Price To Be In The Know at SLDC: $17/month!

For only $17/month you too can know what is happening with seven different public boards operated by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC). Yes, the SLDC operates seven different boards but the only way to know what they are talking about it is look for the agendas posted at 1015 Locust or pay $17/month to have them sent to you via U.S. Mail. Yes, in 2007 a major entity of city government is incapable of posting agendas online or even having an email list where they are sent out electronically.

From the SLDC website:

St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) is an umbrella, not-for-profit corporation organized under Chapter 355 of the Missouri State Code with the mission of fostering economic development and growth in the City through increased job and business opportunities and expansion of the City’s tax base.

SLDC is directed by its own Board of Directors, and its employees serve as staff support for the City’s seven economic development authorities:

Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA)
Land Reutilization Authority (LRA)
Local Development Company (LDC)
Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA)
Port Authority
Tax Increment Financing Commission (TIF)

The Executive Director of SLDC is also Executive Director for each authority. The agency’s department directors make policy recommendations to the authorities, the Mayor, Board of Aldermen, and the business community.

I had sent an email request under Missouri’s Sunshine Law to SLDC Director Rodney Crim asking to receive the agendas at the same time as the board members. It was my assumption, at the time, that this information was sent out via email. Monday I received a phone call from SLDC Legal Director Leslye Mitchell Yancey responding to my request, informing me of the price to know about public information.

I do understand that preparing and mailing out information doesn’t come free, I’m not asking to get something for nothing. Still, I’d kinda like to know the various issues they are addressing without having to make numerous trips to 1015 Locust each and every month. I enquired about receiving just three (3) agendas a month and I was quoted a price of $7.25. Basically it is pro-rated. The more you know, the more it costs.

As an example, the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is meeting this afternoon at 1:30pm at 1015 Locust. Do I want to attend? I’m not sure, I have no idea what they are reviewing. I’m sure those seeking approval certainly know what is on the agenda. Those who have managed to make it to 1015 Locust to see the official posting know. For the rest of us we are left in the dark.

I should point out that the SLDC is perfectly compliant with Missouri’s Sunshine Law regarding meeting notices, they are posting meetings as required. Of course, there is a big difference between minimal compliance and open & responsive government. SLDC has a long way to go toward the latter.

I had to make sure it was indeed 2007. One would think such a large agency would be able to post these agendas online. Of course, I couldn’t find their annual report online to actually demonstrate how large of an agency they really are. I went to their press release section and noticed the most recent was from April 2005 — the only press release that year. Clearly the management issues for SLDC extend far beyond the posting of meeting notices.

Candidates for Aldermanic President Speak at 15th Ward Forum

Last night I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, not to be confused with Democrats of the 15th Ward. They are not one in the same, but I will cover that later. The format was Mr. Shrewsbury had the first half hour and Mr. Reed the second half hour. They were asked the same questions. Below are videos for each opening statement, I included Mr. Reed’s closing statement as well to give him roughly equal time at Mr. Shrewsbury. Both vidoes are raw — I have not edited any content.
Jim Shrewsbury — current President of the Board of Aldermen (opening statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuayjEYA7CM[/youtube]

Lewis Reed — current 6th Ward Alderman (opening & closing statement):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KbjPchJAQQ[/youtube]

The nine questions asked of both candidates related to the following:

• TIF for St. Louis Centre
• Example of Impact You’d have on City
• School Board appointment in case of state takeover
• BJC/Forest Park lease
• Charter Reform
• Aldermanic Courtesy
• Air Quality
• Gentrification
• Large-Scale Development

For more detail of each question and each response see the summary prepared by 15th ward resident Steve Wilke-Shapiro.One question related to pollution/air quality. Mr. Shrewsbury spoke of legislation he passed related to prohibiting the burning of medical waste. Mr. Reed indicated he would support future legislation similar to the bill passed by Ald. Flowers prohibiting the burning of medical waste. So who sponsored the bill on medical waste? Well, quite a few aldermen did. In fact, the bill (now Ordinance #65701) had 23 sponsors out of a possible 29. It would appear both Pres. Shrewsbury and Ald. Flowers were the primary sponsors. Aldermen Carter, Bauer, Florida, Long, Roddy, Villa, Clay, Ryan, McMillan, Smith, Ortmann, Reed, Sondermann, Gregali, Krewson, Schmid, Conway, Ozier, Kirner, Kennedy and Heitert all joined in. So Shrewsbury was a sponsor and Reed was a co-sponsor. That didn’t help me in distinquishing between the two candidates.

