So, Just How Are These Folks Reportedly the "Bright Future"...

In late February and into March a group of citizens calling themselves, “Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Brighter Future” (KCCTBF) were protesting and demanding a delay of the April 8th election. These folks were supposedly outraged how Council member Connie Karr’s name was taken off of the April Mayoral ballot after her death in the February 7th shooting at City Hall. The accusations and claims made against our elected leaders and other city officials by members of KCCTBF were outrageous and insulting. Our local, regional and even national press scooped up this story in Kirkwood and ran with it.

The local press like the Webster-Kirkwood Times with their customary one-sided articles on controversial issues got these folks claims out to the public in their February 22, 2008 article “Kirkwood Group Urges Delay Of April Municipal Election” by Kevin Murphy. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s entire editorial staff chimed in with these folks’ demands in their jaded editorial from March 3, 2008 entitled, “A Long Time Healing.” St. Louis Magazine did a biased article called “The Kirkwood Shootings: The Return to City Hall” furthering KCCTBF’s agenda in their May issue. Even the NY Times on March 15, 2008 with the unbalanced article “Politics Tests a Town Unity Forged by Gunshots” by Monica Davey propagated these folks’ charges to the paper’s national audience.

The following folks were quoted in these and other news pieces on the subject: Jane von Kaenel, Dick Reeves, Stephanie Burns, Nancy Luetzow, Ellen Wentz, Ginny Garesche, Steve Eagleton and of course Kathy Paulsen. A synopsis of KCCTBF‘s public claims and charges in these various news pieces reads like this (note: the words in italics below are direct quotes from the above folks or from various news pieces on the subject):

The community of Kirkwood needs a legitimate election, one featuring at least two competing candidates, and those candidates should have adequate time to campaign. Those calling for a delay insist that voters deserve more choices than the remaining candidate. Otherwise, we will have allowed Charles Thornton and his violent acts to cast our votes for us. Citizens should be given the opportunity to make a choice because the protestors believe voters in a democracy deserve multiple options. What we are looking for now is democracy. That’s the only thing that’s going to heal people. The protestors justify taking their actions because the decision (to not delay) is too large and too lasting — mayoral terms are four years — to allow sorrow to silence debate, even if some find it clumsy or unpleasant. The protestors point out how unfair it is to keep referring to dissenters as “a vocal minority,” “axe-grinders” or “malcontents” who are “divisive” because what they heard was free speech. The protestors have questions about the council's motives. The council has the ability to do the right thing, and they're not doing it. The reason why the April election was not delayed is because the 'good old boy network' would like a monarchy. There is a distrust of an old guard here, Council members among them, who the dissidents argue have denied newcomers, African-Americans, opponents of development and others a political voice.

It is interesting to note after reading the various news items on the subject how the majority of what these supposed “Bright Future” folks in Kirkwood had to say was complaints about how they have been allegedly wronged in the past. So, just how are these folks reportedly the “Bright Future” activists in our community?

But, this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding the blatant hypocrisy of KCCTBF’s very public stance. After all their previous grand talk about democracy the date to file for the August 5th City Council special election has passed without a single one of these activist residents filing as a candidate. This special election is to fill Council Member Karr’s unexpired term. Yet, not a single one of these activist residents cared enough to file to be a candidate. Like in the past, going all the way back to 1992, it has been so easy for these folks to complain and protest vehemently when they feel they have been wronged in any way shape or form by anyone at City Hall. And going all the way back to 1992 our local press has been more than willing to lap it up, then present it as news. In February and March these folks went out of their way to grandstand and raise a huge stink in our community after such a terrible tragedy. The real story the press has yet to cover, however, is that when it comes time for these demanding, intransigent and belligerent residents to step forward and be involved in the election process, they are nowhere to be found.

So, why did the members of KCCTBF fail to offer our community a City Council candidate from within their leadership ranks when they supposedly represent so many in Kirkwood?

Why did the members of KCCTBF not “do the right thing” for “democracy” in our community?

Why did the members of KCCTBF fail to do supposedly “the only thing that” was “going to heal people” in Kirkwood?

