as false, I will prove they are false based on the facts.

While I have written in the past about the favorable treatment advertisers receive from the Journal (as well as the Post) the dispute over the Koch Road coverage began when the Journal reported in a November, 20, 2007 story that Koch Road was vacated in 2006. My problem with this was as follows:

Koch Road was not vacated in 2006 and has never been vacated. None of the parties in this matter claim that it was vacated in 2006. This "error" is crucial to the story and avoids reporting the most significant aspects of the scandal which are;
McBride & Sons (builder) and Hyland Green (developer) illegally destroyed a public property when they tore out Koch Road one night in May of 2006. If Koch Road was vacated in 2006, as Ms. Perry reported, the property upon which it ran would belong to McBride and Hyland and they may have had every right to destroy it. However, if it was not vacated then the destruction of the road was not only a violation of the law but also a criminal act.
O'Fallon issued permits to McBride to construct homes right on top of where Koch road ran. Again, if Ms. Perry was correct then O'Fallon may have had the right to issue those permits, however, if Koch Road was still public property, O'Fallon intentionally violated the law to benefit a developer.

It should also be noted their are victims as a result of the illegal actions noted above. The residents in the area of Koch Road have been left without a publicly maintained road in place of Koch Road. The developer has never finished New Koch Road and it does not meet MODOT standards. Residents report the uncompleted intersection with Highway P is dangerous and that there have been several accidents. In addition, the homes McBride built on Koch Road were sold to innocent families who paid close to $300,000 for their dream homes. These families cannot sell or refinance these homes because of the easement for a public road which runs right through their property (and homes in some cases.) The employees who instructed O'Fallon city Administrator Bob Lowery why the city could not issue permits to McBride were fired days before the road was illegally destroyed. These employees have alleged their refusal to violate the law on behalf of the builders is why Lowery fired them.

For these reasons I wanted the Journal to (1) correct its error in reporting the road was vacated in 2006, (2) report the actions of McBride and Hyland in destroying a public road and (3) report O'Fallon's role in unlawfully issuing permits. So did I fail to let the Journal know that these were the issues I wanted the Journal to cover as Ms. Schultz's claims in her comments? You be the judge.

Correct mistake of date Koch Road was vacated.

1. November 20, 2007 phone call to Ms. Perry explaining that she was incorrect in reporting the road was vacated in 2006 and why this was important.

2. November 20, 2007 email to Perry stating "It is very clear that Koch was not ever legally vacated and certainly not vacated when the city issued building permits."

3. November 20, 2007 I posted on here: The Suburban Journal did a story last week about a lawsuit filed against McBride & Sons by residents whose homes were built on a public right of way. The story reported that the right of way was vacated in 2006, however, this is in incorrect. The road has actually never been legally vacated, a point which is crucial to the story and which should bring into question O'Fallon's role in this controversy. However, up to this point neither the Journal nor the Post has covered this angle.

4. December 15, 2007 email: After Ms. Perry again reported the road was vacated in 2006 I emailed her and stated;

--Koch Road was not vacated in 2006 as you reported. I explained this to you in a phone conversation after your last article and you indicated your information came from a previous story written by a different reporter. I provided you detailed information regarding when Koch Rd. was vacated.

5. December 16, 2007; I posted Ms. Perry's second story misstating the date Koch Road was vacated and added my comments which discussed her failure to correct her error and why it was important.

6. December 17, 2007 phone conversations with Perry: I spoke with Perry on a couple of occasions in which we discussed her continuing to misreport that Koch Road was vacated in 2006 and why this was important.

7. December 20, 2007 phone conversation with Perry: Perry tried to debate me on the date Koch Road was vacated. An interesting role for a reporter considering no one involved disputed my claim.

8. January 17, 2008 email to Schultz: I wrote:

--The story that was printed contained numerous mistakes which went uncorrected. The most important of which was the day the road was vacated. Of course, if you report the story truthfully you would then have to report on the illegal destruction of a public road by the area's largest builder.

9. January 17, 2008 email to Schultz: I wrote:

--I will try again. Why wasn't the mistake I noted corrected? Please tell me the Journal's reasoning for not printing that Koch Rd was illegally destroyed by McBride & Sons and Hyland Green?

I could not make my position any clearer that the Journal should correct its "error" in reporting that Koch Road was vacated in 2006. As can be seen above the Journal was also well aware I was claiming they had failed to report (2) the illegal destruction of Koch Road by McBride and Hyland and (3) O'Fallon's role in issuing permits to allow a builder to construct homes on public property. I am not going to go though the entire list of times I let the Journal know what they had failed to cover but this is an example from a December 15 email:

-This story completely avoids the fact O'Fallon issued building permits for homes on a vacated road and that the developer tore out the road and started building on a public road which was not vacated.

As final proof that the Journal is well aware of what I claim they have failed to report here is an email dated January 17, 2008 from Ms. Schultz:

The assertion that the road was illegally destroyed is something I'll continue to look into. It is unwise for any publication to take and reiterate such allegations without investigation, as I'm sure you understand as a publisher yourself. We corrected two factual errors in the story you mentioned. I regret that those errors happened. The other allegations you've made will continue to be looked at. I can't guarantee that you will be happy with our coverage. What I can tell you is that we will continue to look harder at the issues you've raised.

As to Ms. Schultz's claim I have failed to elaborate on what issues I think the Journal should report; CASE CLOSED. As to my allegation that the Journal is protecting one of its biggest advertiser's (McBride & Sons) illegal actions; I submit Ms. Schultz's comments are further proof.

Does the O'Fallon Journal have a credibility problem?

2008-02-06T20:47:00.000-06:00

Prior to posting this story I provided an initial draft to the editor of the O'Fallon Journal, Erin Schultz, and the writer whose reporting I have criticized, Elizabeth Perry. I asked them to let me know if any facts were incorrect, although I was confident in the accuracy of my Post. I received a reply from Ms. Schultz with her comments. She asked if I would post them in full which I have in the comments section. I also am posting her comments in a separate post with my response.

I have covered the Koch Road scandal extensively on this site and, in particular, have focused on the illegal destruction of the road by the developer, Hyland Green, and the builder, McBride & Sons. I have also reported that O'Fallon issued building permits to McBride to build on Koch Road although this was a clear violation of the law (and common sense.) I have referenced the law and records which support the facts I have reported. I have provided this information to the Suburban Journals and Post-Dispatch (both owned by Lee Enterprises) and both papers have covered certain elements of the story without mentioning the two most important aspects of the case, (1) McBride illegally destroyed a public road and (2) O'Fallon issued McBride permits to build homes on a public road.

Why hasn't this information been reported? Back on December 16, 2007 I had a post, Lee Enterprises; Where your advertising dollars buy you more than just ads, in which I pointed out numerous mistakes in the Journal's reporting. Of course, the title of my December 16 post implies the papers are not covering this story because the guilty parties spend a lot of money on advertising. This post will update the actions of the Journal since my initial post and provides further evidence that money spent on advertising in the Journal may also buy protection from negative publicity.

Koch Road was a public road (which means it was not vacated) in 2006 when it was torn out by Hyland Green and McBride to use the land to build homes. The fact that Koch Road was not vacated in 2006 is not disputed by anyone. However, back on November 20, 2007 the Journal reported the following;

The original Koch Road was vacated in 2006 after developer Hyland Green, LLC, asked the St. Charles County Council to approve vacating the road, declaring it "useless."

Again, reporting that Koch Road was vacated in 2006 is wrong and by misreporting this fact it avoids having to report that when McBride tore out the road in 2006, it did not own the property. Misstating this fact also avoids reporting that O'Fallon violated the law when it issued building permits to McBride, another fact not in dispute. If Koch Road was vacated in 2006 then the actions of McBride and O'Fallon may have been legal (I say may because I haven't looked into other aspects of the road demolition) and none of us would be writing about this aspect. Therefore, this "error" was not a minor detail.

After the November 20 article ran, I spoke with Ms. Perry over the phone and explained to her the mistakes in her article and in particular, the misstatement that Koch road was vacated in 2006. (I also posted on here about the mistake.) I followed that conversation up with an email to Ms. Perry in which I stated:

Below is a link to the story I posted on the blog. This offers a detailed timeline explaining the Koch Road mess. It is very clear that Koch was not ever legally vacated and certainly not vacated when the city issued building permits. I have updated this 1st story and will continue to do so. I hope you will consider running a correction. Thank you.

The Journal never corrected its "mistake" but instead continued to report false information. On December 15, 2007 Ms. Perry did another story on Koch Road. In regard to when Koch Road was vacated. Ms. Perry wrote:

The original Koch Road was vacated in 2006 after developer Hyland Green, LLC, asked the St. Charles County Council to approve vacating the road, declaring it "useless."

This is the exact same sentence from her November 20, 2007 story, however, this time she had been informed of her "mistake" over the phone, by email and through my blog. Again, this "mistake" avoided reporting the illegal actions of McBride and O'Fallon and no one is claiming Koch Road was vacated in 2006 as Ms. Perry reported twice.

After the December 15, 2007 story I posted in detail the mistakes in Ms. Perry's article. After that post, Ms. Perry contacted me by phone and we spoke several times that day on the phone and by email. While Ms. Perry was initially angered by my post she later admitted she had made "mistakes" in her reporting and that corrections would be made and she would be doing a follow up story. I also exchanged emails with the new editor of the Journal, Erin Schultz, who wrote to me, "We're committed to getting things right and correcting facts on which we've missed the mark." In another email Ms. Schultz wrote:

Thanks, Rick. We'll check out the issues you've raised with Ms. Perry's story. In the future, contact me immediately if you find an accuracy issue with any of our stories so that we can check it out and correct/clarify as necessary.

Ms. Perry emailed me on December 19, 2007 to inform me the Journal had run a correction on one of the issues I raised (they ran a second correction later) and asked me to explain again when Koch Road was vacated. Although no one was claiming the road was vacated in 2006 as Ms. Perry incorrectly reported twice, I emailed her on three occasions explaining when Koch Road was vacated and I linked her to the information on my blog which would direct her to the documentary evidence. I then spoke with Ms. Perry on the phone (12/20/2007) in which she tried to debate me on when the road was vacated. I explained to her that this was not a disputed fact and that we might as well debate whether the sun comes up in the morning (I say it does.) Following that conversation I emailed Perry and told her I was wasting my time debating her on a fact not in dispute and questioning why she was unwilling to report that McBride and O'Fallon had acted illegally. Ms. Perry did not respond.

Remember that Perry told me she would be doing a follow up story, therefore, I contacted Schultz, as she requested, to report that Ms. Perry still wanted to report false information. Ms. Schultz did not respond to that email and the Journal then ran a follow up story on the Koch Road. However, rather than correct the mistakes from the previous articles, the Journal simply ignored the issue this time.