In fact, not much was helpful. Overall I’d say Shrewsbury gave more direct answers with some specific examples whereas Reed stayed more general. Still, neither seemed to offer a radically different perspective on the questions. It was not like Democrats vs. Republicans debating gay marriage.

Immediately following the presentations the eligible members of the 15th Ward Democrats voted to endorse Mr. Reed in the race. I have inquired directly and on several sites as to the voting process. The reason I was curious is it seemed to me that half the room was people from the press or workers/volunteers for each of the two candidates. I estimate that roughly only 10 or so were from the 15th ward and a couple of those were not eligible to vote in the endorsement.

Remember that I said at the opening not to confuse the 15th Ward Democrats with the Democrats of the 15th Ward, let me elaborate. The Democrats of the 15th Ward is the old guard if you will, and that ward group is a closed ward. That is, the membership is not allowed to vote. I’m not even sure they have any actual members. However, the two leaders of that group, Greg Thomas & Jo Ann Perkins, were both elected in 2000 & 2004 to represent the Democrats of the 15th ward (in 2004 Thomas received over 1,600 votes while Perkins received over 1,700 votes). Neither were opposed in 2000 or 2004, just as Ald. Jennifer Florida was not opposed in 2005.

So this other group, the 15th Ward Democrats, is not elected by anyone. They are a political action committee (PAC) that was formed because they were unhappy with the closed ward group. Their website indicates they are an “open” ward where members are allowed to vote in endorsements. Yet, when I inquired about their membership numbers, how many voted last night and such I was told they don’t disclose such information. Doesn’t sound very open does it?

I can understand not wanting to indicate the outcome of the ward vote — they are indicating they as a group back the person they selected, in this case Ald. Reed. I have to respect that as they want to be a united group to support their selected candidate. Still, they can disclose the number of eligible voting members as well as the number of those that participated in the ward vote without damaging that united front. Again, I believe it to have been around 10 people that comprised the vote. Frankly I don’t care if it was 6-4, 9-1 or 10-0 for Reed, I want to know how representative these groups are relative to the number of residents and registered voters. In 2004 the 15th ward had 5,759 registered voters so personally I don’t see much difference between a “closed” ward where the two duly-elected democratic representatives endorse candidates and a small group of 10 people in an “open” ward endorse candidates.

UPDATE 1/11/2007 @ 8:45am — I totally forgot to mention, in order to comment on the “open” 15th Ward Democrats blog you must be a registered user of blogspot yourself.  This, of course, dramatically limits feedback they might receive.  The software offers other options for feedback while still controlling for spam but then just anyone could comment.

Questionaires for Local Candidates

At the end of last week filing closed for candidates in local elections in the City of St. Louis for the Board of Aldermen and for the city-wide election of the President of the Board of Aldermen. Independent candidates can still file a petition (signatures required) by February 12th to run in the April general election, although I don’t see that happening.

Eight of the 14 even-numbered aldermanic seats are contested: the 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th and 26th. I would have liked to have seen more of the seats be contested but this is better than in years past. I’m not going to focus on the remaining wards that are not contested as a questionaire to them it rather pointless I think, simply by paying a $328 filing fee they are guaranteed the seat for another four years.

So the idea is to send out a list of questions to all 20 candidates and then post their responses for everyone to review. I belive there are questions general enough for all the contested aldermanic seats as well as for the President of the Board of Aldermen. Of course, machine politicians traditionally avoid real issues and instead focus on individual constituent service (stop signs, dumpsters, etc) but we’ll see how it goes.