Do not Kirkwood “voters deserve more choices” and “multiple options” in an election to fill Mrs. Karr’s unexpired term in order to carry on KCCTBF’s supposed all important cause?

Is this not especially the case since the decision to run is “too large and too lasting” when the winner of this race has the possibility to serve on the City Council for almost a decade?

If it was right to question City Council members’ "motives" in February, then is it not right for the "motives" of the members of KCCTBF to now be questioned given their previous pervasive public protests?

Who do the members of KCCTBF now blame for their alleged disenfranchisement in Kirkwood?

Who now allegedly “denied” them their “political voice” in our community?

Some may say I am not being very nice or neighborly by asking these tough, but very obvious questions of the members of KCCTBF.

My only response is … all I am hearing is … "free speech" …"it is not good to silence debate, even if some find it clumsy or unpleasant." I thought these were the principles “Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Brighter Future” stood for in our community?

It is sad our local, regional and national press has failed to clamor over this side of the story with the same vim, vigor, articles and editorials like they did over the past few months.

The journalistic and editorial failure of our press, especially our local press, to be fair, accurate and balanced on controversial issues is the other huge iceberg of hypocrisy the citizen of Kirkwood must navigate against.

I ask again ... So, just how are these folks reportedly the “Bright Future” activists in our community?

====================================================================================

Now is your chance to respond to this posting. Come on now don't be shy. Click on the "Comments" link below and share your opinion.

May Poll: Curbside Recycling in Kirkwood

Recently the folks at Kirkwood Alliance (KA) held a meeting on the subject of recycling and specifically “curbside recycling.” The meeting was attended by about 20-25 people. About 5-6 of the folks in attendance were either involved in the waste hauling industry or they were from another community organization sharing information on recycling at the meeting. So, at most only 20 Kirkwood residents including myself actually showed up to listen to the presentation being given.

In attendance were some of the present/former board members of KA that I know, most notably John and Stephanie Burns, Ginny Garashe and Carol Gilster. There were a few other attendees I did not know. Also, I noticed Ellen Wentz was there. She has been involved in recycling and other issues over the years in Kirkwood.

It is interesting to note how so many Kirkwood community activist groups seem to overlap in membership given that John, Stephanie, Ginny, Carol and Ellen were also involved in the recent election protests of Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together For A Bright Future (KCCTBF). Plus, all of them were actively involved in supporting the 2003 K-Fair ward proposal.

One resident noticeably absent at this KA recycling meeting was Mr. Dick Reeves. Back in early April Mr. Reeves said in a W-K Times Mailbag letter that it would behoove the new City Council to enact “curbside recycling.” Yet, for some reason it did not behoove Mr. Reeves to come to this meeting attended by fellow members of KCCTBF to build community involvement in the issue.

But, Mr. Reeves was not alone. Many of the self-proclaimed, often quoted in the press “green” activists in our community (who are also members of KCCTBF & K-Fair) were noticeably absent. Chief among these folks not in attendance were Gwynn Wahlmann and Kathy Paulsen. Kathy by the way is the founder of Keep Kirkwood Green (KKG), former board member of Kirkwood Alliance (KA), co-founder of K-Fair and has some leadership role in KCCTBF.

This lack of participation by our community’s alleged “green” activists got me thinking about the issue of recycling. What is the reality of recycling in Kirkwood? My family uses the recyclery on a regular basis. A lot of the folks I know do too. But, do others? Is there a need for “curbside recycling” in Kirkwood? What do folks know about “curbside recycling” in Kirkwood?

So, I decided to add two poll questions about recycling to the site to find some kind of pulse on the issue. Until May 31st you will get a chance to participate in this Readers Poll.

===================================================================

Please take a moment to answer the Poll questions.

And as always do not hesitate to post your thoughts on the issue by clicking on the “Comments” link below.

But, no cheating by trying to give away answers in your comments! We must protect the purity of this vital, all important and totally unscientific poll. (wink!)