I contacted Perry and Schultz on January 17, 2008 and asked why they had not corrected the mistake that Koch Road was vacated in 2006. After several emails which failed to answer those questions I sent an email to Schultz which asked the following questions:

Why wasn't the mistake I noted corrected? Please tell me the Journal's reasoning for not printing that Koch Rd was illegally destroyed by McBride & Sons and Hyland Green? Is it your decision on whether or not to report this story? If not, whose decision is it? Did you or anyone else instruct Ms. Perry not to print this story? Was this information edited out of a story? Do you believe it is "news" if a public road is illegally destroyed by a builder?

Schultz responded:

The assertion that the road was illegally destroyed is something I'll continue to look into. It is unwise for any publication to take and reiterate such allegations without investigation, as I'm sure you understand as a publisher yourself. We corrected two factual errors in the story you mentioned. I regret that those errors happened. The other allegations you've made will continue to be looked at. I can't guarantee that you will be happy with our coverage. What I can tell you is that we will continue to look harder at the issues you've raised.

Continue to look into? The facts are undisputed that McBride and Hyland Green tore out a public road in May of 2006. The facts are undisputed that O'Fallon issued building permits in violation of the law. The only question which needs to be looked into is why the Journal won't report the facts? In order to understand why, we need to quit buying into the fairy tale that the paper is guided by a code of ethics for journalists and realize that the paper is, first and foremost, part of a business (Lee Enterprises) which happens to own newspapers.

As a business, the Journal is reliant on advertising dollars to succeed and when the housing boom hit St. Charles in the 90's, newspapers raked in the money from the builders. The builders and developers did not only spend their money on advertisers but the money was also spent to get the "right" people into office. In some cases this influence was used to pass builder friendly laws although in most cases the builders were allowed to simply ignore/break the laws. This corruption became so rampant it was easy to find documents evidencing the wide spread corruption. However, while the corruption was an open secret to those who followed St. Charles politics it went unreported by the two largest newspapers, the Journal and the Post.

The Journal and Post were not content with simply ignoring major stories about missappropriation of money but instead they used their resources to attack those people who dared to speak out about the problem. As special counsel for O'Fallon, I went public with my allegations of corruption (I estimated it in the millions and still counting) and offered to share the documents which supported my allegations. That was over two years ago and no one from the Post or Journal has ever taken me up on my offer. However, the Post and Journal each printed material in an attempt to discredit me.

The Journal and the Post cannot admit that the business side of their papers control the content because when you are selling "news" you must have some credibility with your customers/readers. In the past, the mainstream media had a monopoly on the news that made it to the masses. However, those days are ending as the Internet allows blogs and web sites to compare the facts with what was reported and to provide news that was ignored. Each time a reader comes to my blog and reads what the Journal "mistakenly" reported or failed to report about Koch Road, another customer of the paper begins to question everything they read in the Journal. This trend is not going to reverse itself unless the papers offer their readers a reason to stay, the Journal may want to start with its credibility.

Focus on St. Charles Republicans

2008-02-05T19:45:00.000-06:00

Last week it was the New York Times that ran an article about Super Tuesday which included the views of St. Charles County residents and this week we have the Los Angeles Times running a more extensive piece on St. Charles County and, in particular, the Republican primary. The article states:

St. Charles County, extending west from the St. Louis suburbs toward this state's rural interior, offers a microcosm of Midwestern conservatism with plenty of evangelicals, more than its share of veterans (who worked in defense industries or in a base not far away in southern Illinois), and business owners who have turned the floodplains into a sprawling river of shops and subdivisions. Despite some recent Democratic gains, the county remains a crucial Republican proving ground in a state where polls show a close three-way race among McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The winner in today's Missouri primary will take home all of the state's 58 GOP delegates.

Apparently the east coasters and left coasters don't want to know whether it will play in Peoria anymore but instead, at least in regard to Republican politics, they want to know what we say in St. Charles County. I am not sure if the GOP in St. Charles County is a fair representation of Midwest Republican views, therefore, as a public service to the national media I am offering this breakdown of the Republican party in St. Charles County;

Show me the money Republicans: This is the dominant faction of the party consisting of the big money campaign contributors, the politicians who take in the money and the wanna be power brokers. The group contains a large portion of the corrupt politicians and business leaders in the county who are focused on their own self interests rather than the Republican values they use to get elected.
Grass Roots Republicans: This group consists of individuals who are fighting to take back control of the party from Group 1 in an attempt to bring the focus back on traditional conservative issues. While they cannot compete monetarily with the big money Republicans, they have had some success getting people elected.
Republican in Name Only (RINO's): Since St. Charles is a Republican stronghold we have our share of Rinos. These Democrats choose to run as Republicans because, in many cases, it is their only chance of winning. However, the Democrats are making progress and some Rinos have gone back to running as Republicans. Some Rinos can be found in Group 1 and some support Group 2 in their fight against the corrupt practices of Group 1 members.

Fence straddling Republicans: There are many Republicans in the county who agree in principle with Group 2 but want the support and money from Group 1. Therefore, they are not active participants in the corrupt practices of Group 1 but they are willing to turn a blind eye.
Fox News Republicans: I use this name to describe the majority of the Republicans in the county. Their knowledge of politics is mostly on a national level and their beliefs are consistent with Group 2. Group 1 money is spent convincing this group that Group 1 candidates best represent Republican values. Group 2's successes have come when they have been able to focus attention on local issues and on the record of Group 1 office holders.

The Democrats can be divided in much the same way, however, there is an alliance between Group 1 Republicans and Group 1 Democrats which is stronger than any allegiance to a particular party. Group 1 members get their money from the same place and would prefer a Group 1 member of the other party be elected over a Group 2 member of the same party.

Welcome to Main Street America.

Here's to you Mr. "I voted sticker on my shirt."

2008-02-05T11:18:00.000-06:00

It is the morning of Super Tuesday and I have already been reminded of my "patriotic" duty to vote by headlines, DJ's, talking heads, my neighbor Joe and some guy at the gas station. Voting is as American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Frito Lay and entitles Americans to an "I Voted" sticker and the right to complain. On election day it does not matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, dead or alive, it does not matter if you don't know the difference between water boarding and skate boarding, pork barrel and pork rinds, Alan Keyes and the Florida Keys; just as long as you vote.

However, once you pull that lever for your favorite Democrat or Republican, remember that your status as an "I Voted" patriot is dependent on keeping your vote secret. Once the primaries are over and the candidates are chosen, we will begin to hear why Republicans are un American and Democrats are not patriotic, why one candidate will set this country back 50 years and the other will ruin our way of life, how the other candidate is a hypocrite while your candidate had a change of heart. And when you finally are fed up with both parties remember that, while your "I Voted" sticker gives you the right to complain, don't complain about the two party monopoly of power for which you keep voting.

Does Bob Lowery believe complying with the law is frivolous?

2008-02-05T01:58:00.000-06:00

A recent article in the Suburban Journal (Courts to review road decision) discussed pending lawsuits involving Koch Road. One was filed by a group of over 30 residents asking the court to overturn the decision of the St. Charles County Council in vacating Koch Road. I am co counsel on that case and we won in the circuit court as the Judge overturned the County Council's decision. The county and the developer, Hyland Green, appealed that decision and we will be presenting oral arguments on Wednesday.

The second case involves four families who purchased homes which were built on public property. The builder, McBride & Sons, and Hyland Green illegally tore out the road to build homes on it. The homes, which cost around $300,000 each, are now virtually worthless because of the public easement on which the homes were illegally built. The homeowners filed a lawsuit against McBride alleging the builder failed to inform them of this issue. This lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County.

In the article, O'Fallon City Administrator Bob Lowery is quoted as saying;

"I’m sure there’s lots of frustration up there and we are working for the best interests of the residents." We still feel it’s a frivolous lawsuit with the Koch Road and we’re hoping it gets straightened out with the court of appeals."

This statement is indicative of Lowery's complete lack of respect for the residents and the law. First, the residents "up there" do not believe Lowery is working in their best interest as was made clear in the story on You Paid For It and in the article. In fact, it appears Lowery is trying to protect himself since he was told by staff building permits could not be issued to build on the road. Lowery fired those employees and within days the road was illegally torn out and permits were issued. The employees have sued Lowery for their wrongful termination and have alleged their refusal to violate the law to benefit the developer was one of Lowery's reasons.

As for Lowery's statement "we still feel its a frivolous lawsuit," who is the "we" to which he is referring? Certainly not the city attorney who was quoted in the Journal as believing the county did not have a right to vacate the road. And of course the Judge who ruled in my clients favor also did not feel our claim was frivolous but apparently Lowery's is better versed in the law. One thing Lowery has shown during his tenure in O'Fallon is that he will not let the law get in the way of what he wants to accomplish. What Lowery has accomplished is ignoring the law to benefit builders and developers, a tradition in O'Fallon that began well before Lowery ever arrived. He is just the latest errand boy to carry this torch.

Fish & Ships

2008-02-05T01:28:00.000-06:00

On tomorrow's Fish & Ships program (the most dangerous 15 minutes on the radio) we will discuss;

The You Paid For It story on Koch Road

The New York Times story quoting Lyn "the angry man" Schipper, and

Super Tuesday

Warning: Citizens of St. Peters are reminded they are to receive all of their news through the Ministry of the Truth (PR) Department.

David (Tyree) slays Goliath

2008-02-03T22:52:00.000-06:00

The New York Giants pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history by beating the New England Patriots 17-14. The game ended the Patriots "perfect" season and any talk of them being the greatest football team ever. It was one of the best Super Bowls ever and it featured what has to be considered the greatest single play in the Super Bowl.

Facing a third and five with a 1:15 left in the game, Giants quarterback Eli Manning went back to pass and was immediately pressured. Manning looked like he was going to be sacked but somehow managed to escape and throw up a prayer in the direction of David Tyree. Tyree, who had 4 catches for 35 yards the entire season, jumped high for the ball, and with Rodney Harrison all over him, was able to secure the ball against his helmet and keep it from hitting the ground as he was tackled. The play went for 32 yards down to the Patriots 24 and the Giants went on to score the winning touchdown with 35 seconds to go.

Dwight Clark had "the catch," Mike Jones made "the tackle," and Manning to Tyree? I'm sure someone will come up with a great name but for me it will be remembered as "the cheater beater."

Rams win second Super Bowl!