While I have not developed specific questions, here are some general topics for all candidates, in no particular order:

• Charter Reform
• Non-partisan elections
• City rejoining St. Louis County
• Regional planning agency
• Mississippi River Bridge
• Mass Transit (funding of, expansion of, types)
• Education (St. Louis Public Schools, Charter Schools, Vouchers)
• State Control of St. Louis Police
• Aldermanic Courtesy
• Use of eminent domain
• Tax credits, TIFs and tax abatement
• City’s zoning code
• Patronage jobs, machine politics
• Environment, U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement
• Campaign contribution limits
• Constituent communication
• Valet parking/Parking Management
• Role of the Planning & Urban Design Agency
• Preservation/Demolition Policy
• Parking for two-wheel vehicles (bikes, scooters, motorcycles)
• 22nd Street Interchange (located in 6th Ward)

My thought is to use a 1-5 format with say #1 representing “strongly agree” and 5 representing “strongly disagree.” I’d form statements slanted one way or another soliciting a 1-5 response from each. I’d also allow candidates to submit additional explainations for each topic — I have no space limitations.

I’d like to open this up to your feedback on general topic areas or if you have specific questions/statements you’d like to see posed to all the candidates. I want to keep this issued-focused and not personality focused. Still, questions relating to record are valid as these speak to policy perspectives.

Candidates for Aldermanic President Not Impressing Me So Far

Incumbent Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury is facing a strong challenge from 6th Ward Alderman Lewis Reed in the primary election to be held on March 6th. Unless an independent petitions to be on the April ballot (deadline is February 12th, hint hint, nudge nudge), one of these two men will be the next President of the Board of Aldermen and the other will be out of political office, at least temporarily.
So far Jim Shrewsbury seems to be running on a platform of starting board meetings on time and following the law. Well, I would certainly hope so! Reed, on the other hand, is bragging about how much development has happened in his ward during his tenure. The problem I have with Reed on this issue is how he is trying to say he’d be a better board president because he has produced so many millions in development while Shrewsbury has not.

I see the President’s job to run the administrative side of the Board of Alderman and to vote on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. The President’s job is not to start doing development deals throughout the city. Shrewsbury needs better arguments than simply starting meetings on time or following the law. Reed needs to think about what it is the President should be doing and suggest how he is better qualified to do those things than his opponent. Reed needs to understand that if elected his days of brokering development deals are over.  Right now neither candidate is impressing me.

We’ll see how they do at tonight’s candidate forum sponsored by the 15th Ward Democrats, 7pm at the Carpenter Branch Library on South Grand (see map). On-street parking is available along with a small parking lot accessible off of McDonald (a one-way street so you’d need to enter from the West). A bike rack is located on the Grand side near the main entrance. The library is also along the #70 Grand bus line.

Judge Allows Unlimited Fundraising During Session

The Associated Press is reporting via the Belleville News Democrat that Jim Trout’s lawsuit challenging Missouri’s new campaign finance law  (see prior post) has been partially blocked by a Judge:

A Cole County judge on Monday temporarily blocked a new law banning fundraising by lawmakers, statewide officials and candidates during the legislative session, which began last week and runs through mid-May.

Although Circuit Judge Richard Callahan’s order only addresses the fundraising ban, the law also eliminated individual contribution limits; banned cash contributions to candidates from political parties; prohibited certain people from running for office; and imposed new Ethics Commission reporting requirements on lobbyists. Callahan set a March 2 hearing for consideration of the lawsuit seeking to declare the entire law unconstitutional

In his ruling, Callahan said the Legislature did not address the concerns raised by a federal judge who struck down a similar Missouri legislative session fundraising ban in 1996 as an unconstitutional infringement on free-speech rights.

Hopefully the judge will throw out the entire new law so that we stick with reasonable contribution limits.   With a hearing just days before our St. Louis primary election is looks at though local races will not be affected by this case.  I don’t know how these things work but it would be interesting if the judge was able to rule that contributions received over the old limits had to be returned by candidates.