CFUH and the St. Louis Magazine Article

Below is my email to the Steering Committee of Community for Understanding and Healing (CFUH) a "non-political, inclusive, peacemaking group of local citizens ... committed to promoting respect, acceptance, and reconciliation among all citizens in our Kirkwood community through reflective dialogue and ongoing proactive initiatives." If you have more questions about CFUH, please learn more about them at their web site. A link to their web site can be found to the left in "useful links" under "Kirkwood CFUH."

=====================================================================

Dear CFUH Steering Committee,

I am sending this email to the main contact email for CFUH, the email addresses of members I already had and a few of the email addresses of members I could find from public sources. I hope you will forward this email to all members of the Steering Committee. Also, I will be posting this letter on my blog on Kirkwood news and issues: www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com

First, I want to let you know how much I have appreciated being able to attend the last two CFUH meetings. I was unable to attend the first two due to previous plans and family issues.

Being a participant in the CFUH meetings has been a very enlightening and at times challenging community building adventure (for lack of a better term). To let down your guard, look a room of usually total strangers in the eye, honestly express your viewpoint on such tough issues as race and then try to effectively listen to that same room of usually total strangers each express their viewpoints on such tough issues can be a bit overwhelming and a lot to chew on. Yet, CFUH has done a great job of providing a very open, non-political, inclusive environment for this kind of discussion to go on in our community. You have truly worked hard to fulfill your stated Mission.

I am, however, disheartened by the fact that CFUH has propagated the St. Louis Magazine article, “The Kirkwood Shootings” by Jeannete Cooperman not only as a “Resource Material” on your web site, but also added it to your “Summer Events” flyer. The reason why I am so disheartened is because the way this jaded article was written and portrays our community is in direct opposition to every stated principle of CFUH’s Mission.

Yes, the first and last two sections of the article bring some light to the subject. But, the article’s two main middle sections “Kirkwood, Meacham Park and the Racial Divide” and “The Return to City Hall” are a politically biased, blatantly exclusionary, inadequately researched and very one-sided distortion of Kirkwood. I have detailed a few of the more outstanding examples of the unfair and inaccurate reporting on my blog in the May 6, 2008 posting entitled, “St. Biased … oops I mean … St. Louis Magazine's “The Kirkwood Shootings” Article.”

If you will read my posting, then take another read of the two main middle sections of Ms. Cooperman’s article you will clearly see her reporting was not researched with any depth. This is in direct contradiction to what CFUH’s flyer states. Also, the only way this piece of poor reporting could overall “shed some light” on an issue in the community of Kirkwood and be considered a “Resource Material” in relation to CFUH’s Mission is to use it as a “poster child” for the biased and one-sided reporting on controversial issues Kirkwood has consistently had to endure from our various local new sources.

The issue of biased and one-sided journalism is a subject CFUH needs to address if it ever plans to fulfill its commitment to “promoting respect, acceptance, and reconciliation among all citizens in our Kirkwood community.” So, promoting and propagating such a blatant example of biased and one-sided journalism in our community is self-defeating.

Our local press for far too long has been the primary vehicle for inaccurate, incendiary and at times incredibly despicable public attacks against various governing bodies, city officials and citizen-volunteer board members in our community. The Webster-Kirkwood Times, the self-proclaimed “Hometown Newspaper” of Kirkwood, has been the worst of the offenders. No better example of this fact is their article from August 15, 2003 on Cookie Thornton entitled, “A Thorn In Kirkwood’s Side.” The strongly worded and terse August 22, 2003 Mailbag response from Kirkwood’s mild mannered Chief Administrative Officer Mike Brown is very telling of how bad the Times once again blew it. Publisher Dwight Bitikofer’s August 29, 2003 lame and pathetic editorial on the subject continued to prove how clueless the Times’ editorial staff was concerning the article’s ramifications in the community of Kirkwood.

I can only hope you will take what I have had to say to heart and modify your policies on how CFUH deals with disseminating articles and information from news sources. Especially, in the case where these articles so blatantly miss the mark. To turn a blind eye to this kind of poor reporting is to condone it.

In addition, I hope you will not ignore the issue of how our local press has negatively impacted the public discourse in our community for many years now. I believe it is important for a group like CFUH to engage our local press in a serious discussion of their biased, unfair and inaccurate reporting and editorial practices. I believe we all can agree the communication of varied and divergent points of view will be a vital part of promoting understanding and healing for the long term in our community. Unfortunately, our local press has all too often failed to provide this kind of a fair and accurate portrayal of controversial issues in our community.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your service to our community.