2008-02-02T23:09:00.000-06:00

Back in 2002 the St. Louis Rams were the talk of the NFL. The Rams were dubbed the "Greatest Show on Turf" because of their wide open, high scoring offense. The star studded offense included Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Orlando Pace and Isaac Bruce. Having won the 2000 Super Bowl over the Tennesse Titans, talk of a dynasty surrounded the Rams as they headed into the big game as heavy favorites over the New England Patriots. However, a funny thing happened on the way to becoming a dynasty, the Rams lost the game.

The game was close as the Rams came back from a 17-3 deficit to tie the game 17-17 with a 1:30 left. However, Adam Vinatieri's 48-yard field goal as time expired gave the New England Patriots the win (and their first Super Bowl title.) So how did the Patriots stop the high scoring Rams? Fans and reporters have blamed Rams former head coach Mike Martz because of his refusal "to take what the defense was giving." The Patriots defense was centered on stopping the Rams passing game and many believe Martz was to stubborn to rely on a running game lead by future hall of famer Faulk. An article that will appear in the Sunday Boston Herald indicates Martz might not be the only one to blame.

The article claims that a member of the Patriots' video staff taped the Rams last walk through before the game. Remember that the Patriots are confirmed cheaters and questions remain as to how else (not if) the Patriots cheated in that game. As the saying goes, football is a game of inches and a game won on a last second field goal is a prime example. The Patriots have denied cheating and the NFL is standing behind them. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello stated "We were aware of the rumor months ago and looked into it. There was no evidence of it on the tapes or in the notes produced by the Patriots, and the Patriots told us it was not true."

I had to read that last sentence twice and I'll read it again when I want a laugh. The Patriots, like all cheaters, would not self report their cheating and only confessed after they were caught red handed. While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell punished the Pats ($750,000 in fines and loss of first round pick) the punishment did not go far enough. The Patriots cheat to help them win games and to stop them from cheating you need to take away what they were after. For that reason, Goodell should declare the Rams the Super Bowl XXXVI champions. The parades on Monday.

Bipartisan support protects monopoly of power

2008-02-02T21:42:00.000-06:00

Those of you who listen to Fish & Ships and read this blog are well aware of my distaste for the two political parties that have a stranglehold on this country. That's why I laugh when polls show that people want "change" yet they support a Republican or Democratic candidate. The differences between the two parties are more a matter of words than deeds. And no one knows this better than the big money special interests groups who fund the campaigns.

Take for example big business. While many believe big business spends most of its money on Republicans, the truth is it spends money on buying influence. An article on Politico.com entitled Business abandons GOP for Democrats, states;

All 10 of the top-giving industries tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, are now donating more cash to Democrats than Republicans. A year ago, Republicans had the edge in six of the 10 sectors.

I am unaware of any significant change in direction by either party to warrant this change in direction by business, however, the only change business cares about is power. With political power shifting to Democrats, business bought back into the Democratic party. Of course, business never really abandoned the Democrats and it won't abandon the Republicans either. Instead both parties will put on show for the voters on their differences knowing that sooner or later they are both going to reap the rewards of power.

Which is why Republicans and Democrats (Repocrats or Democans?) work together to stop the one thing they fear the most, competition. In a post on The Turner Report, Randy Turner discusses steps being taken to make it more difficult for an independent to run for office in Missouri. Turner writes;

HB 1310 would force independent candidates, who already face far more obstacles than Democrats and Republicans, to declare their candidacy months earlier to keep them from catching the entrenched party candidates off guard and forcing them to have to raise more money and inconvenience them.The first bill of this sort was proposed last year by Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, who had to spend thousands of dollars to fend off the independent candidacy of Kim Wright of Joplin in 2006. Nodler's bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City, who also faced a stiff challenge from independent Michael Holzknecht in 2006.

Although there really is no threat to our two party monopoly (Can you name the last third party candidate elected in Missouri?) at this time, those pesky independent candidates can costs the special interests more money. And the Repocrats don't want to let anyone else in on the business of power.

You Paid For It on Koch Road

2008-02-02T14:38:00.000-06:00

Elliott Davis' (pictured on the left) You Paid For It story on Koch Road can be seen by clicking here. I have several posts linked regarding Koch Road on the right of the main page including my post analyzing Mayor Donna Morrow's comments, Madam Mayor (flip) flops on You Paid For It .

While Morrow takes the heat on You Paid For It, there's plenty of others who should share in the blame including O'Fallon City Administrator Bob Lowery and St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann. Let me know what you think of Madam Mayor's performance after you view the piece.

Blunt to contributors; Godfather what can I do for you?

2008-02-02T13:15:00.000-06:00

A post by the Missouri Political News Blog discussed an interesting article written by Ken Midkiff. The article, Blunt, Childers and CAFOs, discusses an unusual visit made by Governor Matt Blunt and the head of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Doyle Childers, to the offices of the Joplin Globe. Midkiff wrote;

This was quite unusual. It is almost unheard of that a Governor visits a newspaper and meets with the editorial staff. While there were a number of issues on the table – educational funding, tightening Medicaid requirements, the state budget – Governor Blunt and Director Childers went down to Joplin to talk about…Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, otherwise known by the acronym CAFOs.
The position of the Joplin Globe was most problematic for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The Globe had published several critical articles about the proposed poultry CAFO near to Roaring River State Park. A Globe editorial was issued in opposition to CAFOs. The Letters to the Editor section carried numerous complaints from citizens.
The Globe’s offices are in Joplin in the heart of Jasper County – the most conservative area of a conservative state. Just south of Joplin, in McDonald County, large poultry operations of Tyson’s and Simmons have long existed. Moark, owned by Land O’ Lakes, has massive egg-laying operations in Newton and McDonald counties – within the Globe’s area of coverage.
Yet, the newspaper had taken a position opposed to those very operations – and in doing so had incurred the wrath of the Governor and the MDNR Director. Both Blunt and Childers were avid proponents of this “modern” style of meat, milk and egg production, and agribusiness lobbyists had heavily courted both. It is telling that these two placed agribusiness interests so high on their list that they traveled to Joplin from Jefferson City (a 4 hour drive) to attempt to change the position of the Globe.

On whose behalf was Blunt making this visit? Clearly this was a visit in his role as Governor, therefore, we can presume Blunt will claim the visit was on behalf of his employers, the citizens of Missouri. While I cannot speak for all Missourians I doubt many of us want our Governor wasting his time and our money trying to keep newspapers from writing something negative about Blunt's friends (and campaign contributors) in agribusiness. Which is why I believe Blunt made the trip to Joplin for his other job, which is as a capo to intimidate those who dare to speak out against Blunt's big business, campaign contributing Godfathers.

Are people waking up?

2008-02-01T17:37:00.000-06:00

The last couple of weeks the amount of hits on my site has almost tripled and we may set a new record today. The increase began with the posts about Susan Montee and St. Peters. My two posts reviewing the St. Peters audit had been the most popular pages on the site but last night's post about O'Fallon Mayor Donna Morrow's appearance on You Paid For It has soared to the top of the list by a wide margin. The current top 5 posts are as follows;

It is obvious that last night's You Paid For It resulted in a lot of interest in the Koch Road scandal. While the Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journals (both owned by Lee Enterprises) continue to ignore the real story (and in the case of the Journal mislead its readers) more people are learning about alternative methods of getting their news. With blogs now consistently providing the news the media used to ignore, the daily newspaper is becoming nothing more than a place to get ads.

One final thought, the comment section provides a great opportunity to discuss an issue I have written about or just to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. While I moderate the comments, I have not had to reject any yet. My email is also listed on my profile if you would prefer to contact me that way.

Lyn Schipper in New York Times

2008-02-01T12:44:00.000-06:00

The headline to this post will cause shivers up the spine of the corrupt power structure in St. Charles County. Schipper, who is my partner on Fish & Ships (the most dangerous 15 minutes of radio), has a tendency to tell the truth about his fellow Republicans and the politics of this county. And while it is true Schipper was quoted in a New York Times article, his quote was only in regard to the upcoming presidential election. Schipper stated;

“The problem is there is a not a knock-your-socks-off candidate out there that really stands for what the Republicans and, more importantly, what the conservatives say,” said Lyn J. Schipper, 40, the leader of a Republican club in the county. “I think that what you’re seeing is a transformation from the Ronald Reagan-esque candidate who everyone gathered around to such a splintering.”

So now you can all relax and get back to your regular scheduled scheming, back room deals and law breaking. Your dirty little secrets have not been splashed all over the New York Times. Yet. Just joking; but I do like to see you squirm.

Madam Mayor (flip) flops on You Paid For It

2008-02-01T00:10:00.000-06:00

Elliott Davis and the You Paid For It crew paid a visit to O'Fallon Mayor Donna Morrow last week to discuss the city's role in the ongoing Koch Road scandal. I will be posting a copy of the story once it becomes available on the Fox 2 St. Louis web site. In the mean time I have set out below (as best I could since Morrow constantly interrupted Davis) the questions asked by Davis and Morrow's answers, but first let me provide some back ground:

Four families bought homes (estimated at $300,00) from McBride & Sons that were built on a public easement upon which a public road, Koch Road, ran. St. Charles County had voted to vacate the road under certain conditions (conditions which have not been met) and a group of residents filed suit to stop the county's action since it was in violation of the law. McBride and the developer, Hyland Green, illegally tore out Koch Road while the lawsuit was pending. McBride did not have any rights to the easement at that time but they wanted the land to build houses so they simply ignored the law and proceeded. The homeowners allege they were not told by McBride that their houses sat on a public easement and now their homes are all but worthless since they cannot sell or refinance them. In addition, the Judge ruled that St. Charles County's attempt to eventually vacate the road was unlawful since Koch Road was still useful to the residents.

At the direction of Mayor Morrow, city staff had originally followed the law and refused to issue building permits to McBride (flip.) (I know this would seem obvious but when the favored builders/developers ask for something in St. Charles County the law is rarely an impediment.) However, after the appointment of Bob Lowery as City Administrator, Morrow and the city changed their position and issued McBride building permits to construct homes on a public road (flop.) Davis' story focused on this decision. Here are Davis' questions and Morrow's answer with my comments in red:

Davis: Why did you issue (building) permits when this land was still tied up in litigation?

Morrow: First of all we issued the permits before the Judge made her ruling so it was not tied up in litigation. (Wrong. The case was tied up in litigation as Davis points out in his follow up question.)

Davis: But it was still the subject of a court case.

Morrow: Elliott we're a political subdivision of the state just like the county is. (Interrupting Davis) So we have certain, there's a whole (pointing), there's 20 volumes of what we have to do according to the state. (Um...Well yea...OK...I'll bet there wasn't 20 volumes) So the county and the city have done their duty. (The county went out of its way to give land to a developer and violated the law in the process. The city went out of its way to allow the builder to illegally construct homes and violated the law in the process. However, maybe Morrow believes it is her duty to help out her political friends.)

