Poll: Who Should Gov Nixon Appoint St. Louis License Collector?
Last week it was announced a city hall regular would be leaving elected office to take a new job:
The Board of Directors of the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis, Inc. has appointed Michael P. McMillan, 41, as the next president and chief executive officer of the 95 – year old Urban League affiliate. McMillan, the License Collector for the City of St. Louis since 2007 and a longtime Urban League member and supporter, takes the helm August 5, succeeding James H. Buford who is retiring after 28 years of stellar service to the Urban League. (Urban League)
McMillan, 42 as of last Friday, will be assuming an important leadership position in St. Louis, congratulations.
This also means a city-wide elected office will become vacant, the position of license collector. As a county office, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, will appoint a successor to complete the term, which ends on December 31, 2014. The next primary is in August 2014. The appointee will have nearly a year in office on the day of the primary.
Speculation began right away as to who Nixon might be considering, the Post-Dispatch listed the following in Field to replace St. Louis License Collector is wide open:
- Brian Wahby, the former chairman of the St. Louis City Democrats who lost a bid for city treasurer last year.
- Terry Kennedy, a workhorse at the Board of Aldermen who chairs the board’s Ways and Means committee.
- Marlene Davis, close friend of McMillan’s who represents his old Midtown ward.
- Martin Casas, who unsuccessfully ran for state representative and is looking to stay active in politics
- Donna Baringer, alderman from the city’s Ward 16.
- Jeffrey Boyd, alderman from the city’s Ward 22.
If Nixon appoints a current alderman then we’d see jockeying to fill that seat. I personally like to see the players change seats every so often, otherwise races get stagnant as voter apathy increases.
Speaking of stagnant, we shouldn’t forget the two most senior members on the Board of Aldermen:
- Fred Wessels
- Phyllis Young
Both were sworn into office in April 1985! Wessels ran for treasurer last year, Young ran for president of the board of alderman in 1995.
Assuming all are equally qualified, Nixon may consider the race of his appointee. He may not want to appoint a white person to a citywide seat held by a black person. Then again, he may not care.
Will McMillan ask Nixon to appoint Marlene Davis? Given her recent financial difficulties, the increased salary would no doubt help her personally. As of January 1, 1999, the annual salary was $64,130 (source). I’m uncertain of the current salary after annual adjustments.
The replacement is the poll question this week: Who should Gov Nixon appoint St. Louis License Collector? The poll is in the right sidebar, you’ve got the option to add a name if you like.
— Steve Patterson
Who cares? From what I understand, these people spend about an hour in the office a day and collect a big paycheck and then a fat government pension.
From the list of potentials, I for one am certainly not impressed. But I think they/we should start with one having a CPA or someone with urban planning that might help smooth out the road for getting licenses in the City and move on from there.
But I love the comment “the increase in salary would no doubt help her”….ah yes, that’s certainly a reason to get chosen. Why don’t we go down to the bankruptcy courts and choose someone from their daily lists. I’m willing to bet any one of them could use a financial boost. And we just might find someone more qualified than on this short list.
Apparently, no one does care! Politicians are just less and less relevant to the lives of most of us. And, I bet most of your readers are asking themselves, “why would the governor of Missouri be appointing a replacement politician in the city of St. Louis?” Answer is, he shouldn’t be. Just one more example of the screwed up situation in St. Louis.
As I explained, the office of license collector is a county level office, not a city office.
Oh, sure, that’s the explanation, but it’s still a screwed up situation. The whole “city not in a county” status is screwed up, plain and simple. Why do you think so many elected officials are opposed to a city/county merger or, more apropos to this discussion, re-entry of the city into the county? Because it would end the gravy train for lots of the city’s county office elected officials and their patronage employees.
No favoritism in the granting of licenses, and in collecting all fees. Work with the revenue department to make sure all taxes are paid by establishments granted licenses.
What favoritism? Are you suggesting political favors and kickbacks?
Yep.
If what you are saying is true and you have the facts to back it up, you should take your information to the proper authorities rather than hyping it here on a blog. Or at least to Elliott Davis.
Trust me, he contacts everyone weekly.