=====================================================================

Now is your chance to give your take on the issue. Just click on the "Comments" link below.

St. Biased … oops I mean … St. Louis Magazine's “The Kirkwood Shootings” Article

Below is my email to the editors of the St. Biased … oops I mean … St. Louis Magazine regarding their article entitled “The Kirkwood Shootings” in their May, 2008 edition.

Note: I made a few corrections from the original email which I put in [brackets] to better clarify a few of my statements. Sorry, I do not have a staff of editors checking over my emails and postings before I send them. But, I do try my best.

===================================================================

Dear Mr. Schenkenberg and Mr. Halverson,

I wanted to write this letter directly to Ms. Jeannette Cooperman the author of the 4-part article on the Kirkwood Shootings. But, I could not find a way to contact her through your web site. So, I hope you will forward this email to her. Also, I hope you will read it, because the article missed the mark in too many ways.

As a 10-year resident of Kirkwood, who has been politically active in the community since 2003, I have to speak out about how extremely disappointed I am in the article. This article overall is oh so incredibly jaded and biased. I hope you will take the time to seriously read this email, because I plan to critique, confront and challenge your reporting.

The first section “Why did Cookie Kill?” and the last section “The Man Who Threw Chairs” are the only two bright spots in a journalistic sense with the overall article. These sections bring light onto the subject giving the reader a good mix of the different shades of the tragic events.

The other two sections, however, are very unbalanced and one-sided pieces of reporting. The key to why the rest of the article is so very unbalanced and one-sided can be found in your journalist’s own words, “McCallie’s one of the pillars of Kirkwood, and while his detractors tire of his courting of the media and his self-appointed role as the liberal conscience of a conservative community.” I would have to agree with this statement regarding Franklin. He is self-appointed, he has made some very strong stands in this community over the years and the press has lauded him with one inordinate amount of ink and air time. This Franklin-Press mingling is definitely not a “strangers in the night” relationship for either party. Sadly to the detriment of a balanced view point, the press has gone out of their way to court Franklin, just as much as he has gone out of his way to court the press [over the years].

My question is … since this is the case with Franklin, then why did Ms. Cooperman so miserably fail to get and report the opinions of the self-appointed (non-elected) conservative pillars of this community?

I read and re-read these two sections of the article numerous times. All I read is primarily the comments of the past and present elected leaders of Kirkwood, the comments of Franklin and the comments of the various alleged “disenfranchised” citizens in Kirkwood. Not a single comment from a non-elected conservative pillar or regular citizen bringing an opposing viewpoint for the reader to see regarding wards, the allegations of “disenfranchisement" or other issues. Once again another biased and jaded article that in a childish manner frames the discussion by simply pitting one group of citizens against the elected leaders of the community. This kind of poor reporting by the press is what leads to such terms as "vocal minority" or "malcontents" or "ax-grinders" who are "divisive." These are the only folks that get the ink at the cost of the rest of the community. In Kirkwood it is a core group of about two dozen alleged "disenfranchised" citizens that are catered to by the press at the expense of the other 27,000 residents.

For example, Ms. Cooperman does a piece on Mrs. Karr giving her an overwhelmingly large amount of credit for her “work” in the community. But, did we read one sentence or one word, even if it was anonymous, from one of her detractors? This article is like so many written on the subject of Mrs. Karr, a former local reporter. Ms. Cooperman effectively painted a picture that Mrs. Karr could do no wrong in Kirkwood and had no opposition from regular citizens. That is incredibly disappointing. Not only because this picture is so unrealistic in general [about any politician], but it is so far from the facts of the issue in Kirkwood. I find it hard to believe in a community of 27,000 people, Mrs. Cooperman could not find one detractor willing to speak the truth and be the “self-appointed … conservative conscience of the predominantly liberal alleged ‘disenfranchised’ in our community?”