Davis: Madam mayor I'm trying to ask some key questions here, my key question is why did the city issue building permits to... ?

Morrow: (interrupting) Because we had the authority to, because we had the authority to. (Wrong, Wrong. Of course, the law does not give O'Fallon the authority to issue building permits on a county road and doing so is actually in direct violation of the law. Caveat; I have not read the special set of 20 volumes of things O'Fallon has to do which Morrow keeps in her office. I can only say that those "20 volumes" do not apply anywhere outside her office.)

Davis: Was that a mistake?

Morrow: No it was not a mistake. (Well, in Morrow's defense, Davis did not ask a mistake in whose mind. I'm sure it was not a mistake to McBride, or Hyland Green, or Morrow's assistant, campaign supporter and friend of the developer, Carl Maus. However, if he meant a mistake in the eyes of the citizens and the law Morrow was absolutely wrong.) (interrupting Davis) According to the state statutes we had the full authority to issue it, whether or not it was pending in litigation or not. (OK Madam Mayor, now you are starting to bore me. Everyone repeat after me...WRONG.)

For those interested in the full story on Koch Road I have linked all of my posts about it on the right. As for you Madam Mayor, I want you to think about a suggestion I made to you shortly after you appointed me. Now would be a good time to follow my advice.

Hillary and Wal-Mart

2008-01-31T20:42:00.000-06:00

ABC News has an interesting story about Hillary Clinton's tenure on the board of directors at Wal-Mart. Her position on the board should raise questions in and of itself since she was appointed to a "new" seat on the board while Bill was governor of Arkansas. After Hillary resigned her position it was not filled. The ABC story discusses how Hillary sat by silently while Wal-Mart pressed forward with anti-union policies. In discussing tapes of Clinton at board meetings the story states:

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

However, in 2006, Clinton returned $5,000 in donations from Wal-Mart's PAC because of "serious differences with current company practices." What changed in 2006 to make Hillary turn on a company for which she was once so proud? Nothing, other than the Clintons decided Wal-Mart's money would cost them politically. In fact, I don't believe it is possible for the Clinton's to have a difference of opinion over issues or practices unless that issue is about the only things either of them care about, greed and power. Oh, and an occasional cigar for Bill.

Why would Hulshof want Jetton?

2008-01-31T15:12:00.000-06:00

Missouri Political News Service (MOPNS) is reporting that House Speaker Rod Jetton will be Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof's campaign director. According to MOPNS the job will reportedly pay $3,500 a month. If this is true one has to question what Hulshof is thinking.

The Democrats have to be thrilled with the prospect of Jetton speaking on behalf of Hulshof. Jetton is known for making some strange comments, that is when his foot is not in his mouth. In addition, Jetton is probably best known for the village law he slipped into a lengthy bill. By making it easier to incorporate as a village, developers will be able to bypass a county's planning and zoning laws and other land control ordinances. It is through such laws that residents are allowed to voice their concerns over the negative impact a development might have on their land and the community as a whole The day after the Village law went into effect a wealthy developer and friend of Jetton's, Robert Plaster, filed paperwork under the new law regarding a controversial development in Stone County.

For his part, Jetton did the smartest thing of his political career when the Village law came to light, he quit talking for several months. Jetton refused to answer questions by his constituents and the press but, as expected, when Jetton finally talked he dug himself a deeper whole with a ridiculous explanation for why the bill was needed. No one believed Jetton and whatever credibility he had was lost.

If this is the type of people Hulshof is willing to work with, why would Missourians want Hulshof working for them?

Blunt still has more to accomplish

2008-01-31T12:00:00.000-06:00

Back on January 8, 2008, Fired Up Missouri had a post asking if Blunt was going to reward a donor, Anne Wells, by appointing her as prosecuting attorney of Newton County. Wells donated over $29,000.00 to Blunt's campaign including a check for $25,000.00 in June of 2007. In addition, Wells father, Jerry Wells, and his company, Moark, donated money to Matt and Roy Blunts' campaigns. It turns out Anne Wells did not get the appointment but according to The Turner Report it wasn't because of lack of effort on Matt Blunt's part. Turner writes:

After Prosecuting Attorney Scott Watson opted to resign and take a position with St. John's Regional Medical Center, the Newton County Republican Central Committee refused to back down to Gov. Matt Blunt's demand that it help him pay back one of his major contributors by nominating the man's daughter to replace Watson.

From fee offices to positions in government, Blunt continues to reward his political contributors. And we can be sure Blunt will claim it is just a coincidence that his contributors just happen to be the most qualified people for those jobs. This story is just as believable as his reason for resigning, however, if he is lying about the appointments isn't this quid pro quo bribery? Maybe Blunt has more to accomplish after all.

Ramblin' Rick

2008-01-30T23:17:00.000-06:00

If Barack Obama is the candidate of change why is the democratic establishment endorsing him? Why would he want them to?

Whenever a politician begins a statement with "my good friend from," you know he is about to attack someone.

Now that Rod Jetton has announced he won't run for governor will he run for mayor of Plasterville?

Charlie Shields has also announced he is not running for governor. Should I have my neighbor Joe announce he isn't running for governor?

What happens when Matt Blunt accomplishes everything he set out to do in his life?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigative reporters=The real American Idle.

Does anyone believe Shawn Brown was the only politician in St. Charles County accepting bribes?

Was Susan Montee Enron's internal auditor?

Was that UFO in Texas trying to take Ron Paul home?

Forget waterboarding. I say we make them listen to a speech by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

Wake Up Call's endorsement for President

2008-01-30T10:48:00.000-06:00

While my endorsement may not be worth 50 Cent's , a couple of people did offer me a penny for my thoughts so I decided to put my 2 cents in. My endorsement is for the candidate who:

Is running on his record, a record that has not changed depending on whom he is talking to or what office he is seeking
Has set forth a plan and a vision rather than cliches and platitudes
Is not beholden to special interests
Has set forth specifics on the policies and programs she would implement and provided an honest evaluation of the costs and benefits
Has an agenda that is similar to my beliefs
Will not use his office for personal or political gain
Focuses on what she is rather than on what others are
Will enforce the laws of this country in a fair and equitable way and work to change those laws he deems unjust
Is honest

Please let me know when we have a candidate that comes close to meeting these qualifications and I will endorse that person. As long as we continue to support a system that provides a choice between "the lesser of two evils" as candidates we will get "two evils" as candidates. Anyway, who cares about presidential endorsements? I doubt that and 50 Cent will buy you a cup of coffee anymore.

They steal roads don't they!

2008-01-29T10:52:00.000-06:00

With Elliott Davis of You Paid For It about to put the spotlight on Koch Road and O'Fallon, I thought it might be a good time to try and explain how a public road can be stolen. I hope the analogy below helps explain this better and if anyone has questions you can post a comment or send me an email. I also have a listing of links regarding Koch Road on the right.

Let's say you hire a real estate agent to sell your house but later change your mind and advise the agent she can't sell the house. Despite your instructions, the agent enters into a real estate contract for the sale of your house with a good friend of hers. The contract, however, provides closing will not take place (when the buyer would actually own the property) until (1) a new home is completed for you, and (2) that new home is inspected and accepted by the city where you live.

Of course, you would be furious with your agent for entering into this illegal contract and you file a lawsuit to have the court set aside the contract. The law is clear that your agent could not enter into a contract to sell the house without your permission so you fully expect to prevail in court. Although the case may take months to wind its way through the system you have time because the conditions of the contract (i.e. the new house be completed and accepted) have not been met. However, to your shock, you wake up one morning and realize the potential buyer of your house illegally tore it down the night before.

When you turn to the city you live in for help you soon realize it will not do anything because it is also friends with the buyer. While it is quite clear the buyer violated the terms of the contract it is also clear the buyer committed a crime, however, your city, your agent and the county prosecutor refuse to do anything. In fact, despite its knowledge that the buyer has illegally torn down your house and does not own the property, the city gives its friend (the buyer) a permit to build a new house on your land.

The city is well aware of its role in this crime but instead of correcting its mistake it decides to write a letter to your agent in which it (flat out lies) says that your new home was completed and accepted. Your agent knows this is a lie but still tries to proceed on the sale of your house. While all of this is going on the Judge rules, as expected, that your agent had no right to sell your house and, therefore, the Judge sets aside the contract.

What are you left with? Your home has been destroyed and the new home they want you to move into hasn't even been finished. The buyer, with the help of the city and your agent, went ahead and built a new house on your land and sold the home to innocent buyers who were not told the original buyer did not own the land it sold. The innocent buyers move into their new home unaware it is sitting on property they do not own. When the new buyers find out they have been mislead they file a lawsuit against the buyer, and like your lawsuit against the agent, they have a great case. However, as expected, the city tries to the rescue its friend again and now claims it owned your land the whole time. Looks like you have to file another lawsuit.

While the names in this story have been changed, it was not done to protect the guilty but instead to (hopefully) better explain the illegal conduct regarding Koch Rd. Here are the actual players:

Your house=your road, Koch Road.
You=the residents of St. Charles County, the true owners of Koch Road.
Your real estate agent=St. Charles County
The illegal sales contract=The illegal ordinance passed by St. Charles County giving Koch Road to the developers.
The buyer (and friend of the agent and city)=Hyland Green/McBride & Sons
The city=O'Fallon, Missouri
The prosecutor=Jack Banas
The innocent buyers=innocent buyers

In the real world no one would think they can tear down a house they don't own, at least without paying the consequences. However, we don't live in the real world in St. Charles County where the builders/developers own more than just land. In our world, not only can a builder/developer steal a public road but our representatives are more than willing to help them.

For those of you who wonder why this story has not appeared in the Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journal (both owned by Lee Enterprises), I will be posting an update on an earlier post later this week.

I'm a Republican leaning, freedom fighting loony liberal

2008-01-28T21:25:00.000-06:00

For those of you who listen to Fish & Ships you have probably heard my partner, Lyn Schipper, compare me to the "loony left." However, in a recent post on Life of Jason, my blog was referred to as "Republican leaning" and in the comments to the post, I am referred to as a "freedom fighter for the injustices of government." If I'm going to be labeled I would prefer the following: He's a poet, he's a picker--He's a prophet, he's a pusher--He's a pilgrim and a preacher, and a problem when he's stoned. The Pilgrim Chapter 33. Ramblin' Jack Elliott had a lot to do with this post.

Fish & Ships

2008-01-28T17:44:00.000-06:00

As many of you are aware, our show last week did not air although it can be found on the O'Fallon Watchdog. We met with Steve Kaspar of KFAV prior to our show today and worked out the issues we had regarding the station's failure to air the show. On tomorrow's program we will discuss;

The St. Peters audit, and

Governor Matt Blunt's decision not to seek re-election.