Yet, Mrs. Cooperman had no problem reporting attacks against the community and its elected body from an anonymous source, who is definitely a member of the alleged “disenfranchised.” We all got to read this lovely statement,

“Do they realize Kirkwood’s the only city in America where you can be mayor without an election? It’s a power grab,” a Democrat insists, pointing out that Karr was the only Democrat on a supposedly nonpartisan council.”

Who on your editorial staff vetted this anonymous statement? What journalistic fact-finding techniques were used to verify the accuracy of this statement?

As a white, conservative, Reagan Republican, I know exactly how asinine and ridiculous this statement is in the community of Kirkwood. I am someone who has supported a Democrat, our Deputy Mayor, Tim Griffin numerous times when he has run for City Council. Needless to say, I find your lack of journalistic accuracy and fairness in this anonymous statement insulting at best. I probably disagree with Tim on a variety of national and state issues and have disagreed with him on community issues, but I whole-heartedly support him serving anywhere on the City Council. He had done a fine job on the Council up until the shooting. Since the shootings he has excelled beyond my expectations as an elected leader in this community. The same can be said of Paul Ward. Paul, though he describes himself as an Independent, was raised in a strong Democratic family and can fairly be said to have Democratic leanings. Yet, I have supported him when he has run for City Council and would support him serving anywhere on the City Council.

This is the case among the vast majority of my conservative, white, Republican friends and acquaintances in Kirkwood. We want on our City Council whoever is going to best serve our community no matter what national party affiliation they may have. The City Council is about Kirkwood as a whole. My Democratic friends and acquaintances in Kirkwood follow the same philosophy. It was not until Mrs. Karr began her Mayoral campaign that her supporters started interjecting party affiliation as a bizarre reverse litmus test. If you did not support Connie, you were no longer a true “Democrat” in their eyes. Just ask the Democrats in Kirkwood that have and continue to come under attack politically from Mrs. Karr’s supporters in the local Democrat party.

The lack of vetting statements and verifying accuracy continues in the article. No more prime example of this is the piece regarding Mr. Steve Eagleton,

"Steve Eagleton, nephew of former Democratic powerhouse Sen. Thomas Eagleton, stands against the back wall—but only because he couldn’t find a seat. “The city attorney basically runs Kirkwood,” Eagleton told me earlier. “The city council members defer to him for virtually every question from what color socks to wear to which zoning to approve. He makes it very clear that he does not represent the citizens, he works for the council. So you have a group of people that defers to one guy, and that guy turns around and says, ‘I represent you.’ This has been Hessel’s little baby for years.”

Eagleton, a developer with a law degree who moved to Kirkwood last summer, says, “We’ve called the Missouri attorney general’s office and the secretary of state’s office and the board of elections, and none would bring action against Kirkwood for postponing its election.”

All that can be said in response to this is … What a ridiculous piece of reporting!

I am not a journalist or a rocket scientist for that matter, but how does Mr. Eagleton, who just “moved to Kirkwood last summer” mysteriously get all this grand, in depth knowledge of how our City Council works to be able to realistically say it “has been Hessel’s little baby for years.” After you answer that question, there are four more very simple questions to answer: Who is the candidate Mr. Hessel is the campaign treasurer for in the upcoming November election in the Kirkwood area? What State seat in the Kirkwood area is the Democrat Mr. Eagleton running for in the August primary? What will be the most contested State race in the metropolitan area given a certain high ranking State legislative official from the Kirkwood area is term limited out? Can you connect the dots to see why Mr. Eagleton would make those kinds of statements to a reporter in hopes of getting it printed? [Note: I have moved the order of the last 2 sentences from the original.]

It is interesting how the previous mentioned “anonymous” Democrat made the charge that Kirkwood City Council is partisan by saying it is “a supposedly nonpartisan council.” Yet, Ms. Cooperman will report a very partisan attack from a Democrat candidate against a Republican candidate’s campaign staff member in her article. Who again has interjected party affiliation into the issue of the City Council of Kirkwood? Well not only is it the alleged “disenfranchised,” now it is an all too willing press.