ST. PETERS SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Fish & Ships contains information the city has deemed harmful to its residents.

St. Peters is a dirty city-Part 2

2008-01-27T21:41:00.000-06:00

This is the second part (Part 1) of my review of the St. Peters audit. It should be noted that the audit was given to St. Peters officials weeks in advance of its release but that the residents were not provided a copy until minutes before State Auditor Susan Montee presented her findings. I have been told that Montee did not even provide a copy of the audit to the petitioners until right before her presentation. Of course, by doing this Montee did not give the residents a chance to question her on the audit, which, after reviewing her work, I can understand. Now back to the audit:

7. Lack of accounting controls: Montee pointed out several areas in which St. Peters fails to keep adequate records:

a) The city has not taken a physical inventory of its assets in at least 8 years.

b) Meals purchased by Mayor Pagano and others did not contain information such as what was bought, who attended the meeting or why it was city business.

c) 118,000 gallons of water (6% of total) were not billed and the city only found this out after being asked by the auditor to check the numbers.

d) The city owns 263 vehicles but does not keep logs to ensure that the vehicles are being used for official business.

8. City Administrator's vehicle: The city has the choice of either providing the CA a vehicle or paying him a $900.00 car allowance. The city pays the CA the $900.00 a month which is significantly higher than the cost to provide him a vehicle or pay him for his mileage.

9. Major Transactions not competitively bid: Montee notes that there are 45 contracts (she says involving major transactions) in which the city has options to renew. Montee stated these contracts do not contain any limitations or specifics as to the price which will be charged if renewed. Montee fails to mention that the failure to include this information makes these contacts invalid and illegal. In addition, these renewals violate the city's ordinance requiring competitive bidding. Montee's audit, however, provides the residents no information as to the costs to the residents.

10. Lease not competitively bid: Montee reports that the city entered into a lease with a business for part of the expanded Rec-Plex. The business was to provide exercising and training proposals, however, the city failed to put this out to bid (anyone see a pattern here?).

11. Lack of documents: Throughout Montee's report she talks about the city's failure to provide supporting documentation and failure to keep adequate records. In regard to the Lakeside 370 project, the city, in explaining why it did not seek formal proposals, stated it had "informally negotiated with several interested developers." Montee, however, stated the city could not provide supporting documentation. On a deal of this magnitude (50 million) there will be supporting documentation if there truly were informal negotiations with developers. The city is required by law to keep these records, therefore, is this another case of St. Peters violating the law or another case of the city lying?

12. Misrepresentations by St. Peters:

a) St. Peters claimed in a press release (regarding the city's refusal to air the auditors report on the city's cable access channel) that "we legally cannot provide the televising and recording services at no charge." This press release was emailed to me by Lisa Bedian, however, she provided no authority for this statement. In fact, I emailed Bedian and requested that she provide authority last week and she has failed to respond. That is because there is no law which prohibited the city from airing the meeting.

b) St. Peters stated in a press release that "the Auditor’s report contained no improprieties of any kind and confirmed that St. Peters follows Missouri laws, ethics rules, regulations and City ordinances." This is absolutely false. I have pointed out some of the "improprieties" contained in the audit in my posts. I have also pointed out violations of the law shown by the report. Finally, Montee stated in her report she was not issuing an opinion as to the legality of St. Peters actions.

c) St. Peters claims the "report confirms that the City was not guilty of any wrongdoing and is making a sizable profit on the sale of Lakeside 370." This is simply wrong. The auditor notes several problems with how the city has handled this situation. In addition, the auditor made no finding that the city is making a profit on this project but she did note the city's estimated profit was wrong and that the city could sustain a huge loss on this project.

d) St. Peters response to the audit is filled with misstatements, excuses and deception. Take for example how the city supported its $900.00 car allowance to the CA. The city used the sticker price on a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria and then calculated the payments on a 3 year loan including interest. The city then added on the monthly maintenance costs, sales tax and property tax on top of this number. Of course, this number has absolutely no relation to the actual cost since the city failed to mention (1) no one pays sticker price, (2) interest, sales tax and property tax would not apply if the city purchased the vehicle, (3) depreciation on the vehicle; and, (4) the car will have value at the end of the 3 years.

The fact is that Montee's audit was so poorly performed that you cannot determine how much money St. Peters is costing the taxpayers. When reviewing this audit think what would happen with a private company that operated in this fashion. The cavalier attitude displayed by the elected and appointed representatives of St. Peters to the taxpayers money would never be tolerated by a business. In fact, any employee who provided their boss with the lame excuses, misrepresentations and deceptive answers that St. Peters provided would be fired on the spot. It is time the voters in St. Peters remember who the real bosses are and take back their city.

Ehlmann endorses Paul McKee/Peter Kinder for Governor

2008-01-26T22:10:00.000-06:00

St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann announced that he is endorsing Peter Kinder for governor. Kinder was the first Republican to announce that he would run for Governor after Matt Blunt's surprising withdrawal from the race earlier this week. Kinder was one of the biggest pushers for the 100 million dollar tax credit many believe was drafted for one man, Paul McKee. Kinder has admitted McKee's lawyers helped to draft the legislation.

McKee, his companies and their employees are major contributors to politicians in Missouri and, especially, St. Charles County. While most of McKee's money goes to Republicans the true test of which candidates he and his companies support is where he plans to develop property. A review of the favoritism shown to McKee's companies in O'Fallon (one of his favorite places to spend money on candidates) shows McKee's money was well spent.

Steve Ehlmann is also one of McKee's favorite politicians. In the last reporting period Ehlmann brought in $27,450.00 of which $8,450.00 came from McKee, his companies and their employees. Ehlmann is not up for re-election until August of 2010. Ehlmann has used his position as County Executive to put his political cronies on the county payroll and he has been the latest errand boy in St. Charles for the builders and developers. Therefore, his endorsement of Kinder/McKee for governor comes as no surprise. however, it does leave me with one question, why would anyone care if one of McKee's lackeys endorses another one for governor?

You Paid For It to cover Koch Road

2008-01-26T20:10:00.000-06:00

You Paid For It is heading to O'Fallon to cover the the story on Koch Road. You Paid For It, which airs on Fox 2 St. Louis, is a popular segment by Elliott Davis which exposes government waste. Koch Road is not only a story regarding government waste involving O'Fallon and St. Charles County, but it is also a story regarding the control builders and developers have over St. Charles County politics. The story on Koch Road is scheduled to air January 31, 2008 at 9:00 PM. The You Paid For It segments usually last about 5 minutes so there won't be enough time to fully expose all the parties involved in the corruption surrounding this case but I will set up a list of links to posts that I have done on Koch Road. I will also be posting a story prior to Thursday on Koch Road explaining the case in simpler terms and naming those who were involved in this debacle.

St. Peters is a dirty city-Part 1

2008-01-26T14:45:00.000-06:00

Rather than accept the spin about the audit done on St. Peters, I decided to actually read the audit before I pronounced St. Peters a clean city. I have already posted about one glaring problem that was pointed out in the audit and in this post I will take a look at some of the other findings of the audit. It should be noted that I have relied on the grossly negligent audit done by Susan Montee's office and that her credibility has been called into question by her actions in this audit. Having said that here is some of what Montee found:

Appraisals not done: The city is involved in a project known as Lakeside 370. As part of this project the city purchased 1552 acres of land, however, the city only obtained a formal independent appraisal on 249. 4 acres (or 16 % of the land purchased.) The audit states that "good business practices requires" an appraisal to ensure a reasonable price is paid. Montee failed to offer any evidence as to what was a reasonable price for the property.

Purchase from former Mayor Tom Brown's son-in-law: As I reported yesterday, Montee noted that land was purchased from "a related party" which turned out to be Brown's son-in-law who received almost 3 times per acre what the other sellers received. The city did not obtain an appraisal to support the purchase price on this land. The Government Accounting Standards (GAS) under which Montee operates consider such a transaction "abuse."

Bonds not competitively bid: Montee reports St. Peters failed to obtain competitive bids on short term bonds which were issued. Montee did not provide any information as to how much this cost the city but she did note competitive bidding "ensures the city receives fair value" and "helps ensure all parties are given equal opportunity to participate in the city's business."

No request for proposal (RFP) on Lakeside 370: Montee reports the city did not formally request proposals on Lakeside 370. Montee noted a RFP ensures the best price is obtained and all parties are given an equal opportunity to participate. In addition, a RFP may have been required by law (see Section 99.820) and Montee fails to offer any details as to why an RFP was not required.

Lakeside 370 does not have a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR): St. Peters has only received payment of 24.6 million dollars on the purchase price and the remaining amount due (25 million) is contingent on the LOMR. Montee estimates St. Peters will lose 15 million dollars if the LOMR is not granted. However, Montee fails to mention why the LOMR has not been granted but instead simply states the city should "continue to monitor the approval process to ensure the successful completion of the project."

Large severance packages for Police Chief and City Administrator (CA): Montee reports the city entered into contracts with the chief and CA in June of 2007 which run through May of 2012. If the CA is terminated before that time he still receives the entire amount due under the contract and if he stays on he will receive a lump sum payment of 1 year of his salary. The city's liability is estimated by Montee to be over $800,000.00 to the CA. The city is obligated to pay the chief $107,000.00 if he is terminated before his contract expires. The city claims these contracts are necessary because of "efforts by non-residents to discredit and undermine the leadership of our CA and Police Chief." Montee completely ignores the numerous problems of these contracts as set below.

a) The full amount of the potential liabilities on these contracts must be counted against the budget each year since they could be accrued in any given year. Montee does not mention this in her audit and that this added revenue could make the contracts a violation of the Missouri Constitution.

b) Appointed officials in fourth class cities serve "at will" which means the city cannot enter into a contract which prohibits the termination of such an official. The city's reason for these contracts (pressure from non-residents) is an attempt to take away the right of elected officials to terminate these individuals. The city is well aware that "non-residents" have absolutely no right to fire anyone in the city and that power resides in the hands of elected officials. If the residents are unhappy with the performance of the CA and chief and elect people who share their view, the current alderman and mayor have set up a financial roadblock to democracy.

I will finish the rest of my review in Part 2 in which I will point out other problems noted in the audit, violations of the law Montee failed to mention and misrepresentations by the city in an attempt to mislead its residents. When reviewing the audit one should also consider that former Mayor Tom Brown was not only guilty of "abuse" regarding the land sale but Montee completely failed to mention that Brown and the city were found to have unjustly interfered with a local business because the owner dared to speak out against Brown and the city. This could end up costing the residents over a million dollars. Couple this with the fact that Tom Brown's successor, Shawn Brown, is in federal prison for bribery and you get a picture that St. Peters is not a clean city but instead it is one of the dirtier cities in the region. Based upon the facts, I challenge anyone to claim St. Peters is a clean city. And I haven't even gotten to the rest of the audit yet.

O'Fallon residents continue to pay cost of corruption

2008-01-25T13:47:00.000-06:00

The widespread corruption that plagued the City of O'Fallon during the administration of former Mayor Paul Renaud (and current Council President Bill Hennessy, pictured to the right) continues to cost the taxpayers of O'Fallon. In a story which appeared in the Post-Dispatch today it was reported that:

In a ruling handed down last week, Circuit Judge Nancy Schneider said that under a June 2004 agreement between the city and Public Water Supply District No. 2, the water district exclusively controls new sanitary sewer users. Barring a reversal on appeal, the ruling means city officials won't be able to stop sewage from several customers, including the Meadows at Lake Saint Louis, a shopping center scheduled to open its first phase in August.

O'Fallon City Administrator Robert Lowery Jr. placed a freeze on hookups into the sewer system last fall because officials said the city's aging wastewater treatment plant on the north side of town was operating at capacity. Its discharge risked exceeding environmental standards, officials said.

The Meadows isn't the only new customer affected by the ruling. Schneider ordered the city to immediately take all measures necessary to ensure that its treatment facility has adequate capacity to receive and treat all wastewater transferred to it by the water district's users, present and future.

The end result of this will be that the taxpayers will be forced to pay the costs of upgrading the system to increase the capacity. How is this related to corruption? During Renaud's tenure the city gave away tap ons to our water and sewer systems to the preferred developers and builders. One of the builders who benefited from this was Renaud's employer McBride & Sons. The bill for these illegal giveaways has now come due.

When paying their taxes the residents of O'Fallon should be sure to remember to send Renaud a thank you note and while you're at it don't forget to include a note to Hennessy and former alderman (and current council candidate) Mark Perkins who supported giving your money to the developers. This is but one example of many "favors" Renaud/Hennessy/Perkins provided to developers/builders and we will be paying for this for years to come.

Is Pagano a Fann of Montee or an easy Mark for Bond?

2008-01-24T19:16:00.000-06:00

An interesting post appeared on Show Me Progress today claiming Senator Kit Bond came to St. Peters recently to put heat on St. Peters Mayor Len Pagano. The post states:

"The substance of Bond's conversation with Pagano was: THREAT--according to a well connected birdie I know. St. Peters is waiting impatiently on FEMA funds needed to complete the Highway 370 project there. Bond said he could make those FEMA funds go away permanently. He also mentioned that there were still a few days left before the filing deadline in the mayoral race and that if Pagano didn't disavow endorsing Fann, the Republicans would find themselves a primary challenger.
OK, that last (part) was not a very credible threat, but it made Pagano understand that Bond was seriously displeased. And naturally, he did what the senator told him to do; he wrote the local papers to complain that those words on the flier were not an accurate quotation of anything he had said and that he was not endorsing either candidate."

Why would Bond be threatening Pagano? According to Show Me Progress "The GOP is worried about the Fann race in house district 16, St. Charles County. Or at least Kit Bond is, since Fann's Republican opponent, Mark Parkinson, is Bond's protegee, and Bond figures the Republican mayor of St. Peters has been ... too kind ... to Tom Fann."

Is the Bond story true? Who knows, but maybe Bond heard the story that Pagano is playing nice with the Democrats in return for Democratic State Auditor Susan Montee's gift to St. Peters. Another reason why we need an alternative to the two self serving parties that run this country.

Susan Montee's audit of St. Peters should be investigated

2008-01-24T16:22:00.000-06:00

The St. Peters audit is in and if you listen to what Montee had to say, rather than what she wrote, you might think St. Peters is the standard by which other cities should be measured. If that is the case we should all throw in the towel. Of course, based on Montee's comments, St. Peters issued a press release which claims nothing wrong was found in the audit. To make matters worse the media picked up on this theme and reported Montee found St. Peters was clean.

First, I suggest everyone read the report and come to their own conclusions, since what has been reported as the facts are not true. Then I suggest you take a look at the Government Auditing Standards (GAS) to which Montee was required to conduct the audit. I do not profess to be an expert in regard to government auditing but Montee's poor audit is as evident based on common sense as it is from reading the standards. I will be posting more details about the audit in another post but let me give you one example of what Montee believes is a clean city:

St. Peters is involved in a project known as Lakeside 370. The city began purchasing land for the project in 2000 and has purchased 1552 acres for a total of 9.1 million. Montee reports that the city did not obtain an appraisal on some of the land purchased, most notably 98 acres which was purchased from former mayor Tom Brown's son-in-law. (Montee did not mention the name of her fellow Democrat Brown but instead said one sale "involved a related party to the mayor in office at the time.") Therefore, the average price per acre for the land obtained from those not related to Brown was $5,227.00 while Brown's son-in-law received $15,306.00 per acre.

Montee offers no explanation for the large difference in price per acre and, for the most part, ignores this clear conflict of interest. The GAS provide as an example of abuse the following:

c. Misusing the official's position for personal gain (including actions that could be perceived by an objective third party with knowledge of the relevant information as improperly benefiting an official's personal financial interests or those of an immediate or close family member...)

The Brown land deal is a perfect example of "abuse" under GAS but to avoid making such a finding Montee simply ignores this part of her job. In the report Montee states "because the determination of abuse is subjective, our audit is not required to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse." Huh? I think this means Montee won't tell on her fellow Democrat Tom Brown.

Was Fish & Ships censored?

2008-01-23T23:35:00.000-06:00

My apologies to those of you who tuned in to KFAV Tuesday morning to hear our show. We recorded our show Monday afternoon and after the recording was complete I posted what we discussed. One of the things we talked about was the refusal of St. Peters to televise the report of the State Auditor which was held at City Hall Wednesday night. St. Peters has a history of trying to silence dissent and actually removed KFAV from its cable access because of criticism it received on our show.

Apparently, St. Peters was afraid of what we might have said on our show Tuesday and, therefore, Lisa Bedian, PR director for the city, contacted station mangement with those concerns. I had a lengnthy discussion with Steve Kaspar of KFAV on Wednesday who confirmed he talked with Bedian and then decided not to air the show. Kaspar indicated that at the time he spoke with Bedian he had not heard our show and that there was not enough time to review it before it aired. I do not believe Kaspar reviews each of our shows before they air but he indicated he wanted to hear this show because of the concerns raised by Bedian. (While Bedian was concerned about our show she had not listenened to it when she called the station to complain.)

Kaspar has agreed to review his decision not to air our show and Lyn and I will be meeting with him prior to recording our show Monday, that is if we record another show. Not only do I stand behind what we said on the show about St. Peters desicion not to air the report but after my intial review of the audit and the reason giving by St. Peters for not airing the report I believe the city intentionally mislead its residents. I will post more about that later this week. In regard to our show, both Lyn and I our in agreement that we will not continue to do the show unless we are given assurances we will be able to discuss issues without our views being censored unjustly.

To be quite honest, it is my opinion KFAV has given in to St. Peters in hope of being placed back on the cable access channel, however, it should be noted Kaspar denies played a part in his decision not to air the show. In fairness to Steve Kaspar he has, for the most part, allowed us to do our show without interference. I also applaud him for allowing us to provide news and commentary that other media outlets refuse to cover.

As to our show, you can listen to it yourself on the O'Fallon Watchdog and since I know Ms. Bedian likes to check my blog I invite her to listen to the show as well. After you're finished Lisa, send me an email setting out any statements of fact which we made that were incorrect and I will post it on here. And after you're done listening to the show I have some other suggested reading for you and the powers that be in St. Peters, it's called the United States Constitution.

List of people who believe Blunt

2008-01-23T20:40:00.000-06:00

I have achieved virtually everything that I set out to accomplish in this post and more.

Fish & Ships

2008-01-21T16:26:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow's show we will be talking about:

St. Peter's decision not to televise the audit
Vicki Schneider's appearance at the John Edwards fund raiser
The Presidential election

St. Peters won't televise audit

2008-01-20T13:41:00.000-06:00

St. Peters just doesn't get it. The Missouri State audit conducted on the city is set to be released in a meeting at City Hall on Wednesday at 7:00 PM. However, the city has decided not to televise the meeting on its cable access channel. The lame excuses offered by St. Peters for not televising the audit continue a pattern of actions taken by the city to keep information from its residents. Whether it be eliminating dissenting viewpoints from it airwaves, interfering with citizen comments or taking action to keep residents off its televised meetings, the city is not a friend of open and honest government.

What makes this even more interesting is that elected officials claim the report is good news for the city. While it should not matter whether the report is good or bad it is an opportunity to provide the residents a window into how their local government works. This is the purpose we have local cable access channels and I would suspect the Auditor's report would be watched by more residents than a regular council meeting. Perhaps this is why Mayor Len Pagano and others at city hall want to keep this off the air.

Who was Jeff Roe's source?

2008-01-20T10:11:00.000-06:00

As reported by the Turner Report, Jeff Roe has removed the libelous statements he posted about Joe Brazil back in August of 2006. The post reported that back in 1982 Brazil was drunk when he was involved in an accident that resulted in the death of his friend Norval Pierce. The post was a flat out lie but before I discuss that let me give you a little background:

In 2006 State Senator Jon Dolan resigned to take a job in the private sector. As a result of Dolan's resignation an election was to be held to fill Dolan's seat until the next general election. Under the law each party had to pick a candidate to run for the seat and several Republicans actively sought the position. Among those were Scott Rupp, a Republican member of the house, and Brazil, a Republican St. Charles County councilman. The candidate would be selected by members of the various Republican committees within the senatorial district. While the district includes parts of various counties it is mostly comprised of St. Charles County.

The Republican party in St. Charles County is controlled by the builders and developers who pour millions of dollars into local elections, however, there remains a faction of the party fighting the corruption, giveaways and control the builders/developers have over the party. As the election approached it became clear that Rupp was the candidate of the developers while Brazil had been fighting for years against the developers control over the party. One of Rupp's leading supporters was Paul McKee ( the 100 million dollar tax credit Paul McKee) and Mckee was also a supporter of Blunt.

Prior to the vote, members of the Republican committee were being lobbied to support Rupp by people from the Blunt team. Despite the support of Blunt, Brazil won the first vote but, because the vote was split between several candidates, he did not receive the required majority to secure the nomination. A run off was held between Rupp and Brazil which Rupp won 10-9. Rupp went on to beat the Democratic candidate, however, the general election was just months away and this time there would be a Republican primary. Brazil announced he would be running against Rupp in the primary.