Finally, there is the issue of the reporting on the 2003 ward proposal. And once again, there is not an ounce of depth in the reporting. Not a single comment from a citizen in opposition to the 2003 ward proposal or wards in general in Kirkwood. The only two people quoted on the issue were Franklin and of course the 15-year long proponent of wards in Kirkwood, Mrs. Kathy Paulsen. No offense to Franklin, but his grasp of the ward issue is totally off-base and painfully superficial. His knowledge of the ward issue in Kirkwood and the facts regarding wards vs. at-large in the St. Louis metropolitan area are almost non-existent.

Yet, there were two different citizen campaigns that opposed the 2003 ward campaign Mrs. Karr, Mrs. Paulsen and Mrs. Debbie Mutrux headed, called K-Fair. The first group of citizens opposing K-Fair’s ward proposal was Citizens for a United Kirkwood (CUK). Not a single member of CUK was interviewed in the article on the issue of wards. But its membership was chocked full of pillars of the community – both Democrats and Republicans. Then, there was the other citizen group opposing K-Fair that contained only one citizen, me. The much maligned by the Karr supporters, Joe “Joe Kirkwood” Toenjes. In fact, I was yet again demonized by Mrs. Gwynn Wahlman, a member of the alleged “disenfranchised,” as she made her comments at “The Return to City Hall” meeting Ms Cooperman was reporting on. I did not respond at that meeting to Gwynn’s comments due to the highly charged nature of the meeting. Plus, all I had to do was consider the source.

My ward campaign was separate from the CUK group, because some of the members of CUK could not figure out what to do with me. Some of the Kirkwood born-and-raised folks were shocked I would publicly call K-Fair and its supporters out for their various let me nicely say “misrepresentations” about their ward proposal. So, I started my own one-man campaign to defeat K-Fair’s proposal my own way – confronting the issue with the facts and making the same kind of demands of the members of K-Fair that they made of our City Council, City Administration and various boards and commissions over the years. It was a give K-Fair a "taste of their own medicine" kind of campaign that they really did not appreciate. By the way, I was able to successfully get my message out to the City Council and ultimately to the community even in the allegedly restrictive 3-minute citizen comment portion of the City Council meetings. Mrs. Karr and her supporters [began] to dread me pointing out one more baseless claim or broken promise of their K-Fair campaign at each City Council meeting.

The crowning achievement of my campaign was my flyer I canvassed with door-to-door all over the community showing how K-Fair’s ward proposal that was written in secret by Mrs. Karr and Mr. Godi’s supporters somehow magically twisted our charter and election calendar, so that they were the only sitting City Council members who could possibly [consecutively] serve 14 years and 15 years [respectively,] which is well beyond the two consecutive 4-year terms [(8 consecutive years)] spelled out in the charter. So, that makes you wonder just why K-Fair’s ward proposal got proposed in 2003. Could that ever be perceived as an unfair and outrageous power grab by the alleged “disenfranchised” of K-Fair?

Just for the record, I could have provided facts, figures and an immense amount of background information any reporter could ever want on the issue of wards versus at-large in Kirkwood going all the way back to 1992 and election results analysis of the issue from the St. Louis metropolitan area going all the way back to 1990. Too bad Ms. Cooperman never explored any opposing viewpoints of the issue of wards in Kirkwood.

It is my hope that you will take my remarks as what they are meant for … to critique, confront and challenge your reporting. Then, take a very seriously hard look at the article you produced on the Kirkwood Shooting issue. Because, I have only taken a couple plunges into the bias of the article. There are several more issues regarding the reporting of the TIF, Turner School and other Meacham Park issues that missed the mark.

If you ever plan to do another article on the community of Kirkwood it is my sincere hope you will provide a more balanced picture of our community.

Until that occurs please take some time to check out my blog on Kirkwood issues: www.joekirkwood.blogspot.com. If you think I was hard on you with this email, you should read my comments about my journalist sparring buddy Don “Scoop” Corrigan at the Webster-Kirkwood Times.

In conclusion, I will be sending this email to my fellow Kirkwoodians Franklin McCallie and Tripp Frolchtstein. I mentioned Franklin repeatedly and would not want my words to be misinterpreted. I want them to come directly from me. Then, Tripp since I always include him in my challenges of area journalists. Tripp consistently has a good response for me to think about when I send out these challenges to journalists. Plus, I appreciate both Franklin's and Tripp's honest critique of what I have had to say in the past.

I truly hope to receive a response from Ms. Cooperman or you the editors of St. Louis Magazine. Please do not hesitate to contact me.

===================================================================

Now is your chance to give your viewpoint on this posting. Just click on the "Comments" link below.

Scoop + Bamboozle = Scamboozle!

What do you get when you take one “Scoop” of Don Corrigan and add it to the “Bamboozle” of a ward proposal for Kirkwood? You get a … “Scamboozle!”

That is exactly what the editor of the Webster-Kirkwood Times tried to perpetrate on the community of Kirkwood with his February 29, 2008 editorial entitled “Lessons From A Class Long-Ago.”

With the certified election results having come in from the St. Louis County election board, I was able to complete the research Scoop Corrigan the journalist and the trainer of journalists failed to do before he wrote his Scamboozle of an editorial saying,

“Karr said her belief that everyone deserves a seat at the table inspired her to fight for a ward system in her city, instead of electing representatives at large. She said she regretted "taking on the fight like gangbusters," instead of taking time to convince voters about the advantages of wards.”

Then Scoop ended the Scamboozle editorial with,

“Folks in Kirkwood and Webster Groves defend at-large elections as appropriate because the towns are too small and close-knit for wards. Maybe. Then are wards wrong for even smaller towns like Des Peres, Crestwood and Sunset Hills?”

If Scoop would have done any research of even his own ward system in Sunset Hills what “advantages of wards” would he find when he compared it to Kirkwood’s at-large system? Do wards really provide everyone “a seat at the table” of democracy?

The St. Louis County Election Board web site posts election results going back to 1996. Here is what the election results show:

Sunset Hills from April 1996 to April 2008:
Mayoral Elections – only 3 out 7 had more than one candidate – 58% of the time the voters of Sunset Hills did not get a choice for Mayor
Overall City Council Elections – only 22 out of 52 had more that one candidate – 58% of the time the voters of Sunset Hills did not get a choice for City Council member
Don Corrigan’s Ward 1 City Council Election – only 5 out of 13 had more than one candidate – 61% of the time Scoop did not get a choice for City Council member
Overall Candidates per City Council seat – only 78 out of 52 – 1.50 per seat
Average Number of Registered Voters: 5,942
Overall Voter Turnout: 26.43% Highest Turnout: 46.43% Lowest Turnout: 12.72%

Kirkwood from April 1996 to April 2008:
Mayoral Elections – 3 out 4 had more than one candidate – only 25% of the time the voters of Kirkwood did not get a choice for Mayor
Overall City Council Elections – 7 out of 8 had more that one candidate – only 13% of the time the voters of Kirkwood did not get a choice for City Council member
Overall Candidates per City Council seat – 34 out of 22 – 1.54 per seat
Average Number of Registered Voters: 19,890
Overall Voter Turnout: 28.99% Highest Turnout: 42.67% Lowest Turnout: 21.97%

With 3.3 times as many voters to reach and serve our Kirkwood at-large system still delivers:
1) More contested Mayoral elections
2) More candidates per City Council seat
3) Greater overall Voter Turnout

In addition, Kirkwoodians get 7 out of 7 City Council members that we directly elect. These City Council members do not have to necessarily agree with us on an issue, but they all do have a vested interest in listening to us, their electorate.

Yet, Sunset Hillites (I hope that is the correct term) only have 3 out of 9 City Council members that they directly elect. The other 6 do not have a vested interest to listen to someone from a different ward with an issue, since they are not a part of their electorate.

These are just a few of the obvious facts or easily found facts that support why Kirkwoodians choose the better at-large system over a ward system.

So, Scoop …

Just how does a journalist ignore going to the polls 8 out of 13 times to vote for only one ward candidate, then write an editorial furthering the “advantages of wards” as a means to getting more people “a seat at the table” and end it by questioning if an at-large system is right kind of representative democracy for another community?

Only one way … Scamboozle!