While Rupp had a huge advantage in money the Republican party apparently did not have confidence he would win and decided to go on the attack against Brazil. Enter Jeff Roe, the undisputed king of gutter politics and mud slinging. Roe and other Republicans began looking for dirt on Brazil. This research included looking into the 1982 accident which resulted in Norval's death.

Apparently, someone from the Republican party (I Believe it was Buddy Hardin) went to the Florissant police station to look at the police report on the accident. Meanwhile Roe posted a story on his web site, The Source, that claimed Brazil was drunk and that was the reason Norval was killed. Roe relied in part on a story that appeared on the Darwin Awards, a site which tries to put a humorous spin on people who die in odd ways. Roe made no mention of the police report which indicated alcohol was not involved.

However, it wasn't just the police report that indicated Joe was not drinking, those who were with Joe that night will all tell you alcohol was not involved. I know because I am one of those witnesses. Joe and Norval were both close friends of mine and I was one of the pallbearers at Norval's funeral. The night of the accident was supposed to be our "senior prank" night and we planned to pour sand over the teachers parking lot and have a beach party. Joe and several of our friends had gone to get the sand prior to the accident and we did not have a drop of alcohol that night.

When we arrived at school we began dumping the sand and I was in the dump truck right behind Joe and watched as Norval either slipped or jumped off the truck Joe was driving. Joe kept driving, unaware Norval fell under the wheels, and the truck ran over Norval. The police and other emergency personal arrived on the scene and while many of us went to the emergency room, Joe went with the police to explain what happened. Norval was pronounced dead at the hospital that night, just 3 days before our graduation.

While this was a horrible tragedy for everyone involved one thing that helped all of us cope was the kindness shown by Norval's family. The Pierce family opened up their home to all of us, including Joe, and to this day we remain in contact with the family. When Joe first ran for office in Florissant, Norval's parents put his signs up in their yard. There had never been any mention that Joe was drinking by those of us who were with Joe that night and witnesses, the police report and the Pierce family are consistent on this point. Therefore, we were all shocked when Jeff Roe's post appeared.

As soon as I read the Roe story I emailed Roe and the Darwin site. I learned the Darwin story had been submitted by someone who graduated with our class but neither Joe, myself nor any of our friends knew this person (we had a class of over 600) but we did know the writer was not with us and the story was false. Another friend of ours who was there that night also emailed the Darwin site and explained the story was not true and the story was removed from the Darwin site. Roe, however, not only refused to remove the site but he continued to defend his post with contradictory stories about his source of information.

One thing that I was curious about was how Roe had come across the Darwin story since it did not mention Joe by name. As I read about Roe on the Internet I learned of his (lack of) character and ethics and I found the connection. One of our classmates and friends in 1982 was Leslie Hickock. While I had not seen Leslie in years, I remembered seeing her at a class reunion (I think our 20th in 2002) when she proudly introduced me to her husband, United States Congressman Sam Graves. Of course, I now know of the connection between Graves and Roe and I am sure Roe talked to Leslie about the accident. (In fact, he refers to a conversation he had with a close friend about the incident in one of the stories written about his post.)

While I am not sure if Leslie was there the night of the accident I am sure she was not with us prior to the accident or when it occurred. . Therefore, I am left with this question, did Leslie simply tell Roe about the incident and he took it from there or did Leslie lead Roe to believe Joe was drinking? Either way Leslie has an obligation to set the record straight, a chance I am sure she will get in the libel case.

I often wonder how people like Roe end up that way, were they simply corrupted by greed and power or is it some personality trait they were born with? Depending on how Leslie explains her involvement in this case I may have a better understanding.

The real candidate for change

2008-01-19T12:32:00.000-06:00

My fellow Americans, after I woke up this morning and changed my clothes to come here I realized what this election is about; Change. It was at that point that I realized why I am the most qualified candidate to lead this country in these ever changing times. While other candidates may talk about change I live a life of constant change. As I told you earlier, just this morning I changed my clothes and while driving here I actually changed lanes and radio stations several times. Changing is not new to me as I have lived a life of changing to get to where I am today and that will not change if I am elected.

My career as a public servant shows my commitment to change as I have changed my stance on many issues and I am willing to change my position on those issues again if this change will help you to change your mind and vote for me, the candidate of change. With my new changing view as to what is important in this election let me clearly lay out my positions:

It is clear that we need to change our policy on the war in Iraq to help change the direction of this war unless you are happy with the direction in which case I will work to change the views of those who want to change our policies.

With many experts advising us we are heading into a recession it is clear we need to either change the economic policies that may be leading us into these troubled times or change the experts we listen to about the economy.

On other important issues facing this country, I have heard the clear mandate of the people that change is what is needed and once the citizens of this country quit changing their minds on what issues are important, I can promise you I will implement my position of change on these issues as well.

While my advisers and I have spent hours putting together our detailed plans to change the course of this country we are, of course, willing to change our minds if you believe further change is needed. In fact, if you decide change is not what you want but instead you desire stability and continuity I can assure you that my position on change has been a consistent and stable feature of my life which will not change. While I may have changed clothes, lanes and positions this morning, I do this every day and, therefore, I really haven't changed anything at all.

Paid for with change by Citizens for Change, We are in the process of changing treasurers.

Audit on St. Peters to be released

2008-01-17T14:50:00.000-06:00

The audit performed by the Missouri State Auditor's office on the city of St. Peters is set to be released next week. A meeting will be held on Wednesday, January, 23 at 7:00 pm at the St. Peters City Hall to discuss the findings. I will provide a link to the report as soon as it is available.

I'm back

2008-01-17T09:49:00.000-06:00

For various reasons I have not posted in several weeks but I am back and ready to post again. I will be making a change to the format in that I will not be linking to all the local news on a daily basis but instead I will link stories which interest me whether state, local or national. If anyone has any suggestions or comments regarding a story or format change send me an email at rfisc82376@aol.com.

Praise for Fish & Ships

2007-12-21T10:32:00.000-06:00

Chuck MacNab, the editor and publisher of Riteon.org, had some kind words to say about our latest Fish & Ships show. The last show can be heard by going to the O'Fallon Watchdog and clicking on the link to the December 18, 2007 broadcast. Chuck wrote:

Rick Fischer and Lyn Schipper comment on issues facing the City of O'Fallon and more briefly, St Charles County and Wentzville. They lay out some of the reasons why residential taxes are skyrocketing. If you are a residential taxpayer living in St Charles County, Missouri (Maybe the same things are going on in Lincoln County or your area if you aren't!) it's well worth your time to listen to this sound clip and hear what these well informed people have to say.

Riteon.org offers conservatives a place to read about and discuss traditional conservative values principles and issues. Chuck and the other members of the St. Charles County Republican Club are working to take back their party and, unlike other partisan groups, the Republican Club is more than willing to point out the abuse and corruption in our system no matter what party is involved. While I may not agree with them on some issues, I know they are fighting for what they believe is best for the country rather than what is best for the Republican party. Politicians in both parties would serve themselves well by visiting Riteon.org to remind them of the issues and thoughts of some of the people they claim to represent.

Judicial hellholes and legislating fairness

2007-12-20T22:14:00.000-06:00

I haven't been able to post the last couple of days because I have been involved in a jury trial in St. Charles County. It was a civil case and I represented the defendant. While catching up on the news I ran across an article entitled "Counties no longer judicial hellholes." The story is in regard to the Illinois counties of Madison and St. Clair being dropped from the list of "judicial hellholes" put out by the pro-business American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). (The story incorrectly reports that these counties were considered anti-plaintiff. In fact, they were considered anti-defendant, which is what the ATRA considers a judicial hellhole.) Tort reform supporters love to talk about judicial hellholes, the McDonald's coffee case, sleazy trial attorneys and how all of these things have conspired to ruin the good old American way. The tort reform campaign has been very successful as laws have been passed across the nation in an attempt to make the court system "fair" for everyone.

Are there places where juries are more likely to side with a plaintiff and give larger sums of money? Absolutely, and every lawyer who is filing a claim for a plaintiff should and does try to file in this venue. These "judicial hellholes" are usually located in lower income areas close to major cities and the juries are often unfair to businesses. In addition, these juries will sometimes award damages far in excess of what most of us would think was reasonable.

Talk of "judicial hellholes" usually ends here. However, if there are places where juries are more favorable to plaintiffs wouldn't it be logical that there are venues which are more favorable to defendants? Of course there are although this is the part you do not read or hear about. These anti-plaintiff counties are often located in areas with wealthier suburbs or in conservative rural areas. While the media loves to report about the judge who sued because the cleaner lost his pants, what we don't read about is the guy who doesn't get anything despite legitimate and very real losses.

Big business, the media and the medical profession have convinced us these anti-plaintiff "judicial hellholes" are what we should strive for to have a "fair" system. Thus, while logic and common sense would indicate that we have three different venues; pro-plaintiff, pro-defendant and fair, the solutions offered by tort reform is limited to curbing the excesses of pro-plaintiff venues. The campaign for tort reform has been so successful that we actively seek out candidates who are willing to take rights away from us and pass laws telling us what "fair" means. While we applaud their right thinking ways, big business is putting money in their pockets.

If we really wanted a system that is "fair" a good place to start would be to expand the area from which we select jurors. Rather than have pro-plaintiff city jurors and pro-defendant suburban jurors restricted by the boundaries of their respective counties we could expand the areas in which each serves to bring a better cross section of society to each area. Tort reformers don't like this solution because they have been successful in taking away choices from jurors and restrictions on plaintiffs. The limitations they have placed on jurors are, of course, anti-plaintiff restrictions that work to put the brakes on "run away juries" but also restrict even the most anti-plaintiff juries in a case where they may stray from there usual "fair" verdicts.

Just as big business does not want true tort reform neither do trial lawyers. While I am unsure of the numbers I am confident that more cases end up in pro-defendant venues then those which are pro-plaintiff. However, lawyers are willing to go along with this system in hopes of getting that one case with real damages, a defendant with lots of money or insurance and a favorable venue for plaintiffs. As a result, the fight has nothing to do with justice but instead it revolves around the almighty dollar.

The tort reform PR campaign has worked and lawyers hear the language of tort reformers every time we pick a jury. However, when you ask these jurors if they know anyone who received an excessive verdict you rarely hear them answer yes. Many of them do, however, know someone they believe was treated unfairly by an insurance company or who wasn't fairly compensated for their injuries. And we all know every tort reformer is a rear ender away from a different view on what is fair.

Fish & Ships

2007-12-17T19:25:00.000-06:00

On tomorrow's show Lyn Schipper and I will be talking about;

O'Fallon's 2008 budget
Mayor Morrow's plans to increase the amount of debt
Wentzville's apparent deal to appease the builders on tap fees

You can hear the show every Tuesday starting at approximately 9:00 AM until 9:15 on KFAV, 99.9. If you can't hear the show live you can go to the O'Fallon Watchdog later this week to listen to the show. We won't be on next Tuesday (Christmas) so I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and we will be back in 2008.

Lee Enterprises; Where your advertising dollars buy you more than just ads

2007-12-16T21:18:00.000-06:00

Lee Enterprises is the owner of the two major newspapers in the St. Louis Metropolitan area, The Suburban Journals and the Post-Dispatch. In St. Charles County these papers became pawns for the builders and developers who poured in their advertising dollars. Things haven't changed much. As exhibit A, I offer the following column with my remarks in red. The remarks relate to the accuracy of the article and not to the accuracy of statements or quotes by any individuals.

Council votes to vacate Koch Road (Wrong. See below.)

By Elizabeth Perry, Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:27

The O'Fallon City Council voted 6-2 Wednesday to vacate Old Koch Road, a stretch of land that is currently under fierce legal dispute in the city. ( The council voted to refer the case to planning & zoning to discuss the possibility of vacating Koch Road.) The dissenting votes came from Councilmen Jeff Yelich, Ward 3, and Daniel Christoff, Ward 1. Yelich said he voted against the measure to vacate the already vacated stretch of road because it is currently under litigation. "I thought we should stay out of it until St. Charles County and the courts have decided the appeal," Christoff said. "I don't want to be a target of another lawsuit."

City Attorney Kevin O'Keefe said it was illegal for St. Charles County to have the road vacated because it was up to the city of O'Fallon to vacate the road. O'Keefe then said his comments were "off the record.""I don't want to get in the middle of their dispute. I want to see that we do all what is possible to bring peace to the homeowners," O'Keefe said. O'Keefe said he wanted to ensure the homeowners who purchased houses built on the vacated road would not be forced to move.

The original Koch Road was vacated in 2006 after developer Hyland Green, LLC, asked the St. Charles County Council to approve vacating the road, declaring it "useless." (Wrong on two points. First, the vacation of Koch Road did not happen until February of 2007. The writer of this story, Elizabeth Perry, wrote a story a couple of weeks ago in which she made this same "mistake." I called her at that time and explained that the road was not vacated, if at all, until 2007 and why this was crucial to the story. Perry told me she had relied on a previous story in the paper written by another reporter that included the incorrect date. I followed up the conversation by emailing Perry more information. No one is claiming Koch Road was vacated in 2006 and this fact is easily verified by a review of the records. The reason the date is crucial is that the road was torn out in 2006 and O'Fallon issued building permits in 2006. However, the Journal has never reported the illegal removal of the road by the builder or that O'Fallon issued building permits to build on a public road before it was vacated. Of course, it is easier to avoid these subjects if you simply fail to report the true date the road was vacated. The second mistake in this sentence regards the statement that Hyland Green, the developer, asked the County to vacate the road. The request to vacate the road was made by 12 residents and Hyland Green could not make the request under the law.) The developer built another road, also called Koch Road, to replace it as part of the Hyland Green subdivision. Hyland Green sold a large portion of Hyland Green subdivision to Chesterfield-based McBride & Son Homes. McBride built four homes on the old Koch Road site, but McBride was forced to stop building when neighbors sued to have the land turned back into a road, based on the legal argument that St. Charles County had no right to vacate the road. ( Wrong. McBride continued to build houses after the lawsuit was filed and only stopped once O'Fallon was forced to stop issuing building permits, which was about 14 months after the suit was filed.) The neighbors won their lawsuit when St. Charles County Circuit Judge Lucy Rauch ruled the road was vacated illegally. St. Charles County is appealing the decision.

McBride also is suing the city because it stopped issuing building permits after Rauch's decision. (I was unable to file any pending suit by McBride & Sons against O'Fallon as indicated in the article.) Homeowners who bought houses built on the disputed road filed a lawsuit against McBride, claiming they were not informed of the precarious legal status of their homes. (The homeowners were not told their homes were built on a public right of way.)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the mistakes noted above can be attributed to sloppy reporting. Very sloppy reporting. From the headline to the last line, an uniformed reader remained uninformed and, after reading the article, misinformed. However, this was not simply sloppy reporting.

When I spoke to Ms. Perry after her first article and explained the story was incorrect, I asked if the Journal would be filing a correction. Having dealt with the Journal before I knew how they handle mistakes in their reporting, intentional or not. They ignore them. However, I did not expect a reporter to print facts she knew were not true as Perry did. Of course, the Journal won't be reporting the real story here about McBride & Sons illegally destroying a public road with O'Fallons help. The best we can hope for is that the Journal simply stops spreading misinformation.

Do O'Fallon officials want the truth?

2007-12-15T11:19:00.000-06:00

On November 8, 2007 the City of O'Fallon held a workshop to discuss Koch Road. Koch Road was illegally torn out by a developer and the builder, McBride & Sons, then used our right of way to build houses. The City of O'Fallon was a willing partner in the illegal destruction of the road and the subsequent building of homes. I set out in detail the facts of this case in a post on November 13, 2007.

I was told by O'Fallon councilman Dan Christoff that the City was going to explain its role in the illegal use and destruction of the road at the November 8 workshop. As I watched the workshop at home the City Engineer, Steve Bender, provided the council , the mayor and the citizens a complete fabrication of what really happened. Bender's story was not only false but it was a clear attempt to cover up the role City Administrator Bob Lowery played in this fiasco. Bender's story went unchallenged so I sent an email to the mayor and council members regarding what really happened. Much of what I posted back on November 13 originated in that email. After the workshop ended I turned off the council meeting.

Later that night I learned that one of the residents whose home was built on a public right of way, addressed the board at citizens comments. The resident attempted to ask the city questions regarding why O'Fallon issued building permits for homes on a public road. The mayor told the resident she would not answer the questions but she would have some comments at the end. When the citizen's comments were completed Mayor Donna Morrow went on one of the most unprofessional, immature and just plain silliest rants I have ever seen. And it was directed at me.

I was not at the meeting and my name was not mentioned by the resident who spoke or anyone else at the meeting prior to the mayor's diatribe. However, the mayor's comments accused me of misrepresenting the facts and claimed I was a harm to the residents of O'Fallon. During Morrow's rant she even said "Mr. Fischer I'm calling you out" and invited me to come up to address the council. Unfortunately. I didn't learn of the Mayor's "challenge" in time so I was unable to accept her invitation.

The next morning I called and emailed the mayor regarding her inappropriate and untruthful comments the night before. I have watched meetings in which citizens were stopped in mid sentence from discussing city business because they mentioned a person by name yet here we have the mayor publicly attacking a resident. It should also be noted that Morrow actually appointed me as special counsel back in 2005 to investigate corruption, however, Morrow did a complete 180 on many of her campaign promises which eventually led to my resignation. In addition, Morrow's "misstatements" of facts are well known by those who have dealt with her and at one point the council unanimously reprimanded her for "less than complete and less than precise" accounts of her actions and accused Morrow of "unchecked executive power." Despite this history, the last time I spoke at a meeting, June 14, 2007, I praised the mayor for some of the actions she was taking.

In any event, Morrow's bravado at the council meeting quickly disappeared when I offered to meet with her to discuss her public attack against me. Since Morrow lacked the courage to speak with me directly she had her assistant, Carl Maus, call me. Maus told me I was more than welcome to appear at the next meeting to discuss Koch Road and the mayor's comments. I explained to Maus and the mayor (by email) that I would be more than willing to address the council on Koch Road but that I didn't think public comments was the appropriate forum to discuss Morrow's personal attack. Morrow, however, refuses to speak with me.

December 13, 2007 was the first meeting of the council since Morrow's public meltdown but I was out of town and unable to attend. However, I don't want the mayor to think I am declining her offer to speak to the council. Therefore, since Morrow won't speak to me I am making this public offer to the mayor and the council and I think this will be much more productive than childish name calling:

Rather than speak at public comments I will appear before the mayor and council to discuss what happened on Koch Road. I will allow the mayor, the council members, Bob Lowery, Steve Bender, the city attorney and any interested individuals to question me regarding my claims as to O'Fallon's role with Koch Road. I assume the members of the council and the mayor would want to see the documents and hear the facts which support my allegations of serious misconduct on the part of O'Fallon officials. In return all that I ask is the opportunity to ask questions of city officials as well. Of course, we would need to avoid the personal attacks and, instead, focus on the issues.

Workshops in O'Fallon often provide much more give and take between the council and those who speak so my request is nothing extraordinary. In addition, this will allow the mayor an opportunity to publicly back up her allegations that I have misrepresented the facts regarding Koch Road. When Morrow ran for mayor she listed as one of her top issues to "Make sure employees are responsive to residents." Here is your chance to follow through on one of your promises mayor. Shall we pick a date?

Top ten "explanations" Jetton supported Village law

2007-12-12T23:13:00.000-06:00

Rod Jetton is still working on making up a story on why he slipped a provision into a lengthy bill which made it easier to become a Village in Missouri. Of course, the real reason is he wanted to help out a wealthy businessman/developer, Robert Plaster, but he can't admit that. However, in a Wake Up Call exclusive, we have been provided a list of other "explanations" Jetton is considering. Drum roll please:

10."I thought it meant the Village People could get back together."

9. "No one ever said 'it takes a county to raise a child,' stupid."

8. "Mr. Plaster said I could come over and play anytime and he might even make me sheriff."

7. "Too many idiots; not enough villages."

6. "Like I knew someone would start paying attention."

5. "It's part of my wealthy developer outreach program."

4. "Amnesia; yeah, yeah I got amnesia."

3. "Can't you people take a joke."

2. "Two words; financial security."

1. "I asked Blunt not to sign it but he deleted my email."

Wake Up Call Headlines-3rd Edition

2007-12-12T15:33:00.000-06:00

Headline: Teens In Custody For Tossing Feces Into Store
Wake Up Call Headline: Store advises shoppers to bring fans

Headline: Baseball drug results coming Thursday
Wake Up Headline: Players hat sizes expected to decrease in 2008

Headline: PSC weighs changing policies on private meetings with utilities
Wake Up Headline: PSC debates whether to be ethical

Headline: Morrison asks for independent investigation of allegations in sex scandal
Wake Up Headline: Kansas AG delays the inevitable

Headline: Jetton: 'Village law' was rural outreach
Wake Up Headline: Jetton: Do you think they'll buy this one?

Headline: Coming soon A new columnist for St. Charles County
Wake Up Headline: Post discovers humans in St. Charles County